Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320209599677

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Factors That Affect College of Business Student
Opinion of Teaching and Learning
James E. Whitworth , Barbara A. Price & Cindy H. Randall
To cite this article: James E. Whitworth , Barbara A. Price & Cindy H. Randall (2002) Factors
That Affect College of Business Student Opinion of Teaching and Learning, Journal of Education
for Business, 77:5, 282-289, DOI: 10.1080/08832320209599677
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599677

Published online: 31 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 32

View related articles

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]

Date: 13 January 2016, At: 00:27

Factors That Affect College of
Business Student Opinion of
Teaching and Learning

zyxwv

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:27 13 January 2016

JAMES E. WHITWORTH
BARBARA A. PRICE
CINDY H. RANDALL
Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, Georgia

C

oncerns have often been raised in
academia about the practice of
using student evaluations to measure the
performance or quality of instructors.
The use of student opinions to rate faculty appears to be all but universal (Southem Regional Educational Board [SREB],
1997). Research studies in general have
shown that in many cases student evaluations can be statistically reliable and
valid. In other words, the evaluation
instruments accurately measure what
they are designed to measure. Tang
(1997) found 12 factors that were predictors of overall teaching effectiveness
(e.g., clear presentation of material,
answering of students’ questions, courteous and/or professional treatment of students, and adequate preparation for
class). In an exhaustive review of 41
validity studies of student evaluations,
Cohen (1981) concluded that the overall
correlation between instructor ratings

and student achievement was .43 and that
the overall correlation between course
ratings and student achievement was
.47.’ Given that student evaluations have
been proved to be valid, why do faculty
members continue to voice concern?
There appear to be two primary areas
of concern in the evaluation process.
The first focuses on what is actually
being measured. Often student ratings
have only a slight relationship to student
learning (Marchese, 1997). After all, a

282

ABSTRACT. In this study, the
authors analyzed 12,153 student faculty evaluations to investigate the effects
of (a) faculty member gender; (b)
course type (required business core
courses, classes within designated

majors, or graduate classes); and (c)
course level (graduate versus undergraduate classes) on student faculty
evaluations. The authors explored the
effect of these three factors on students’ perceptions of how much they
learned in particular classes. They
found that female instructors rated
better than male ones and that ratings
differed significantly by course type
and by students’ perceived amount of
learning. Graduate students tended to
give higher scores than undergraduates. These findings could indicate
that comparing evaluation data across
different courses might not produce
valid overall effectiveness rankings.

measure, such as the quality of syllabi
and firsthand observations of classroom performance (Cone, 1996). Others suggest the use of Work Sampling
Methodology, in which teachers
include samples of student work over
time and link them to evidence of

teaching plans and activities to analyze
student progress (Darling-Hammond,
1998). Yet amid much discussion, universities continue to use little in the
faculty evaluation process other than a
group of questions to which students
respond.
The chair of a management department at a regional university in the
southeast has struggled for several years
to find an equitable method of ranking
faculty members for annual performance evaluation based on student evaluations. During a recent evaluation period, the chair sorted student evaluations
not by faculty member but by course.
She noted that there appeared to be a
difference among evaluations by course
type. If this is true-if a relationship
does exist between course type and content and the students’ perception of the
faculty member-then faculty members
should not be lumped into a single
group for ranking but rather broken into
smaller groups based on the course
taught, and then sorted. Further analysis

based on student response to the question relating to “excellent instructor”

zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsr
teacher can motivate students and be
concerned, fair, enthusiastic, and prepared, yet the students nevertheless
might learn very little in that class. The
other faculty concern relates to administrators’ use of a single measure derived
from student evaluations. Although several questions may be asked on an evaluation form, often the only measurement item that administrators examine
is “Overall the instructor is an excellent
teacher.”
Some faculty members believe that
the evaluation process should include
additional factors beyond this single

zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqpo
Journal of Education for Business

