Search results

University students' ratings of teaching and teachers' performance are used in many parts of the world for the evaluation of faculty members at colleges and universities. Even though these ratings receive mixed reviews, there is little conclusive evidence on the role of the intervening variable of teacher and student gender in these ratings. Possible influences resulting from gender-related differences in different socio-cultural contexts, especially where gender combination in student and faculty population is not proportionate, have not been adequately investigated in previous research. This study aimed to examine Iranian university students' ratings of the professional performance of male and female university teachers and to explore the differences in male and female university students' evaluation of teachers of the same or opposite gender. The study was a questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey with a total of 800 randomly selected students in their different years of undergraduate study (307 male and 493 female students, reflecting the proportion of male and female students in the university) from different faculties at the University of Kashan, Iran. The participants rated male and female teachers’ performance in observing university regulations, relationship with colleagues, and relationships with students. The researchers used descriptive statistics, means comparison inferential statistics and focus-group interview data to analyze and compare the students’ ratings. The results of one-sample t-test, independent samples t-test, and Chi-square analyses showed that a) overall, male university teachers received significantly higher overall ratings in all areas than female teachers; b) male students rated male teachers significantly higher than female students did; and c) female students assigned a higher overall mean rating to male teachers than to female teachers but this mean difference was not significant. These results are studied in relation to the findings in the related literature and indicate that gender can be an important intervening variable in university students' evaluation of faculty members.

This paper reports results of analyses made at an all-female Gulf Arab university measuring the nature and extent of biases in students' evaluation of faculty. Comparisons are made with research reporting the nature of similar relationships in North America. Two issues are investigated: 1) What variables (if any) bias faculty evaluation results at an all-female Arab university? 2) Are biasing variables different in nature or magnitude to those reported at North America universities? Using the population of 13,300 faculty evaluation records collected over two school years at Zayed University, correlations of faculty evaluation results to nine potentially biasing factors are made. Results show biases to faculty evaluation results do exist. However, biases are small, and strikingly similar in nature to those reported at North American universities.

Competition among higher education institutions has pushed universities to expand their competitive advantages. Based on the assumption that the core functions of universities are academic, understanding the teaching–learning process with the help of student evaluation of teaching (SET) would seem to be a logical solution in increasing competitiveness. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The current paper presents a narrative literature review examining how SETs work within the concept of service marketing, focusing specifically on the search, experience, and credence qualities of the provider. A review of the various factors that affect the collection of SETs is also included.

Relevant findings show the influence of students’ prior expectations on SET ratings. Therefore, teachers are advised to establish a psychological contract with the students at the start of the semester. Such an agreement should be negotiated, setting out the potential benefits of undertaking the course and a clear definition of acceptable performance within the class. Moreover, connections should be made between courses and subjects in order to provide an overall view of the entire program together with future career pathways.

Given the complex factors affecting SETs and the antecedents involved, there appears to be no single perfect tool to adequately reflect what is happening in the classroom. As different SETs may be needed for different courses and subjects, options such as faculty self-evaluation and peer-evaluation might be considered to augment current SETs.

While known by many names, qualifying exams function as gatekeepers to graduate student advancement to PhD candidacy, yet there has been little formal study on best qualifying exam practices particularly in biomedical and related STEM PhD programs. The purpose of this study is to examine the current state of qualifying exams through an examination of the literature and exploration of university-wide policies.

The authors conducted a literature review of studies on qualifying exams and completed an external evaluation of peer institutions’ and internal institutional qualifying exam requirements to inform our discussion of qualifying exams practices in PhD training at a research-intensive US institutions.

This study identified the need for more research on qualifying exams to establish evidence-based best practices. The authors found a wide variety of qualifying exam formats, with little evidence in support for specific formats. The authors also found little evidence that student expectations are made clear. The lack of evidence-based best practices coupled with insufficient clarity for students has a real potential to disadvantage PhD students, particularly first generation, underrepresented minority, international and/or other trainees who are not privileged or socialized to navigate training environments with vague landmarks such as the qualifying exams.

