Factors affecting the students' overall evaluation of courses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29015/cerem.202Keywords:
evaluation of the course, logistic regression modelAbstract
The main goal of this paper is to examine the factors that affect the overall evaluation of courses by students. The data used in the study comes from a survey: Evaluation of the course in the Schools of Banking in the winter semester of the academic year 2012/2013, which evaluated 1802 classes. Logistic regression model was used in the paper to identify factors affecting the overall evaluation of the course. The paper also includes a review of English-language articles on the evaluation of classes and the results obtained in them.References
Abrami P.C. (2001), Improving judgments about teaching effectiveness using teacher rating forms. In M. Theall, P.C. Abrami, and L.A. Mets (Eds.). The student ratings debate: Are they valid? How can we best use them? [Special issue]. New Directions for Institutional Research 109, 59–87.
Aleamoni L., & Hexner P. (1980), A review of the research on student evaluations. Instructional Science, 9, 67–84.
Algozzine B., Beattie J., Bray M., Flowers C., Gretes J., Howley L., Mohanty G., & Spooner F. (2004), Student evaluation of college teaching: A practice in search of principles. College Teaching, 52(4), 134–141.
Arreola R.A. (2007), Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system (3rd ed.) Bolton, MA: Anker.
Beran T., Violato C., & Kline D. (2007), What’s the ‘use’ of student ratings of instruction for administrators? One university’s experience. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 17(1), 27–43.
Beran T., Violato C., Kline D. & Frideres J. (2005), The utility of student ratings of instruction for students, faculty, and administrators: A “consequential validity” study. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35(2), 49–70.
Bolton, MA: Anker. Marsh, H.W. (1997), The measurement of physical self-concept: A construct validation approach. In K. Fox (Ed.), The physical self: From motivation to well-being (pp. 27–58). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Cashin W. (1990), Students do rate different academic fields differently. In M. Theall & J. Franklin (Eds.) Student ratings of instruction: Issues for improving practice, pp. 113–121. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cashin W. (1995), Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited (IDEA Paper No. 32). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.
Cashin W. E. (1988), Student ratings of teaching: A summary of the research (IDEA Paper No. 20). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.
Coren S. (2001), Are course evaluations a threat to academic freedom? In S.E. Kahn & D. Pavlich (Eds.), Academic Freedom and the Inclusive University (pp. 104–117). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press
.
Cramer J. S. (2001), An introduction to the logit model for economists (wyd. 2), Timberlake Consultants, London.
Cramer J. S. (2003), Logit models from economics and other fields, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Crumbley, L., Henry B., Kratchman S. (2001), Students’ perceptions of the evaluation of college teaching. Quality Assurance in Education, 9(4), 197–207.
Dalton H. & Denson, N. (2009), Student evaluation: what predicts satisfaction?, in The Student Experience, Proceedings of the 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference, Darwin, 6–9 July 2009: pp. 100–110.
Davidovitch N. & Soen D. (2006), Class attendance and students’ evaluation of their college instructors. College Student Journal, 40(3), 691–703.
Elliott A. C. & Woodward W. A. (2007), Statistical analysis quick reference guidebook. With SPSS examples. Sage Publications, p. 40
Feldman K.A. (1984), Class size and college students’ evaluations of teachers and courses: A closer look. Research in Higher Education, 21, 45–116.
Frey P., Leonard D., & Beatty W. (1975), Student ratings of instruction: Validation research. American Educational Research Journal, 12, 435–447.
Gravestock P. & Gregor-Greenleaf E. (2008), Student Course Evaluations: Research, Models and Trends. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
Greene W. H. (2003). Econometric Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Greene W. H., Hensher, D.A. (2009), Modeling Ordered Choices,
Gruszczyński M. (red.) (2010), Mikroekonometria. Modele i metody analizy danych indywidualnych. Oficyna Wolters Kluwer business, Warszawa.