revealed that instructor gender may also
come into play in student opinion.
Both industry and college faculties
are predominantly male. It is interesting
to note that, although several industry
studies have concluded that a gender
bias exists favoring men, studies in
academia have produced conflicting
results (Basow & Silberg, 1987).
Tatro (1995), studying the evaluations
of both male and female instructors,
found significantly higher ratings given
to the female faculty members. Using
multiple regression, Tatro was able to
use instructor gender and expected grade
to predict evaluations. There have been
attempts to explain this phenomenon.
Taynor and Deaux (1973) theorized that
women are viewed as being more
deserving than men for the same performance because of the male-dominated

environment in which they must work.
Elmore and LaF’ointe (1975) postulated
that women are more warm and expressive and that these traits-not
the
instructor’s gender-have a positive correlation with student ratings of instructor
performance. Wheeless and Potorti
(1989) also found evidence that other
teacher qualities, excluding the gender
of the instructor, produce positive student attitudes. Those faculty members
who exhibited warmth and concern
together with assertiveness and dominance were more likely to have positive
student evaluations (Freeman, 1994).
Basow and Silberg (1987) believed
that two important variables, professor
gender and professor gender typing,
affect student evaluations. This view not
only supports the theory that students do
evaluate male and female faculty members differently; it also lends credence
to the belief that the perception of
instructor qualities can bias an evaluation. Basow and Silberg found that the

student’s gender and major and the type
of question posed also influenced the
evaluation. Overall, they found that
male students generally evaluated
female professors less favorably than
they did male professors. In a follow-up
study, Basow (1995) found that certain
questions created greater bias than others. Whereas male faculty members
were perceived to be more knowledgeable, female faculty members were
viewed as being more sensitive and

respectful of student ideas. However,
though overall ratings of male professors appeared to be unaffected by student gender, this was not the case for
female professors. Female professors
tended to receive their highest ratings
from female students and their lowest
ratings from male students. In a study of
500 students, Bachen, McLoughlin, and
Garcia (1999) found that female students gave female instructors high ratings relative to those they gave to male
instructors, but that male students’ evaluations did not vary according to the

instructor’s gender.

material clearly, and fairness in evaluation (see questions 1-8 and 10, Table 1).
Another goal was to c o n f m whether
significant relationships exist between
students’ assessment of their learning
and course type, course level, or gender
of the instructor. One question on the
evaluation form addressed how much
students felt that they had learned in that
class compared with other classes (see
question 13, Table 1).

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:27 13 January 2016

zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvu
Research Questions

One of our goals in this study was to

c o n f m or refute that students’ evaluations of instructor quality are significantly related to course type, course
level, or gender of the instructor. On the
student evaluation form, we included
questions addressing excellent teaching,
ability to motivate the students to do
their best work, level of concern for students, preparedness for class, level of
enthusiasm for the subject matter, students’ willingness to recommend the
instructor to a friend, ability to convey

We tested the following hypotheses:
H,: Student evaluations of instructor
quality do not differ significantly by
gender of instructor evaluated.
H,: Student evaluations of instructor
quality do not differ significantly across
courses.
H,: Student evaluations of instructor
quality do not differ significantly by
course level (graduate vs. undergraduate).
H,: Students’ perceptions of “amount
learned” do not differ significantly by
gender of instructor evaluated.
H,: Students’ perceptions of “amount
learned” do not differ significantly
across courses.
H,: Students’ perceptions of “amount
learned” do not differ significantly by
course level (graduate vs. undergraduate).

zyx
zyxw

TABLE 1. The Management Department Student Evaluation Form

1 . Overall, the instructor is an excellent teacher.
2. The instructor motivates me to do my best work.
3. The instructor showed genuine concern for the student.
4. The instructor seems well prepared for each class.
5. The instructor is enthusiastic about the subject matter.
6. I would recommend the instructor to a friend.
7. The instructor presented the material clearly and effectively.
8. The instructor evaluates in a fair manner.
9. I usually give lower ratings to instructors who require a lot of work.
10. The instructor is timely in providing feedback on my work.
1 1. I think that courses that require a lot of work are more valuable than courses

that do not.

