Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lights and Shadows on Student Evaluation Surveys: Insights from Service Dominant Logic

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Improving the Evaluation of Scholarly Work

  • 115 Accesses

Abstract

Student evaluations surveys (SES) in Higher Education (HE) now range worldwide; however, in spite of their profusion they remain controversial. Their impact extends beyond that on university teachers and its consequent effect on society cannot be regarded as a trivial matter. The literature dealing with this topic is abundant with defenders and detractors. Perhaps now it is time to consider the most important controversies, balance positions and propose solutions. Based on research in the service discipline, this chapter undertakes a critical analysis of SES instruments used to evaluate teachers in most universities. The complexity of HE as a service demands an integrative approach to preserve the qualification of future professionals jeopardized by the use of these SES. We apply a Service Dominant Logic (SDL) perspective as a service theory framework to conceptualise, analyse and manage teaching quality and learning goals. Applying the SDL approach appropriately for the institutional context, we argue that viewing education value as a co-creation process is necessary in order to ensure teaching and learning quality in the long term.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrami, P. C., Perry, R. P., & Leventhal, L. (1982). The relationship between student personality characteristics, teacher ratings and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aigner, D. J., & Thum, F. D. (1986). On student evaluations of teaching ability. Journal of Economic Education, 17(4), 243–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akaka, M. A., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2013). The complexity of context: A service ecosystems approach for international marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, S. L., Cashin, W. E. (2014). Student ratings of instruction in college and university courses. In: Paulsen, M. (eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 29, pp. 279–326). Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E. (2015). Behind league tables and ranking systems a critical perspective of how university quality is measured. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 25(3), 242–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boysen, G. A., Kelly, T. J., Raesly, H. N., & Casner, R. W. (2014). The (mis)interpretation of teaching evaluations by college faculty and administrators. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(6), 641–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunce, L., Baird, A., & Jones, S. E. (2017). The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 1958–1978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calais Guerra, P. H., Veloso, A., Meira Jr, W., Almeida V. (2011). Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Diego, CA, USA, August 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. P., & Bozeman, W. C. (2007). The value of student ratings: Perceptions of students, teachers, and administrators. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(1), 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centra, J. A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 495–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, E., & McLarney, C. (2000). The classroom as a service encounter: Suggestions for value creation. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(4), 484–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. (1993) Teacher evaluation: a review of the literature with implications for educators. In: Seminar in Elementary Education. California State University, Long Beach, CA. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED359174.pdf

  • Damron, J. C. (1996). Instructor personality and the politics of the classroom. New Westminster, BC, Canada: Douglas College

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Apollonia, S., & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1198–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decanio, S. J. (1986). Student evaluations of teaching—a multinominal logit approach. Journal of Economic Education, 16(3), 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Méndez, M., & Gummesson, E. (2012). Value co-creation and university teaching quality: Consequences for the European higher education area (EHEA). Journal of Service Management, 23(4), 571–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Méndez, M., Saren, M., & Gummeson, E. (2017). Considering pollution in the higher education (HE) service ecosystem. The TQM Journal., 29, 767–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Méndez, M., Paredes, M. R., & Saren, M. (2019). Improving society by improving education through service-dominant logic: Reframing the role of students in higher education. Sustainability, 11(19), 5292. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilts, D. A. (1980). A statistical interpretation of students evaluation feedback. Journal of Economic Education, 11(2), 10–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dziewanowska, K. (2017). Value types in higher education—students’ perspective. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1299981

  • Elliott, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esarey, J., Valdes, N. (2020). Unbiased, reliable, and valid student evaluations can be still unfair. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 1106–1120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1724875

  • García, A., Montero Cases, T., García, J., & Vázquez Arenas, G. (2020). Validity of student satisfaction surveys to assess teaching quality: The UPCT case study (Cartagena, Spain). REDU. Revista De Docencia Universitaria, 18(1), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2020.12996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G. V., & Ellett, F. S. (1980). Evaluation research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilbault, M. (2016). Students as customers in higher education: Reframing the debate. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2016.1245234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson, E. (2006). Many-to-many marketing as grand theory: A nordic school contribution. In R. F. Lusch, S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The Service–Dominant Logic of Mark: Dialog, Debate, and Directions (pp. 339–353). ME Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms, M. M., Williams, A. B., & Nixon, J. C. (2001). TQM principles and their relevance to higher education: The question of tenure and post-tenure review. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(7), 322–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610669176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krautmann, A. C., & Sander, W. (1999). Grades and student evaluations of teachers. Economics of Education Review, 18(1), 59–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, T., McClure, R., & Pratsini, E. (1997). Using student disconfirmation as a measure of classroom effectiveness. Journal of Education for Business, 72(4), 224–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langbein, L. (2007). Management by results: Student evaluation of faculty teaching and the mis-measurement of performance. Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 417–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, S., & Sharma, U. (2002a). Commodification of education and academic labour: Using the balanced scorecard in university setting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13, 661–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, S., & Sharma, U. (2002b). Commodification of education and academic labour: Using the balanced scorecard in university setting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13, 661–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R., & Wu, C. (2012). A service science perspective on higher education: linking service productivity theory and higher education reform. Center for American Progress. www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/08/pdf/service_science.pdf

  • Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 255–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias and utility. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzo, M., Pedraja, M., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2005). Measuring customer satisfaction in summer courses. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 52–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. (1987). Can evaluating instruction improve teaching? In L. M. Aleamoni (Ed.), Techniques for Evaluating and Improving Instruction (pp. 3–7). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehdizadeh, M. (1990). Loglinear models and student course evaluations. Journal of Economic Education, 21(1), 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. P., & Lynch, K. A. (1984). Grade inflation, real income, simultaneity, and teaching evaluations. Journal of Economic Education, 15(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ntshoe, I., Higgs, P., Wolhuter, C. C., & Higgs, L. G. (2010). Is quality assurance in higher education contextually relative? South African Journal of Higher Education, 24(1), 111–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petruzzellis, L., d’Uggento, A. M., & Romanazzi, S. (2006). Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 16(4), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520610675694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pounder, J. S. (2007). Is student evaluation of teaching worthwhile? An analytical framework for answering the question. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(2), 178–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1993). What is good teaching in higher education? In P. T. Knight (Ed.), The Audit and Assessment of Teaching Quality, Standing Conference on Educational Development, Birmingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, M. B. (2016). Motivation of teachers in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 8(4), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-08-2015-0066

  • Román, E. (2020). La evaluación del profesorado universitario en tiempos de pandemia: Los sistemas online de gestión de encuestas de satisfacción estudiantil. Campus Virtuales, 9(2), 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakthivel, P. B., & Raju, R. (2006). An instrument for measuring engineering education quality from students’ perspective. The Quality Management Journal, 13(3), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Fernández, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M. A., Schlesinger-, W., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2010). Analysis of the value creation in higher institutions: A relational perspective. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 17(10), 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiver, D. A. (1983). Evaluations and grades: A simultaneous framework. Journal of Economic Education, 14(3), 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seldin, P. (1984). Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation: A Critical Assessment and Recommendations for Improvement. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, P. M., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Student evaluations of teaching: An exploratory study of the faculty response. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(3), 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storbacka, K., Brodie, R. J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P. P., & Nenonen, S. (2016). Actor engagement as a microfoundation for value co-creation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3008–3017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, C., & Bao, Y. (2001). Student complaint behavior based on power perception: A taxonomy. Services Marketing Quarterly, 22(3), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1300/J396v22n03_03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, L. A. (Eds.), New Directions for Institutional Research (No. 109, pp. 45–56). https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.3

  • Urzha, O. A., & Makushkin, S. A. (2020). Teacher motivation and stimulation in Higher Education institutions of Russia: current state, experience, problems, search for new models. Revista inclusiones, 7(Special issue Jul–Sep), 652–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It’s all B2B… and beyond: Towards a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser-Wijnveen, G. J., Stes, A., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Development and validation of a questionnaire measuring teachers’ motivations for teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 64(3), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9502-3

  • Walton, D. (1991). Bias, critical doubt, and fallacies. Argumentation and Advocacy, 28, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, B., Hashimoto, M., & Fleisher, B. (2008). Evaluating teaching in higher education. Journal of Economic Education, 40(3), 227–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieland, H., Polese, F., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2012). Toward a service ecosystems perspective on value creation. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology, 3(3), 12–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wueste, D. E., & Fishman, T. (2010). The customer isn't always right: limitations of ‘customer service’ approaches to education or why Higher Ed is not Burger King. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 6(1). http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/672

  • Zangenehzadeh, H. (1988). Grade inflation: A way out. Journal of Economic Education, 19(3), 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain

    Montserrat Díaz-Méndez

  2. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Michael Saren

  3. School of Business, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

    Michael Saren

  4. University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden

    Evert Gummesson

Authors
  1. Montserrat Díaz-Méndez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Saren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evert Gummesson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Montserrat Díaz-Méndez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm Business School, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Evert Gummesson

  2. Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain

    Montserrat Díaz-Méndez

  3. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Michael Saren

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Díaz-Méndez, M., Saren, M., Gummesson, E. (2022). Lights and Shadows on Student Evaluation Surveys: Insights from Service Dominant Logic. In: Gummesson, E., Díaz-Méndez, M., Saren, M. (eds) Improving the Evaluation of Scholarly Work. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17662-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17662-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-17661-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-17662-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation