Search results

This research study seeks to identify what graduating students and alumni perceive to be of most value in courses, and in turn the relationship of those perceptions with the information in evaluations conducted by students at the conclusion of courses.

The project involves empirical research utilizing standard student course evaluation data, and rigorous matching alumni survey data. A focus group, as well as prior academic research, informs the design.

There are several key conclusions from this study comparing student and alumni perceptions of course satisfaction. Consistent with end‐of‐program survey and focus group observations, career relevance clearly grows with time in importance for determining course satisfaction. Career relevance is not a statistically significant factor for course satisfaction using end‐of‐course student survey responses, but grows to a statistically significant determinant utilizing alumni survey data, larger than both the extent of learning and instructor performance; moreover, instructor performance appears to become less important.

While survey responses for individuals as both students and alumni cannot be linked in this study, the high response rate of alumni and the pooling of data suggest results are robust.

If instructors want students, once they become alumni, to be satisfied with their course experience, they need to teach material which will be truly useful in their careers, even if students do not fully appreciate it during class. And if university presidents want satisfied alumni, they need to ensure their school's curriculum includes material that may be applied in the real world, and that the measures of teaching effectiveness utilized for compensation purposes do not stress too highly traditional measures of student satisfaction.

Educators can provide students with a more long‐term satisfying educational experience by ensuring curriculum includes practical material that is truly relevant for careers.

Student evaluations have been commonly used in determining the success of a course, and the effectiveness of their instructors. However, there has only been limited analysis of student evaluations as a measure of what matters most – the benefit to the student once they graduate and move into the working world. Empirical results based on student and alumni survey data identify differences in perceptions between students and alumni, and suggest key recommendations for both instructors and university administrators.

Teaching and unit evaluations surveys are used to assess the quality of teaching and the quality of the unit of study. An analysis of teaching and unit evaluation survey practices in Australian universities suggests significant changes. One key change discussed in the paper is the shift from voluntary to mandatory use of surveys with the results used to assess and reward academic staff performance. The change in the direction is largely driven by the introduction of performance‐based funding as part of quality assurance arrangements. The paper aims to outline the current trends and changes and the implications in the future such as increased scrutiny of teaching and intrusion to academic autonomy.

The paper is based on the analysis of current teaching and unit evaluation practices across the Australian university sector. The paper presents the case of an Australian university that has introduced performance‐based reward using various measures to assess and reward academic staff such as the outcome of student satisfaction surveys. The analysis of external quality audit findings related to teacher and unit evaluations is also presented.

The findings suggest a shift in trend from the use of voluntary to mandatory tools to assess and reward quality teaching. The case of an Australian university outlined in the paper and the approach taken by seven other universities is largely driven by performance‐based funding. One of the key concerns for many in higher education is the intrusion of academic autonomy with increased focus on outcomes and less emphasis on resources needed to produce excellence in learning and teaching and research. The increased reliance on student happiness as a measure of educational quality raises the questions on whether high student satisfaction would strengthen academic rigour and student attainment of learning outcomes and generic skills which are seen as key factors in graduate exit standards.

The renewal of quality assurance and performance‐based funding using student satisfaction as a measure of educational quality will result in increased use of student voice to assess learning and teaching outcomes. Such direction will increase the accountability on academics to improve student experience and the measures will be used to assess academic staff performance.

The paper outlines the trends and changes in the teacher and unit evaluations in Australian universities and its implications in the future. The paper also provides a case of an Australian university that has recently made teacher and unit evaluations compulsory with the results used in academic staff annual performance review and linking reward with performance outcomes.

From a service ecosystem perspective, the purpose of this paper is to examine students’ evaluation surveys as a tool used by most higher education (HE) institutions worldwide to measure teaching quality with consequences for tenure and promotion.

This study is based on the service-dominant (S-D) logic and specifically on the service ecosystem approach. Through an in-depth literature review and analysis the authors explore the effect of student evaluation surveys on the value co-creation process, describe the role they play in the HE ecosystem and critically evaluate their efficacy. The research is based on empirical data from the literature and previous studies findings.

The literature review highlights the detrimental consequences of the use of students’ evaluation surveys for teachers and students and for the rest of actors of this service. The authors argue that institutions should embrace a service ecosystem perspective based on S-D logic. The authors highlight the role of institutions as moderators of the interactions between actors and, finally, the authors have introduced the concept of “service ecosystem pollution” which the authors define as the presence or introduction of disruptive elements in the service ecosystem adversely affecting the nature of value co-creation.

This study emphasizes the importance for HE institutions to embrace a service ecosystem approach so as to foster and preserve the value co-creation processes taking place within the interactions among the HE actors. Conclusions drawn from this paper suggest that HE institutions should focus on strategies such as investing in improving students’ and teachers’ operant resources rather than polluting the HE service ecosystem with the use of students’ evaluation surveys.