zyxwv
zyxw

12. On average, the number of hours I studied per week outside of class for this
course was : 1 (1lo), 2 (7-9), 3 ( 4 4 4(1-3), 5 (< 1)
13. Compared with other courses I have taken, in this course I have learned:
1 (much less), 2 (less),3 (no more or less), 4 (more), 5 (much more)
14. Given my efforts in this course, the grade I expect to receive may not be
the one that I think I deserve. It will be: 1 (much higher), 2 (higher),3 (the
same), 4 (lower),5 (much lower)
15. The primary reason I signed up for this course is: 1 (I like the prof’s teaching
style), 2 (required and only section available), 3 (Prof recommended by
friend), 4 (subject of interest to me),’5 (I thought it would be easy to make
good grade), 6 (none of the above)

Nore. Questions 1-1 1 were answered on a scale ranging through 1 (strongly disagree),
2 (disagree), 3 (neither disagree nor agree), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree).

May/June 2002

203

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:27 13 January 2016

Method

zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrqp
Computers and Applications and Introduction to Business (both introductory
classes are generally taken during the
freshman year); Business Statistics;
Quantitative Analysis; Management and
Organizational Behavior; Operations
Management; Strategic Management;
courses within the major; and graduate
courses. We compared evaluations from
these eight categories by examining the
difference between (a) course type and
quality of instruction and (b) course
type and perceived learning. We also
compared evaluations of male and
female faculty members and those from
graduate and undergraduate classes to
investigate differences related to course
type and perceived learning.

In fall 1997, all department faculty
members were asked to participate in a
study examining the current student
evaluation document and incorporating
workload and learning perception questions for research purposes only (see
Table 1). Since that time, we have collected data for all courses taught in the
department. We used data from seven
terms (winter, spring, and fall 1998;
spring and fall 1999; and spring and fall
2000) in this study. A total of 12,153
student evaluation forms were available
for our use in this study.
The survey instrument used in this
study (see Table 1) contained 15 items.
Questions 1 through 8 were designed to
measure the students’ perceptions of the
quality of the instructor. Through factor
analysis, we ascertained that the measure was unidimensional; that is, a single underlying factor supported the 8
items (Whitworth, Randall, & Price,
1999). The total variance explained by
the single factor was 66.4%: We used
principal component analysis for an
extraction method, and an Eigenvalue 2
1 for the criterion for factor extraction.
All factor loadings were greater than .74
and with large sample size were significant at the .05 level (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1995). Therefore, we
used the single measure “Overall, the
instructor is an excellent teacher” as the
measurement of students’ perception of
the quality of the instructor (see question 1, Table 1).
Classes were divided into the following eight categories so that we could
investigate differences in course type:

agree, disagree, neither agree not disagree, agree, strongly agree) to the
question of perceived teaching excellence for male instructors would not differ significantly from the corresponding
breakdown for female instructors. We
found that the test disproved this theory,
with a significance level of 0.001. The
percentage of female instructors rated as
excellent was significantly higher than
that of male instructors (see Table 2). In
Figure 1, we illustrate the differences in
responses by gender of instructor.

H,: Student evaluations of instructor
quality do not differ significantly across
courses.
We computed a one-way single-factor analysis of variance so that the
means (see Table 3) of instructor quality could be compared in the eight categories of courses. This test revealed a
significant difference at the 0.001 level
in perceived instructor quality among
the course types being evaluated. To
allow closer examination of the differences in perceived instructor quality by
course type, we used pooled t tests to
compare each class against the others.
The data in Table 4 show the mean significant differences between the various
courses that we investigated. Of the 56
comparisons, 36 were significantly different. Therefore, the hypothesis stating
that student evaluations would not differ
significantly across course category
could not be supported.

