Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

University scholarship activities on module evaluation questionnaires at a British University

University scholarship activities on module evaluation questionnaires at a British University The purpose of this study comprises the following three: (1) to ascertain the purpose of university module evaluation questionnaires (MEQs) and its reliability; (2) to evaluate University X's MEQ; and (3) to offer how Universities may be able to support their teaching staff with scholarship activities using the MEQ project.Design/methodology/approachUniversity MEQ purposes and its reliability were investigated using literature reviews. The University X's MEQ seven statements were evaluated by three university academic staff. The study was conducted at a British university in South East of England. The duration of this interdisciplinary project was for two months which was a university interdisciplinary project between 14/07/20 and 13/10/20.FindingsThe purpose for MEQs includes (1) students’ satisfaction; (2) accountability for university authority and (3) teaching feedback and academic promotions for teaching staff. The evaluation of University X's MEQ indicated that MEQ questions were unclear which do not serve reliable student evaluation results. This topic may be of interest to University MEQ designers, lecturers, University Student Experience team, University Executive Board, University administrators and University HR senior management teams.Originality/valueThe following three points are considered original to this study: (1) MEQ purposes are summarised by students, university authority and teaching staff; (2) the evaluation of a British University MEQ; (3) provides suggestions on how lecturers' scholarship activities can be supported by the university-wide initiative and umbrella network. These are practical knowledge for the faculty and administrators of higher education institutions which may be of use. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Higher Education Evaluation and Development Emerald Publishing

University scholarship activities on module evaluation questionnaires at a British University

Winch, Junko
Higher Education Evaluation and Development , Volume 16 (2): 15 – Nov 1, 2022
Download PDF

University scholarship activities on module evaluation questionnaires at a British University

Winch, Junko
Higher Education Evaluation and Development , Volume 16 (2): 15 – Nov 1, 2022

Abstract

The purpose of this study comprises the following three: (1) to ascertain the purpose of university module evaluation questionnaires (MEQs) and its reliability; (2) to evaluate University X's MEQ; and (3) to offer how Universities may be able to support their teaching staff with scholarship activities using the MEQ project.Design/methodology/approachUniversity MEQ purposes and its reliability were investigated using literature reviews. The University X's MEQ seven statements were evaluated by three university academic staff. The study was conducted at a British university in South East of England. The duration of this interdisciplinary project was for two months which was a university interdisciplinary project between 14/07/20 and 13/10/20.FindingsThe purpose for MEQs includes (1) students’ satisfaction; (2) accountability for university authority and (3) teaching feedback and academic promotions for teaching staff. The evaluation of University X's MEQ indicated that MEQ questions were unclear which do not serve reliable student evaluation results. This topic may be of interest to University MEQ designers, lecturers, University Student Experience team, University Executive Board, University administrators and University HR senior management teams.Originality/valueThe following three points are considered original to this study: (1) MEQ purposes are summarised by students, university authority and teaching staff; (2) the evaluation of a British University MEQ; (3) provides suggestions on how lecturers' scholarship activities can be supported by the university-wide initiative and umbrella network. These are practical knowledge for the faculty and administrators of higher education institutions which may be of use.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/university-scholarship-activities-on-module-evaluation-questionnaires-1FhiUUFU3S
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Junko Winch
ISSN
2514-5789
DOI
10.1108/heed-01-2021-0008
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The purpose of this study comprises the following three: (1) to ascertain the purpose of university module evaluation questionnaires (MEQs) and its reliability; (2) to evaluate University X's MEQ; and (3) to offer how Universities may be able to support their teaching staff with scholarship activities using the MEQ project.Design/methodology/approachUniversity MEQ purposes and its reliability were investigated using literature reviews. The University X's MEQ seven statements were evaluated by three university academic staff. The study was conducted at a British university in South East of England. The duration of this interdisciplinary project was for two months which was a university interdisciplinary project between 14/07/20 and 13/10/20.FindingsThe purpose for MEQs includes (1) students’ satisfaction; (2) accountability for university authority and (3) teaching feedback and academic promotions for teaching staff. The evaluation of University X's MEQ indicated that MEQ questions were unclear which do not serve reliable student evaluation results. This topic may be of interest to University MEQ designers, lecturers, University Student Experience team, University Executive Board, University administrators and University HR senior management teams.Originality/valueThe following three points are considered original to this study: (1) MEQ purposes are summarised by students, university authority and teaching staff; (2) the evaluation of a British University MEQ; (3) provides suggestions on how lecturers' scholarship activities can be supported by the university-wide initiative and umbrella network. These are practical knowledge for the faculty and administrators of higher education institutions which may be of use.