There are very few studies that evaluate qualifying exams in US doctoral education, particularly in STEM fields, and to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no analysis of campus-wide policies on qualifying exams reported. The lack of evidence for best practices and the need for to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of qualifying exams are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether different scales and ways to collect reviews and ratings found on online travel agencies (OTAs) can affect hotels, and whether hotels obtain the same or different evaluations.

Hotel ratings from five OTAs in four European markets were collected and compared in pairs. An initial comparison was made with the hotel scores of each OTA to show what a typical user would see. Then, a rescaled score (0-10) was used to compare all the OTA scales appropriately and to distinguish between what customers observe and what the reality is.

The results reveal that Booking.com that uses a scale (2.5-10) and Agoda with a scale (2-10) seem to give higher rating scores than Atrapalo (1-10), Travel Republic (0-10) and hotel reservation service (1-10). However, when the scores are rescaled (0-10), the worst ratings are found on Booking.com followed by Agoda.

OTAs should include, next to the scores, the scale used to rate hotels so as to provide users with better and clearer information. Moreover, rating questionnaires should match the verbal denominations with their numerical values to avoid biased ratings.

OTAs and hotel managers are losing information provided by customers because customers are not aware of the scale when rating hotels. Moreover, hotel ratings are used by potential customers to obtain a clearer image of an establishment. However, if some hotels are being overrated by some scales, customers might have higher expectations, which may not be met.

The unique rating scales of Booking.com and Agoda provide additional insights into their hotel evaluations, which seem to be apparently higher when in fact they are not.

在线旅行评论评分量表及其对酒店得分和竞争力的影响

摘要

这项研究旨在研究在线旅行社（OTA）上评论和评级的不同量表和方式是否会影响酒店获得的评估。

本研究收集并比较了来自四个欧洲市场中五个OTA的酒店等级数据。研究首先对每个OTA的酒店得分进行了比较, 以显示一般用户会看到的内容。然后研究使用重新缩放的得分（0-10）来恰当地比较所有OTA的酒店等级, 并区分顾客观察到的内容和现实。

结果显示, Booking.com使用的量表（2.5-10）和Agoda的量表（2-10）, 似乎高于Atrapalo（1-10）, Travel Republic（0-10）和 hotel reservation service （1-10）的评分。但是, 当分数重新调整为（0-10）时, 最差的评分是在Booking.com上, 其次是Agoda。

OTA应在评分旁边注明用于对酒店进行评分的量表, 以便为用户提供更好, 更清晰的信息。此外, 评级问卷应使评价描述与其数值相匹配, 以避免评级出现偏差。

OTA和酒店经理正在丢失客户所提供的信息, 因为客户在对酒店进行评级时并不了解其使用的量表。此外, 潜在客户使用酒店评级来获得更清晰的企业形象。但是, 如果某些酒店被某些网站的评级量表高估, 那么客户可能会有偏高的期望, 而这些期望可能无法被满足。

Booking.com和Agoda的独特评分等级标准为酒店提供了更多见解, 而实际上酒店的情况可能并非如此。

Las escalas de calificación de las opiniones de los viajes online y sus efectos en la valoración y competitividad de los hoteles.

El objetivo de esta investigación es determinar si las diferentes escalas y formas de recopilar opiniones y valoraciones de las Agencias de Viajes Online (OTAs), pueden afectar a si los hoteles tienen las mismas o distintas calificaciones.

Las calificaciones de hoteles de cinco OTAs en cuatro mercados europeos, se recopilaron y compararon por pares. Se realizó una comparación inicial con las puntuaciones de los hoteles de cada OTA, para mostrar lo que vería un usuario típico. Luego, se utilizó una puntuación de reescalado (0-10), para comparar todas las escalas de las OTAs de manera apropiada y así poder diferenciar entre lo que los clientes observan y lo que es en realidad.

Los resultados revelan que Booking.com, que utiliza una escala (2.5-10) y Agoda con una escala (2-10), parecen puntuar con calificaciones más altas que Atrapalo (1-10), Travel Republic (0-10) y hotel reservation service (1-10). Sin embargo, cuando se vuelven a escalar las puntuaciones (0-10), las peores calificaciones se encuentran en Booking.com, seguida de Agoda.