zyxwv
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvut
Results

H,: Student evaluations of instructor
quality do not differ significantly by
gender of instructor evaluated.
Evaluations for female instructors (n
= 4,279) revealed a mean of 4.043,
whereas evaluations for male instructors
(n = 7,872) generated a mean of 3.809.
We found the difference between these
two means to be significant at the 0.001
level through an independent samples
test, equal variances not assumed.
Therefore we concluded that the data in
our study did not support the hypothesis
stating that instructor quality ratings do
not differ significantly by instructor
gender.
To extend this analysis, we performed
a chi-square test of homogeneity of proportions. Our intent was to test the theory that the breakdown of student
responses by category (i.e., strongly dis-

zyxwvu
H,: Student evaluations of instructor
quality do not differ significantly by
course level (graduate vs. undergraduate).

zyxwvu

TABLE 2. ChiSquare Test of Homogeneity of Proportions: Perceived Instructor Quality Versus Gender of Instructor
“The instructor is an excellent teaches”

Responses
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Totals
284

Actual frequencies
Male
Female
instructor
instructor
261
656
640
2,998
2,298
7,853

91
23 1
629
1,750
1,573
4,274

Journal of Educationfor Business

Totals

Expected frequencies
Male
Female
instructor
instructor

Totals

352
887
2,269
4,748
3,871
12,127

227.942
574.389
1,469.321
3,074.631
2,506.718
7,853

352
887
2,269
4,748
3,871
12,127

124.058
312.61 1
799.679
1,673.370
1,364.283
4,274

Chi-square calculations
Male
Female
instructor
instructor
4.794
1 1.596
19.826
1.910
17.379

8.809
2 1.306
36.429
3.509
31.931

zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrqponm
zyxwvuts
zyx
zy
z
undergraduate students’ instructor ratings of male and female faculty. When
comparing instructor quality ratings in
graduate versus undergraduate classes
(means of 4.106 and 4.041 respectively), we found that female instructors did
not receive significantly different evaluations but that male instructors did. In
graduate classes, male faculty members
earned a mean of 4.194 for instructor

Using an independent samples test,
equal variances not assumed, we found
that the difference between the mean
responses of graduate students (rn =
4.185) and undergraduate students (rn =
3.866) was significant at the .OOO level.
Graduate students did evaluate faculty
members more favorably than did
undergraduate students. We also performed tests to compare graduate and

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:27 13 January 2016

FIGURE 1. Breakdown of Responses Regarding Perceived Instructor
Quality by Gender of Instructor

quality, whereas in undergraduate classes the mean for male faculty members
was 3.762, a difference that is significantly different at the 0.001 level.
We performed further analysis to test
the theory that the breakdown of student
responses by category (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree) to the
question regarding perceived teaching

Class

I

Strongly disagree Disagree

Neutral

+ Women

Agree
+ Men

Strongly agree
p = 0.0001.

zyxw

TABLE 3. Mean for
Instructor Quality

Classes in
major
Freshman
level classes
Business
Statistics
Quantitative
Analysis
Management &
Organizational
Behavior
Operations
Management
Strategic
Management
Graduate classes

M

N

3.196

3638

3.919

3128

3.599

1028

4.196

915

3.684

1156

3.734

757

3.755
4.185

575
956

TABLE 4. Ratings for Instructor ExcellenceVersus Course: Mean Differences
Classes
in
major

Freshman
level
classes

Business
Statistics

Quantitative
Analysis

Management &
Organizational
Behavior

Operations
Management

Strategic
Management

Graduate
classes

Classes in
major
Freshman
level
Statistics
Quantitative
Analysis
Management &
Organizational
Behavior
Operations
Management
Strategic
Management
Graduate
classes

zyxwvutsrqpo

d Denotes a significant difference between the two means at the ,000 level.

+ Denotes a significant difference between the two means at the ,001 level.
May/June 2002

285

excellence would differ significantly by
course level (graduate vs. undergraduate). Using a chi-square test of homogeneity of proportions, we disproved
this theory at the 0.001 level of significance. The percentage of students rating
their instructor as excellent was significantly higher among graduate students
than among undergraduates (see Table
5). In Figure 2, we illustrate the differences in responses by class level.

level of 0.001, the test disproved this
theory. The percentage of classes perceived as better learning environments
was significantly higher for classes
taught by women than for those taught
by men (see Table 6). In Figure 3, we
illustrate the differences in responses by
gender of instructor.

