This article provides an extensive overview of the recent literature on student evaluation of teaching (SET) in higher education. The review is based on the SET meta-validation model, drawing upon research reports published in peer-reviewed journals since 2000. Through the lens of validity, we consider both the more traditional research themes in the field of SET (i.e., the dimensionality debate, the ‘bias’ question, and questionnaire design) and some recent trends in SET research, such as online SET and bias investigations into additional teacher personal characteristics. The review provides a clear idea of the state of the art with regard to research on SET, thus allowing researchers to formulate suggestions for future research. It is argued that SET remains a current yet delicate topic in higher education, as well as in education research. Many stakeholders are not convinced of the usefulness and validity of SET for both formative and summative purposes. Research on SET has thus far failed to provide clear answers to several critical questions concerning the validity of SET.

Students' evaluation of teaching skills has been an important yet controversial tool in the improvement of teaching quality during the last few decades. When searching for an apt student questionnaire to measure instructional skills, it appeared that most existing questionnaires the authors were able to collect are based on a single‐item type of evaluation. Additionally, most of these instruments lack a theoretical foundation and hardly any instrument was tested with modern tests for reliability and validity. The authors managed to create a 31‐item instrument which comprises 10 Likert scales and is based on both the educational theory and empirical data. In this article, they present the different steps in constructing the instrument and discuss its reliability and validity. The results of this study underline the value of the use of a scaling technique in students' evaluation of teacher performance.

What is luxury? The concept has never received proper attention in social theory. It seemed as if luxury was a highly economic concept that did not need any further investigation. Primary and secondary needs are considered to form the basis of the luxury concept. Luxury has been viewed as useless and superfluous because it belongs to the realm of desires instead of elementary needs. This definition has often been used to stigmatize the use and demonstration of luxury. The needs-wants dichotomy was severely criticized a few decades ago. Luxury touches more than the question of necessity in society. This article attempts to outline the formulation of a definition of luxury. We leave the classic concept of luxury in favor of a more socio-semiotic approach of the concept. The bounds between luxury and some specific product property will be cut through. There is no such thing as a luxury good comparable to categories like ‘cars,’ or ‘clothes.’ Luxury is defined as a specific kind of sign value, produced in specific narratives and used in processes of stratification. As a sign, it becomes apparent that luxury is a relative concept. Every social group can be said to have its own luxury. Every social group has in fact a different kind of luxury, which means that a Cartier is no luxury in some cases where a television is highly exclusive in other cases.