Las OTAs deben incluir, junto a las puntuaciones, la escala utilizada para calificar los hoteles a fin de proporcionar a los usuarios una información mayor y más clara. Además, los cuestionarios de calificación deben hacer coincidir las denominaciones verbales con sus valores numéricos para evitar calificaciones sesgadas.

Por un lado las OTAs y los gerentes de hoteles, están perdiendo información proporcionada por los clientes, porque los clientes no son conscientes del tipo de escala utilizada cuando califican los hoteles. Por otro lado, los clientes potenciales utilizan las calificaciones de los hoteles para obtener una imagen más clara de un establecimiento. Por lo que en muchos casos, los clientes pueden tener expectativas más altas, que pueden no cumplirse, si los hoteles están siendo sobrevalorados por algunas escalas.

Las escalas de calificación únicas de Booking.com y Agoda, brindan información adicional sobre las evaluaciones de sus hoteles que parecen ser aparentemente más altas cuando en realidad no lo son.

This study aims to examine whether the internal locus of control, self-esteem and leadership self-efficacy can predict differences in self–other rating agreement on leader effectiveness. First, the authors predicted that the greater the internal locus of a leader the more their self-rating will be in agreement with others' rating of them (1a). Second, the authors proposed that the greater the self-esteem of a leader the more their self-rating will be in discrepancy with others' rating (1b). Third, the authors hypothesized that the greater the self-efficacy of a leader the more their self-rating will be in agreement with others' rating (1c).

To test the hypotheses, multisource data were collected from 128 banking leaders (who responded about different aspects of leadership self-efficacy, internal locus of control, self-esteem and leadership effectiveness) and 344 subordinates (who rated their leaders' effectiveness in performing leadership tasks).Multivariate regression was performed by jointly regressing both leaders' self-ratings and subordinates' ratings as a dependent variable on internal locus of control, self-esteem and leadership self-efficacy as predictor variables.

Self-esteem of a leader the more their self-rating will be in discrepancy with others' ratings.

The study tried to investigate the leader-subordinate dis(agreement) on leaders’ effectiveness taking banking leaders in the Ethiopian Context. The finding of the results is crucial and important for leadership development programs.

The aim of this paper is to generate a streamlined, transparent and effective instrument to fairly measure the contribution made by each student to a group project within a higher education context. The primary aim is to moderate the grades of underperforming students at the end of the project. There is a secondary benefit in alerting underperforming students to raise their contribution mid-task or face a potentially reduced grade at the final stage.

The development of this multi-dimensional instrument is guided by findings from previous research. The quest is to minimise the instructor's administrative work load in applying a moderation-only instrument that is open-source and available at no cost. Based on the literature, the survey instrument seeks to apply a peer-based, equitable and transparent evaluation of each member's contribution to a group task. The survey is applied at mid-task and again at end-task in order to afford underperformers the opportunity to address contribution deficits during the final phase of the project.

The instrument, called TANDEM©, offers a transparent, streamlined, equitable, confidential and practical measure of each student's contribution to a graded group task. Students whose end-task contribution falls below the group average rating receive a proportional reduction in their personal grade. Additionally, the end-task moderation instrument captures a single-item holistic measure of relative contribution that may, in the future, serve as a surrogate for the multi-dimensional measures currently in place.

TANDEM© was developed with group sizes of four or five members in mind. There is no evidence to support its application to three-person groups. Moreover, the application was applied only amongst under-graduate students. It is yet to be applied across post-graduate groups and within online learning environments. Future research into diverse cultural settings would serve to advance understanding of how moderation is perceived across borders.

Several existing group grade moderation methods propose complex algorithms that are “black box” solutions from a student's perspective. In establishing a fair, streamlined, confidential and transparent process for peer-rated moderation, TANDEM© deploys a concise instrument with a relatively small administrative load. TANDEM © may be applied to all groups or can selectively be applied to groups that report moderate, strong or extreme levels of conflict.

Students will appreciate the opportunity to rate peer contributions to group projects. This will dissipate the negative social sentiment that may arise when fellow students benefit from the work of others. Those students seeking conflict resolution within the group will value the transparent and equitable moderation of grades as well as the positive social implications that follow.