Hitherto there are no studies analyzing the tools HE institutions use to measure teaching quality from a service ecosystem perspective. The study is especially valuable due to the consequences and the use of these measures entails for teachers, students and society.

This paper aims to provide an introductory overview and selected annotated bibliography of recent resources on library instruction and information literacy across all library types.

It introduces and annotates English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations and other materials on library instruction and information literacy published in 2014.

It provides information about each source, discusses the characteristics of current scholarship and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians and interested parties as a quick reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.

Most universities have relied on student evaluations as a source of evidence in their assessment of teaching performance. However, a complete evaluation of all dimensions of a faculty member's teaching requires multiple sources of evidence. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the sources of evidence that accounting chairs report they currently use to assess teaching. Calderon and Green first examined this issue in their 1997 study. However, their results may be outdated due to changes in accreditation requirements, teaching delivery methods, and the continued evolution of assessment tools. Responding department chairs report that peer observation followed by course syllabus, exams given in class, and instructor course notes are the most frequently used evidence types, with an average of 3.16 sources beyond student evaluations. The source and quantity of evidence vary across different types of institutions. While Calderon and Green reported that most schools use ad hoc and subjective sources of evidence, respondents in this study focus more on instructor-supplied materials and direct evidence from inside the classroom.

This chapter compares faculty self-assessment of teaching with student opinion of instruction in an online environment, in order to determine the level of agreement between faculty self-assessment and student assessment, in areas of overall program strength and directions for individual and whole-group professional development. A faculty self-assessment of teaching inventory based on established guidelines was administered to participating faculty in the Master of Library Science program at East Carolina University, and scores were compared to students’ ratings of instruction for one academic year. Scores were corrected for bias, tabulated, and Pearson correlation and t-scores were calculated. The method used produced an effective benchmarking and diagnostic tool, and indicated directions for instructional improvement. Because the study was for the express purpose of internal, formative evaluation, model data tabulations are presented as examples only. Data from the actual study are not presented. Limitations of the study are that items on student evaluation of teaching surveys may not always lend themselves to concept mapping, and that data were collected only for one academic year in a single program. The chapter contributes a method that is replicable and scalable, demonstrates that data are relatively easy to acquire, and that procedures are simple to implement, requiring only basic statistical tests and measures for analysis. Results can be interpreted and understood without extensive knowledge of quantitative methods. There are few studies that compare students teaching evaluations with faculty self-evaluations, and none that specifically address it for library and information science education programs.

This study aims at assessing item fairness in students' evaluation of teaching based on students' academic college using measurement invariance analysis (MI).

The sample of this study consists of 17,270 undergraduate students from 12 different academic colleges. SET survey consists of 20 Likert-type items distributed to four factors: planning, instruction, management and assessment was used to collect the data. The Lavaan R package with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate measurement invariance (MI). Four models of CFA were investigated and assessed: the configural model, the metric model, the scalar model and the residual invariance model. ANOVA was used to test the differences in SET according to academic colleges.

MI analysis showed that the four levels of MI models are supported. ANOVA test showed that means of SET total scores are statistically different according to students' academic colleges. College of “Education” has the highest SET mean (88.64 out of 100), and all the differences between the College of Education’s SET mean and other colleges' SET means are statistically significant.

The study recommends that higher education institutions test the MI of SET according to academic colleges and then use colleges with the highest SET at the university level as internal benchmarking to develop and enhance their teaching practices.

This study is probably the only study that tested MI according to students' colleges before testing the differences between colleges in SET. If MI is not supported, then the comparisons between academic colleges are not applicable.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse student satisfaction as identified in the UK National Student Survey (NSS) at an institutional level in one post-1992 UK university, to discuss the perceived factors behind changes in NSS results and to identify the possible impact of institutional-level quality enhancement interventions.

The paper reviews some of the literature available on the NSS, teaching evaluation and on learning and teaching leadership in higher education and demonstrates by comparison with practice how different approaches to change management were experienced.

Over a period of eight years within one HEI, it was possible to identify four distinct phases of NSS scores and to identify strong trends in both quantitative and qualitative results.

It is postulated that evidence-informed institutional-level interventions in learning and teaching practice can have an impact on the external evaluation of student satisfaction when they are part of a coherent strategy. However, although some aspects of the work are generalisable to other contexts, it is also recognised that individual environments and experiences will impact on outcomes.

This paper argues, first, that the NSS could be as much an indicator of organisational culture as a measure of student satisfaction with courses; second, that areas that students highlight as being important tend to be consistent and third, that regardless of the foci or type of interventions, senior staff level engagement is a critical factor in achieving high NSS scores and enhancing student satisfaction.

The paper will be valuable to those using the NSS for quality enhancement at a strategic level.