Abstract
The collection of questionnaire data, the definition of standards referring to the interpretation of the results, and taking the context in which the data is collected into consideration constitute holistic systems of evaluation. Higher education institutions utilize questionnaires in which students evaluate a given teacher or a given course unit. Does this mean that they possess evaluation systems that can assist them in taking decisions? In this paper, attention is paid to issues related to the number of questionnaires which are returned, to motivation and the reliability of evaluation as well as to the structure of the questionnaire through which research is conducted. On one hand, questionnaires submitted by students provide a lot of information. On the other hand, they cannot always be used in the management system due to the low level of the response rate and a lack of reliability. In this research it is shown that higher education institutions do not use traditional methods in order to increase the response rate or motivation level. Students as evaluators are not ready to provide constructive feedback.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Al Issa, A., & Sulieman, H. (2007). Student evaluations of teaching: Perceptions and biasing factors. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(3), 302–317.
Balam, E. M., & Shannon, D. M. (2010). Student ratings of college teachings: A comparison of faculty and their students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 209–221.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836.
Cox, E. P. (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 407–422.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 285–328.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Dimitriades, Z. S. (2006). Customer satisfaction, loyalty and commitment in service organizations: Some evidence from Greece. Management Research News, 29(12), 782–800.
Duarte, P. (2014). Suggestions for international research using electronic surveys. The Marketing Review, 14(3), 297–309.
Golmohammadi, K., Zohoori, M., Hosseinipour, S. J., & Mehdizadeh, S. (2014). Relationship between total quality management, innovation and customer satisfaction in service organizations. Journal of Business Management and Innovations, 1(2), 61–66.
Grohmann, A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Evaluating training programs: Development and correlates of the questionnaire for professional training evaluation. International Journal of Training and Development, 17(2), 135–155.
Hassan, A., Quaid, H., & Aqeel, M. (2016). Academic self-concept, self-esteem, and academic achievement among truant and punctual students. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 31(1), 223–240.
Hyman, M. R., & Yang, Z. (2001). International marketing journals: A retrospective. International Marketing Review, 18(6), 667–716.
Kennedy, D. (2009). Designing curricula based on learning outcomes: A practical guide. Cork, Ireland: University College Cork. [Online]. Accessed May 19, 2017, from http://www.bologna.msmt.cz/files/learning-outcomes.pdf
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archiv für Psychologie, 140, 5–55.
Lynch, B. K. (2003). Language assessment and program evaluation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 657–674.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.
Michałowicz, B. (2016). Ankiety ewaluacyjne w szkolnictwie wyższym: wpływ wyboru ewaluatorów. [Evaluation surveys in higher education: the impact of the choice of evaluators], Ph.D. dissertation undertaken under the supervision of Prof. Habil. Dr. Grażyna Wieczorkowska-Wierzbińska, Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, Department of Psychology and Sociology of Management, Warsaw.
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park-London-New Delhi: Sage.
Peacock, M. (2009). The evaluation of foreign-language-teacher education programs. Language Teaching Research, 13, 259–278.
Saks, A. M., & Burke, L. A. (2012). An investigation into the relationship between training evaluation and the transfer of training. International Journal of Training and Development, 16, 118–127.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagné, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (AERA monograph series on curriculum evaluation, No. 1) (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. (1967). Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Shettle, C., & Mooney, G. (1999). Monetary incentives in US government surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 15(2), 231–250.
The Economist. (2016). Ratings agency. Grading university teachers. [Online]. Accessed June 22, 2017, from https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21688924-students-judge-their-teachers-often-unfairly-ratings-agency
Wang, G. G., & Wilcox, D. (2006). Training evaluation: Knowing more than is practiced. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8, 528–539.
White, R. (1998). What is quality in English language teacher education? English Language Teaching Journal, 52, 133–139.
Yang, W. (2009). Evaluation of teacher induction practices in a US university English language program: Towards useful evaluation. Language Teaching Research, 13, 77–98.
Yang, Z., Wang, X., & Su, C. (2006). A review of research methodologies in international business. International Business Review, 15, 601–617.
Acknowledgments
The chapter utilized research conducted by the following students: Joanna Pilawa, Agata Zduniak, Nicoletta Valenti, and Piotr Scęcelek in the framework of the project “Evaluation Questionnaires at the Lodz University of Technology (TUL)” Project Based Learning (PBL) during the summer semester of 2016/2017 with assistance from Ph.D. supervisor Iwona Staniec and Ph.D. coordinator Malgorzata Miller of the Lodz University of Technology. Jan Kochanowski University (JKU) in Kielce, Branch of the University in Piotrkow Trybunalski financed the research in their unit.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Staniec, I., Jarczyński, J. (2020). Student Evaluations of Teaching at the University: Perceptions and Questionnaires. In: Bilgin, M., Danis, H., Demir, E., Aysan, A. (eds) Eurasian Business Perspectives. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, vol 13/2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40160-3_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40160-3_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40159-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40160-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)