Journal

Higher Education Evaluation and Development – Emerald Publishing

Published: Nov 1, 2022

Keywords: Academic promotion; Assessment of teaching; Module evaluation questionnaires; Student evaluations of teaching

References

  • Do teacher standards for assigning grades affect student evaluations of instruction?
    Abrami, P.C.; Dickens, W.J.; Perry, R.P.; Leventhal, L.
  • Are they paying attention? Students' lack of motivation and attention potentially threaten the utility of course evaluations
    Bassett, J.; Cleveland, A.; Acorn, D.; Nix, M.; Snyder, T.
  • The effect of professor ethnicity and gender on student evaluations: judged before met
    Bavish, A.; Madera, J.; Bebl, M.
  • How departments of economics should evaluate teaching
    Becker, W.E.; Watts, M.
  • Instructor's perspectives on the utility of student ratings of instruction
    Beran, T.N.; Rokosh, J.L.
  • Student life and the roles of students in Europe
    Bienefeld, S.; Almqvist, J.
  • Academic pedagogies, quality logics and performative universities: evaluating teaching and what students want
    Blackmore, J.
  • Evaluating students' evaluations of professors
    Braga, M.; Paccagnella, M.; Pellizzari, M.
  • What's looks got to do with it? Instructor appearance and student evaluations of teaching
    Campbell; Gerdes, H.K.; Steiner, S.
  • Does professor quality matter? Evidence from random assignment of students to professors
    Carrell, S.E.; West, J.E.
  • Student ratings: the need for comparative data
    Cashin, W.E.
  • A new look at the effect of course characteristics on student ratings of instruction
    Cranton, P.; Smith, R.A.
  • Characteristics of mindless teaching evaluations and the moderating effects of image compatibility
    Dunegan, K.J.; Hrivnak, M.W.
  • Course characteristics and college students' ratings of their teachers and courses: what we know and what we don't
    Feldman, K.A.
  • Objectivity of student evaluations of instructors
    Goldberg, G.; Callahan, J.
  • Looking good, teaching well? Linking liking, looks, and learning
    Gurung, R.; Vespia, K.
  • Beauty in the classroom: instructor's pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity
    Hamermesch, D.S.; Parker, A.
  • Do higher grades lead to favorable student evaluations?
    Isely, P.; Singh, H.
  • The authority of the student evaluation questionnaire
    Johnson, R.
  • Institutional accountability in higher education: a strategic approach
    Kearns, K.
  • Management by results: student evaluation of faculty teaching and the mis-measurement of performance
    Langbein, L.
  • The influence of student, course, and instructor characteristics in evaluations of university teaching
    Marsh, H.W.
  • Students' evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research
    Marsh, H.W.
  • Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: the critical issues of validity, bias and utility
    Marsh, H.W.; Roche, L.A.
  • Research on college teaching: the historical background
    McKeachie, W.J.
  • Determinants of how students evaluate tutors
    McPherson, M.A.
  • Leveling the playing field: should student evaluation scores be adjusted?
    McPherson, M.A.; Todd Jewell, R.
  • Correlates of halo error in teacher evaluation
    Moritsch, B.G.; Suter, W.N.
  • A conceptual and analytic critique of student ratings of tutors in the USA with implications for tutor effectiveness and student learning
    Olivares, O.J.
  • Faculty thoughts and concerns about student ratings
    Ory, J.C.
  • Student evaluations of teaching: effects of the Big Five personality traits, grades and the validity hypothesis
    Patrick, C.L.
  • Changing the agenda for research into students' views about university teaching: four shortcomings of SRT research
    Penny, A.R.
  • Effectiveness of consultation on student ratings feedback: a meta-analysis
    Penny, A.R.; Coe, R.
  • Introduction to the special section
    Perry, R.P.
  • Hot or not: do professors perceived as physically attractive receive higher student evaluations?
    Riniolo, T.C.; Johnson, K.C.; Sherman, T.R.; Misso, J.A.
  • On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: the state of the art
    Spooren, P.; Brockx, B.; Mortelmans, D.
  • A multilevel perspective on student ratings of instruction: lessons from the Chinese experience
    Ting, K.
  • Student ratings in a consumerist academy: leveraging pedagogical control and authority
    Titus, J.
  • Thick slice and thin slice teaching evaluations
    Tom, G.; Tong, S.T.; Hesse, C.
  • Student evaluations of university teaching: a cross-cultural perspective
    Watkins, D.
  • Evaluating teaching in higher education
    Weinberg, B.A.; Fleisher, B.M.; Hashimoto, M.
  • Half a minute: predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness
    Ambady, N.; Rosenthal, R.
  • Personality and the student evaluation of teaching
    Clayson, D.E.; Sheffet, M.J.
  • Understanding classroom interaction: students' and professors' contribution to students' silence
    Fassinger, P.A.
  • Face and favor: the Chinese power game
    Hwang, K.K.
  • The relationship between individualism-collectivism, face, and feedback and learning processes in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the USA
    Hwang, A.; Francesco, A.M.; Kessler, E.
  • “Keeping ‘mum’ in class—feedback seeking behaviors and cultural antecedents of Kiasu and face in an Asian learning environment
    Ng, H.A.; Ang, S.