A Conjoint-based approach to student evaluations of teaching performance

In recent years, the need for greater accountability and improvement in teaching's quality has become a major issue in higher education. The results of student evaluation of teaching are increasingly used to make judgments about teaching quality, career advancement, and the funding of teaching itself. An important component of any such student evaluation is the communication of rating results in a manner that allows for fair and meaningful interpretations and comparisons of results by a wide range of evaluation users. In this paper, an approach for a more objective evaluation of university teachers is proposed, one which is based on previously obtained conjoint analysis data concerning criteria importance from a student's point of view. Therein, an illustrative example is given to demonstrate the efficiency and practical usage of such a proposed approach.

[1]  Stephen E. Anderson,et al.  Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning: Final Report of Research Findings , 2010 .

[2]  A. Kara,et al.  Determinants of Business Student Satisfaction and Retention in Higher Education: Applying Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. , 2005 .

[3]  D. Shepherd,et al.  Entrepreneurs’ Decisions to Exploit Opportunities , 2004 .

[4]  Chulhyun Kim,et al.  A systematic approach to new mobile service creation , 2008, Expert Syst. Appl..

[5]  J. Gustafsson.  What do we know about effects of school resources on educational results , 2003 .

[6]  R. Luce,et al.  Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .

[7]  James W. Pellegrino,et al.  Addressing the "Two Disciplines" Problem: Linking Theories of Cognition and Learning With Assessment and Instructional Practice , 1957 .

[8]  Milan Martic,et al.  An approach to competitive product line design using conjoint data , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[9]  J. Looney.  Developing High‐Quality Teachers: teacher evaluation for improvement , 2011 .

[10]  Milan Martic,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis To Elicit Employers’ Preferences Toward Key Competencies For A Business Manager Position , 2012 .

[11]  J. C. Ory,et al.  Teaching Evaluation: Past, Present, and Future , 2000 .

[12]  K. Elliott,et al.  Key Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction Related to Recruitment and Retention , 2001 .

[13]  Ro-Jin Pak,et al.  Conjoint Analysis for the Preferred Subjects of Elementary School Computer Education , 2007 .

[14]  D. Hensher.  The valuation of commuter travel time savings for car drivers: evaluating alternative model specifications , 2001 .

[15]  Jennifer King Rice,et al.  Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effectiveness of Teacher Attributes , 2003 .

[16]  Milan Martic,et al.  A new approach to evaluation of university teaching considering heterogeneity of students’ preferences , 2013 .

[17]  B. Bergmann,et al.  Student Teaching Evaluations: Inaccurate, Demeaning, Misused , 2003 .

[18]  Urve Venesaar,et al.  Evaluation of the Entrepreneurship Education Programme in University: A New Approach , 2011 .

[19]  G. Soutar,et al.  Students’ preferences for university: a conjoint analysis , 2002 .

[20]  Kathleen M. T. Collins,et al.  Students’ Perceptions of Characteristics of Effective College Teachers: A Validity Study of a Teaching Evaluation Form Using a Mixed-Methods Analysis , 2007 .

[21]  J. Hattie,et al.  Expecting the best for students: teacher expectations and academic outcomes. , 2006, The British journal of educational psychology.

[22]  J. O’day,et al.  Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement , 2002 .

[23]  Peter Toth,et al.  Learning strategies and styles in vocational education , 2012 .

[24]  Curt J. Dommeyer,et al.  Attitudes of Business Faculty Towards Two Methods of Collecting Teaching Evaluations: Paper vs. Online , 2002 .

[25]  Øyvind Helgesen,et al.  What accounts for students' loyalty? Some field study evidence , 2007 .

[26]  Yeonbae Kim,et al.  Estimation of consumer preferences on new telecommunications services: IMT-2000 service in Korea , 2005, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[27]  Paulo Santiago,et al.  Teachers matter : Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers , 2005 .

[28]  David H. Monk,et al.  Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement , 1994 .

[29]  L. Schmelkin,et al.  Student Perspectives on Teaching and its Evaluation , 2002 .

[30]  G. G. Merode,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to estimate employers preferences for key competencies of master level Dutch graduates entering the public health field , 2007 .

[31]  B. Panić,et al.  Identification of key positioning factors in the retail sector: A conjoint analysis approach , 2011 .

[32]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental Data , 1971 .

[33]  C. Rubie-Davies,et al.  Classroom interactions: exploring the practices of high- and low-expectation teachers. , 2007, The British journal of educational psychology.

[34]  Robert Sproule,et al.  Student Evaluation of Teaching: A Methodological Critique of Conventional Practices , 2000 .

[35]  A. Damasio,et al.  We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. , 2007 .

[36]  Jeffrey H. D. Cornelius-White.  Learner-Centered Teacher-Student Relationships Are Effective: A Meta-Analysis , 2007 .

[37]  So Young Sohn,et al.  Conjoint analysis for recruiting high quality students for college education , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[38]  Herbert W. Marsh,et al.  The Use of Students’ Evaluations and an Individually Structured Intervention to Enhance University Teaching Effectiveness , 1993 .

[39]  Kathleen M. T. Collins,et al.  A meta-validation model for assessing the score-validity of student teaching evaluations , 2009 .

[40]  J. Kulik.  Student Ratings: Validity, Utility, and Controversy , 2001 .