zyxwvut
zyxwv
zyxwvutsrq
z

H,: Students’ perceptions of “amount
learned” do not differ significantly by
instructor gender.
A comparison of mean responses did
not provide data to support this hypothDownloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:27 13 January 2016

esis. Male instructors received a mean
response of 3.154, whereas female faculty members received a mean response
of 3.377. Using an independent samples
test, equal variances not assumed, we
found that the difference between these
two means was significant at the 0.001
level.
For further analysis, we performed a
chi-square test of homogeneity of proportions. We sought to test the theory
that the breakdown of student responses
by category (i-e., much less, less, no
more or less, more, much more) to the
question regarding perceived amount of
learning would not differ significantly
by instructor gender. With a significance

H,: Students’ perceptions of “amount
learned” do not differ significantly
across courses.

We computed a one-way single-factor
analysis of variance so that the means
(see Table 7) of amount learned could be
compared in the eight categories of
courses. This test revealed a significant

TABLE 5. Chi-square Test of Homogeneity of Proportions: Percelved Instructor Quality Versus Class Level
“The instructor is an excellent teachex”

Actual frequencies
Graduate Undergraduate
Item
Strongly disagree

Disagree
Neutral

instructor

instructor

Totals

Graduate
instructor

10
42
120
353
427
952

342
854
2,149
4,395
3,444
11,175

352
887
2,269
4,748
3,871
12,127

27.633
69.632
178.122
372.730
303.883
952

Expected frequencies
Undergraduate
instructor
Totals
324.367
817.368
2,090.878
4,375.270
3,567.117
11,175

352
887
2,269
4,748
3,871
12,127

Chi-square calculations
Graduate Undergraduate
instructor

instructor

11.252
10.965
18.966
1.044
49.880

0.959
0.943
1.616
0.089
4.249

zyxwvutsrqpon
zyxwvutsrqpon
zyxwvutsrq

Agree

Strongly agree

Totals

Chi-square test statistic = 99.954.
p = 0.000.

FIGURE 2. Breakdown of Responses Regarding Instructor Quality by
Course Level

Strongly disagree Disagree

+Graduates
286

Journal of Education for Business

Neutral

Agree
+Under-

graduates

Strongly agree
p = 0.0001.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:27 13 January 2016

zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrqpo

difference at the 0.001 level. To allow
closer examination of the differences in
perceived amount learned by course type,
we used pooled t tests to compare each
class type against the others. In Table 8,
we illustrate the mean significant differences between the various classes in our
study. Of the 56 comparisons, 30 were
significantly different. Therefore, our
data did not support the hypothesis that
there would be no significant difference
between students’ perception of “amount
learned” by course type.
H,: Students’ perceptions of “amount
learned” do not differ significantly by
course level (graduate vs. undergraduate).

Amount learned

I

Our study results did support this
hypothesis. The mean response of graduate students was 3.229, compared with
a mean response of 3.233 for undergraduate students. Through an independent samples test, equal variances not
assumed, we found no significant difference between the two groups in our
measurements of how much students
believed that they had learned in that
class compared with others.
Once again, we extended our analysis
through a chi-square test of homogeneity of proportions. We sought to test the
theory that the breakdown by category
of student responses (i.e., much less,
less, no more or less, more, much more)

“The instructor is an excellent teachef’
Expected frequencies
Male
Female
Totals
instructor
instructor
Totals

Actual frequencies
Male
Female
instructor
instructor
143
26 1
1,682
1,672
41 1
4,169

510
846
4,480
4,369
1,230
1 1,435

324.1
537.6
2,846.7
2,776.1
781.6
7,266

185.9
308.4
1,633.3
1,592.9
448.4
4,169

FIGURE 3. Breakdown of Responses Regarding Perceived Learning by
Gender of Instructor

