Disciplinary Differences in Student Ratings of Teaching Quality

Research in Higher Education

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 278-299

  Kember, David ^a   Leung, Doris Y P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Disciplinary difference; Epistemology; Graduate capabilities; Perceived quality of teaching; Teaching and learning environments

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952700415     PISSN: 03610365     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11162-010-9194-z     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 153-166.
2. Barnes, M. W., & Patterson, R. H. (1988). Using teaching evaluation results to plan departmental strategies to accomplish the institutional mission. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for College and University Planning, Toronto, ON.
3. Barrie, S. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51(2), 215-241.
4. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.
5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
6. Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
7. Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
8. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195-203.
9. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
10. Braxton, J. M., Olsen, D., & Simmons, A. (1988). Affinity disciplines and the use of principles of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 299-318.
11. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-161). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12. Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modelling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
14. Candy, P. C., & Crebert, R. G. (1991). Lifelong learning: An enduring mandate for higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 10, 3-18.
15. Cashin, W. E. (1990). Students do rate different academic fields differently. New directions for teaching and learning, 43, 113-121.
16. 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.
17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
19. Feldman, K. A. (1978). Course characteristics and college students' ratings of their teachers; what we know and what we don't. Research in Higher Education, 9, 199-242.
20. Feldman, K. A. (1996). Identifying exemplary teaching: Using data from course and teacher evaluations. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 65, 41-50.
21. Feldman, K. A. (1997). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp. 368-395). New York: Agathon Press.
22. Feldman, K. A. (2007). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 93-126). New York: Springer.
23. Green, S. B., & Babyak, M. K. (1997). Control of Type I errors with multiple tests of constraints in structural equation modelling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 39-51.
24. Hativa, N., & Marincovich, M. (1995). Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25. Holye, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
27. Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2005a). The impact of the teaching and learning environment on the development of generic capabilities needed for a knowledge-based society. Learning Environments Research, 8, 245-266.
28. Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2005b). The influence of active learning experiences on the development of graduate capabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 155-170.
29. Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2006). Characterising a teaching and learning environment conducive to making demands on students while not making their workload excessive. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 185-198.
30. Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2009). Development of a questionnaire for assessing students' perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality assurance. Learning Environments Research, 12, 15-29.
31. Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & Ma, R. S. F. (2007). Characterising learning environments capable of nurturing generic capabilities in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 48, 609-632.
32. Kember, D., Ma, R. S. F., McNaught, C., & 18 excellent teachers. (2006). Excellent university teaching. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
33. Kember, D., & McNaught, C. (2007). Enhancing university teaching: Lessons from research into award winning teachers. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.
34. Kwan, K. P. (1999). How fair are student ratings in assessing the teaching performance of university teachers? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 181-195.
35. Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (1995). Modifying the major: Discretionary thoughts from ten disciplines. Review of Higher Education, 18(2), 315-344.
36. Leckey, J. F., & McGuigan, M. A. (1997). Right tracks-wrong rails: The development of generic skills in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 38, 365-378.
37. Leung, D. Y. P., & Kember, D. (2005a). Comparability of data gathered from evaluation questionnaires on paper and through the internet. Research in Higher Education, 46, 571-591.
38. Leung, D. Y. P., & Kember, D. (2005b). The influence of the part-time study experience on the development of generic capabilities. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29, 91-101.
39. Leung, D. Y. P., & Kember, D. (2006). The influence of teaching approach and teacher-student interaction on the development of graduate capabilities. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 264-286.
40. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 285-298.
41. Longworth, N., & Davies, W. K. (1996). Lifelong learning. London: Kogan Page.
42. Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253-388.
43. Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 319-383). New York: Springer.
44. Marsh, H. W., & Dunkin, M. J. (1997). Students' evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp. 241-320). New York: Agathon Press.
45. McKeachie, W. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52, 1218-1225.
46. Murray, H. G., & Renaud, R. D. (1995). Disciplinary differences in classroom teaching behaviours. New directions for teaching and learning, 64, 31-39.
47. Neumann, L., & Neumann, Y. (1985). Determinants of students' instructional evaluation: A comparison of four levels of academic areas. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 152-158.
48. Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students' approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368-383.
49. Schmitt, M. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350-353.
50. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
51. Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
52. Schultman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
53. Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1995). Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 40-58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
54. Stieger, J. H., Shapiro, A., & Browne, M. W. (1985). On the multivariate asymptotic distribution of sequential chi-square statistics. Psychometrika, 50, 253-264.
55. Tait, H., & Godfrey, H. (1999). Defining and assessing competence in generic skills. Quality in Higher Education, 5, 245-253.
56. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.
57. Wareing, S. (2009). Disciplines, discourse and Orientalism: The implications for postgraduate certificates in learning and teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8), 917-928.
58. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curren, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.