This research forms part of an ongoing quest to present a moderation instrument that fairly identifies student contribution to a group project. Whilst the solution proposed is one of many existing alternatives, its focus is on a practical moderation-only instrument that can immediately be applied to a course or major. The benefits lie in the ease of application and minimal administrative workload. This constitutes an original contribution to the individual (course or major) coordinator who seeks to apply a moderation-only instrument without having to commit to an extensive, broad-based group optimisation programme.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate the effect of real credit ratings change on capital structure decisions.

The study uses three models to examine the impact of credit rating on capital structure decisions within the framework of credit rating-capital structure hypotheses (broad rating, notch rating and investment or speculative grade). These hypotheses are tested by multiple linear regression models.

The results demonstrate that firms issue less net debt relative to equity post a change in the broad credit ratings level (e.g. a change from A- to BBB+). The findings also show that firms are less concerned by notch ratings change as long the firms remain the same broad credit rating level. Moreover, the paper indicates that firms issue less net debt relative to equity after an upgrade to investment grade.

The study covers the periods of 2009 to 2016; therefore, the research result may be affected by the period specific events such as the European debt crisis. Moreover, studying listed non-financial firms only in the Tadawul Stock Exchange has resulted in small sample which may not be adequate enough to reach concrete generalization. Despite the close proximity between the GCC countries, there could be jurisdictional difference due to country specific regulations, policies or financial development. Therefore, it will be interesting to conduct a cross country study on the GCC to see if the conclusions can be generalized to the region.

The paper contributes to the literature by testing previous researches on new context (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, KSA) which lack sophisticated comparable studies to the one conducted on other regions of the world. The results highlight the importance of credit ratings for the decision makers who are required to make essential decisions in areas such as financing, structuring or operating firms and regulating markets. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of its kind that has been applied on the GCC region.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that common method variance, specifically single-source bias, threatens the validity of a university-created student assessment of instructor instrument, suggesting that decisions made from these assessments are inherently flawed or skewed. Single-source bias leads to generalizations about assessments that might influence the ability of raters to separate multiple behaviors of an instructor.

Exploratory factor analysis, nested confirmatory factor analysis and within-and-between analysis are used to assess a university-developed, proprietary student assessment of instructor instrument to determine whether a hypothesized factor structure is identifiable. The instrument was developed over a three-year period by a university-mandated committee.

Findings suggest that common method variance, specifically single-source bias, resulted in the inability to identify hypothesized constructs statistically. Additional information is needed to identify valid instruments and an effective collection method for assessment.

Institutions are not guaranteed valid or useful instruments even if they invest significant time and resources to produce one. Without accurate instrumentation, there is insufficient information to assess constructs for teaching excellence. More valid measurement criteria can result from using multiple methods, altering collection times and educating students to distinguish multiple traits and behaviors of individual instructors more accurately.

This paper documents the three-year development of a university-wide student assessment of instructor instrument and carries development through to examining the psychometric properties and appropriateness of using this instrument to evaluate instructors.

This article examines the accuracy and bias inherent in the wisdom of crowd effect. The purpose is to clarify what kind of bias crowds have when they make predictions. In the theoretical inquiry, the effect of the accumulated absolute deviation was simulated. In the empirical study, the observed biases were examined using data from forecasting foreign exchange rates.

In the theoretical inquiry, the effect of the accumulated absolute deviation was simulated based on mathematical propositions. In the empirical study, the data from 2004 to 2011 were provided by Nikkei, which holds the “Nikkei Yen Derby” competition. In total, 3,657 groups forecasted the foreign exchange rate, and the first prediction was done in early May to forecast the rate at the end of May. The second round took place in June in a similar manner.

The average absolute deviation in May was smaller than that in June. The first round of prediction was more accurate than the second round one. Predictors were affected by the observable real exchange rate, such that they modified their forecasts by referring to the actual data in early June. An actuality bias existed when the participants lost their diverse prospects. Since the standard deviations of the June forecasts were smaller than those of May, the fact-convergence effect was supported.

This article reports novel findings that affect the wisdom of crowd effect—referred to as actuality bias and fact-convergence effect. The former refers to a forecasting bias toward the observable rate near the forecasting date. The latter implies that predictors, as a whole, indicate smaller forecast deviations by observing the realized foreign exchange rate.