Gruszczyński M. (2001), Modele i prognozy zmiennych jakościowych w finansach i bankowości, SGH, Warszawa.
Heckert T.M., Latier A., Ringwald-Burton A. & Drazen C. (2006), Relations among student effort, perceived class difficulty appropriateness, and student evaluations of teaching: Is it possible to “buy” better evaluations through lenient grading? College Student Journal, 40(3), 588–596.
Katiliūtė E. (2010), Students' perception of the quality of studies: differences between the students according to their academic performance, economics and management: 2010. 15, issn 1822–6515.
Koh C. & Tan T. (1997), Empirical investigation of the factors affecting SET results. International Journal of Educational Management, 11, 170–178.
Marsh H.W. (1987), Students= evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 253–388.
Marsh H.W. & Dunkin M. (1992), Students’ evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. In J.C. Smart (Ed) Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 8, 143–233.
Marsh H.W., & Roche L.A. (1993), The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 217–251.
Marsh H.W., & Roche L.A. (1997, November). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias and utility. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187–1197.
McKeachie W. J. (1997), Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1218–1225.
Nasser F., & Hagtvet K.A. (2006), Multilevel analysis of the effects of student and instructor/course characteristics on student ratings. Research in Higher Education, 47(5), 559–590.
Neumann R. (2001), Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135–146.
Ory J.C. (2001), Faculty thoughts and concerns about student ratings. In K.G. Lewis (Ed.), Techniques and strategies for interpreting student evaluations [Special issue]. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 87, 3–15.
Pounder J. (2007), Is student evaluation of teaching worthwhile? An analytical framework for answering the question. Quality Assurance in Education, 15, 178–191.
Scriven M. (1981), Evaluation thesaurus (3rd ed.). Pt. Reyes, CA: Edgepress.
Shevlin M., Banyard P., Davies M. & Griffiths M., (2000). The Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education: Love me, love my lectures?, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 25:4, pp: 397–405.
Theall M., & Franklin J. (2001). Looking for bias in all the wrong places: A search for truth or a witch hunt in student ratings of instruction? In M. Theall, P.C Abrami, & L.A. Mets (Eds.), The student ratings debate: Are they valid? How can we best use them? [Special issue]. New Directions for Institutional Research, 109, 45–56.
Wachtel H.K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23, 191–212.
Williams W. M., and Ceci S. J. (1997). How’m I Doing? Problems with Student Ratings of Instructors and Courses. Change, 29(5), 13–23.
Wright R.E. (2006). Student evaluations of faculty: Concerns raised in the literature, and possible solutions. College Student Journal, 40(2), 417–422.
Downloads
Issue
Section
License
The aim of CEREM is to make scientific work available in accordance with the principle of open access. The rules mentioned below are important, as they enable CEREM and its publisher, the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw, to distribute the scientific work to a wide public while complying with specific legal requirements, at the same time protecting the rights of the authors.
The author transfers to the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw, free of charge and without territorial limitations, with all proprietary copyrights to the said piece of work in the understanding of the act of 4th February 1994 on copyrights and derivative rights (Journal of Laws of 1994, no. 24, item 83, as amended) on an exclusivity basis, i.e. the rights to:
1. Make the piece of work in question available via the Digital Library established by the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw.
2. Produce, record and reproduce in multiple copies the piece of work using any techniques whatsoever, including printing, reprography, magnetic recording and digital processing, and particularly its reproduction by recording on CDs and similar data carriers,
3. Use fragments of the piece of work for promotional purposes in publications, promotional materials, the Internet and Intranet type networks managed by the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw.
4. Store the piece of work into computer databases managed by the WSB Merito University in Wroclaw.
5. Copy and reproduce the piece of work using photo-mechanic technologies other than those commonly known at the time of the signature hereof (photocopies, Xerox copies etc.),
6. Process the piece of work, transferring it into an electronic form, and distribute it on the Internet without limitations.