M

Chi-square calculations
Male
Female
instructor
instructor

zyxwvuts
zyxw
zyxwv
zyxw
zy
zyxwvu
367
585
2,798
2,697
8 19
7,266

Much less
Less
No less, no more
More
Much more
Totals

0

to the question regarding perceived
learning would not differ significantly
by course level (graduate vs. undergraduate). The test disproved this theory,
with a significance level of 0.001. Interestingly, we found no significant difference between the two groups through an
independent samples test, equal variances not assumed. This result supports
the hypothesis that students’ perceptions
of “amount learned” do not differ significantly by course level (graduate vs.
undergraduate). There was no significant difference between the mean scores
of the two groups. However, when comparing the percentage of responses by
category, we found that graduate stu-

5.689
4.186
0.832
2.256
1.793

50

Class

40

Classes
in major
Freshman
level classes
Business
Statistics
Quantitative
Analysis
Management &
Organizational
Behavior
Operations
Management
Strategic
Management
Graduate
classes

20

10
I

“ I

Much less

Less

+ Men

I

I

I

No

less

no

More

Women

9.915
7.296
I .450
3.932
3.125

TABLE 7. Means for Perceived
Learning

d o 30

5
!!
i

510
846
4,480
4,369
1,230
1 1,435

I

Much more
p = 0.0001.

M

N

3.273

3,638

3.426

3,128

3.125

1,028

3.160

915

3.101

1,156

3.156

757

2.597

575

3.229

956

May/June 2002

287

zyx
zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts
promoted significantly more learning.
This finding supports research by Tatro
(1995), Taynor and Deaux (1973), and
Elmore and LaF‘ointe (1975). However,
we hesitate to state that our research
was conclusive in its findings regarding
differences in student evaluations by
instructor gender.
We gathered our data over a 3-year
time period for a wide assortment of
courses, which resulted in a large sample of student evaluation forms. Though
the students completing evaluations varied over these years, the faculty members did not. Therefore, though our data

dents were significantly more likely to
perceive that they had learned more than
were undergraduate students (see Table
9). In Figure 4, we illustrate the differences in responses by course level.

Conclusions

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:27 13 January 2016

In this study, we found that students
perceived that female faculty members
were better teachers than their male
counterparts. Not only did female
instructors rate significantly higher in a
measure of instructor quality; students
perceived that their class environments

included many student evaluation
forms, only 66 faculty members were
evaluated. Of those 66 faculty members,
46 were male and 20 female. Our results
are significant and do support existing
research, which appears to lend validity
to this study. However, in the future we
believe that researchers should gather
student evaluation forms across the college or even the university and not limit
them to a single department.
We also found that ratings of perceived instructor quality differed significantly by course type as well as by student perception of the amount of

zyxwv

TABLE 8. Ratings for Percelved Amount Learned Versus Course: Mean Differences
Classes
in
major
Classes in
major
Freshman
level classes
Statistics
Quantitative
Analysis
Management &
Organizational
Behavior
Operations
Management
Strategic
Management
Graduate
classes

Freshman
level
classes

Business
Statistics

.I

-+

.I

+

Quantitative
Analysis

Management &
Organizational
Behavior

Operations
Management

Strategic
Management

Graduate
classes

.I

.I

.I

.I
.I

+

.I

.I
.I

zyxwvuts

+

d Denotes a significant difference between the two means at the .OOO level.

+ Denotes a significant difference between the two means at the .002 level.

TABLE 9. Chiaquare Test of Homogeneity of Proportions: Perceived Amount of Learning Versus Class Level
“Comuared with other courses I have taken. in this course I have learned: ”
Actual frequencies
Expected frequencies
Chi-square calculations

Amount
learned
Much less
Less
No less, no more
More
Much more
Totals

Graduate

Undergraduate

Totals

Graduate

Undergraduate

Totals

18
45
309
353
128
853

492
801
4,171
4,016
1,102
10,582

510

38.0
63.1
334.2
325.9
91.8
853

472.0
782.9
4,145.8
4,043.1
1,138.2
10,582

510
846
4,480
4,369
1,230
11,435

Chi-square test statistic = 36.985.
p = o.Oo0.

288

846
4,480
4,369
1,230
1 1,435

Graduate Undergraduate
10.560
5.196
1.898
2.252
14.320

0.85 1
0.419
0.153
0.182
1.154

zyxwvutsrqp

Journal of Education for Business

zyx
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxw
REFERENCES

FIGURE 4. Breakdown of Responses Regarding Perceived Learning by
Course Level

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 00:27 13 January 2016

50

I

Much less

I

Less

Bachen, C. M., McLoughlin, M. M., & Garcia, S.
S. (1999). Assessing the role of gender in college students’ evaluation of faculty. Communication Education, 48(3), 193-2 10.
Basow, S. A. (1995). Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 656665.
Basow, S. A., & Silberg, N. T. (1987). Student
evaluations of college professors: Are female
and male professors rated differently? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 308-3 14.
Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction
and student achievement: A meta-analysis of
multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51(3). 28 1-309.
Cone, J. D. (1996). Letters to the Editor. The Sun
Diego Tribune, Ed. B-11, p. 3.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Standards for
assessing teaching effectiveness are key: A
response to Schalock, Schalock, and Myton.
Phi Delta Kappa, 79(6), 47 I .
Elmore, P. B., & LaPointe, K. (1975). Effect of
teacher sex, student sex, and teacher warmth on
the evaluation of college instructors. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 67, 368-374.
Freeman, H. R. (1994). Student evaluations of college instructors: Effects of type of course
taught, instructor gender and gender role, and
student gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 627430.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., &
Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Marchese. T. (1997). Student evaluations of teaching. Change, SeptembedOctober. p. 4.
Southern Regional Educational Board. ( 1977).
Faculty evaluations for improved learning.
Atlanta: Author.
Tang, T. L. (1997). Teaching effectiveness at a public institution of higher education: Factors related to the overall teaching effectiveness. Public
Personnel Management, 26(3), 379-387.
Tatro, C. N. (1995). Gender effects on student
evaluations of faculty. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 28, 169-173.
Taynor, J., & Deaux, K. (1973). When women are
more deserving than men: Equity, attribution,
and perceived sex differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 360-367.
Wheeless, V. E., & Potorti, P. F. (1989). Student
assessment of teacher masculinity and femininity: A test of the sex role congruency hypothesis on student attitudes toward learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 8, 259-262.
Whitworth, J. E., Randall, C. H., & Price, B. A.
(1999). Assessment among faculty using student evaluations: Are we comparing apples with
oranges? Proceedings, The Southeastern Chapter of the Institute for Operations Research and
The Management Sciences (pp. 171-180).
Myrtle Beach, SC, October.

zyxwvutsrqpo
I

I

No more, no

More

Much more

less

+ Graduate students
learning that took place in their classroom. These findings support the initial
findings of our departmental chair and
cast doubts on the wisdom of comparing
faculty members’ evaluations across
departments or colleges.
Graduate students rated the quality of
their instruction significantly higher
than did undergraduate students. This
finding may be attributed to the average
age, experience, and maturity difference
between the two groups. It is interesting
to note that, though the two groups did
not differ in mean score regarding perception of the amount learned in the
classroom, they did differ significantly
in responses concerning perceived
learning.
In conclusion, student evaluations of
faculty members should not be compared across disciplines and levels of
courses. Instead, student evaluations
should be examined within only like

-t Undergraduates

P = 0.0001.

courses or within only one course level
(graduate or undergraduate). Within
these groups, the department chair
should note that student evaluations of
male and female faculty members may
not be equivalent. Until further studies
provide more conclusions, additional
factors such as course syllabi, samples
of student work, teaching plans, and student activities should be considered in
attempts at rating faculty members.
NOTES
1. Although examining the correlation between
instructor ratings and student achievement was not
a target of this research study, we found an overall
correlation of .41 between instructor rating and
perceived learning through use of our 12,153 evaluation forms. This finding clearly supports earlier
findings and lends validity to the results of our
study.
2. After adding data from academic year 2000
for this study, we calculated a factor analysis once
again. Total variance explained by the single factor was 69.36%. This supports earlier findings and
lends validity to the results of this study.

zyx

May/June 2002

289