The results of an executive Masters of Business Administration (MBA) program assessment are analyzed and interpreted against the backdrop of increasing competition between universities to attract and retain qualified students. The public education environment is currently in a turbulent state. This turbulence is in part caused by such factors as: reductions in public funding for higher education due to constrained state budgets, student expectations, requirements imposed by accrediting bodies, and other outside constituencies requesting more accountability. The pressure to hold education institutions accountable is increasing at a rapid rate. To provide a measure of accountability and quantify program quality, education institutions have placed a great deal of emphasis on program assessment. Informational results from program assessments influence a myriad of decisions made by many that ultimately impact student enrollment, program support and program funding. Despite questionable psychometric properties and potentially conflicting outcomes, student evaluations of teaching faculty continue to be a primary source of information used in program assessments. This burdens educators and administrators with the task of interpreting and utilizing incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information. Results indicate that student response rates decline with increased numbers of evaluations and influences on teaching quality assessments may be unrelated to content and presentation. Introduction According to Marsh and Roche (1993), universities have traditionally had students evaluate professor performance to improve course content and structure and for tenure and promotion decisions. Research on the topic generated more than 2000 studies by 1998 (Wilson, 1998) and the literature is rife with inconclusive outcomes associated with student evaluations. Some studies provide general support for the reliability and validity of student evaluation use (Marlin and Gaynor, 1989; Nimmer and Stone, 1991; Scherr and Scherr, 1990; Byrne, 1992; Tagomori and Bishop, 1995). Other studies indicate that student evaluations suffer from design flaws and cannot accurately capture many aspects of teaching effectiveness (Sheenan, 1975; Cashin, 1983; Rodin and Rodin, 1972; Seldin, 1993; Centra, 1993; Green et al, 1998). Despite the inconsistent results in the literature, a study conducted by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching indicated that approximately 98% of the universities surveyed used some form of student evaluations (Simpson and Siguaw, 2000). Business schools also feel pressure from accrediting bodies such as the American AssocErnest Capozzoli, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Accounting & Information Systems at Kennesaw State University. David Gundersen, Ph.D. is a Professor of Management at Stephen F. Austin State University. Journal of Executive Education Fall 2003 51 Ication of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) where 99.3% use some form of evaluation to monitor performance (Comm and Mathaisel, 1998). Student evaluation data can be used by administrators to plan strategically. Strategically, evaluation data can be used for realignment of university missions and to alter educational offerings. A more crowded and competitive education market is also forcing universities to promote and adopt a customer-driven approach to course offerings. While having great intuitive appeal, the customer-driven approach has shortcomings. Driscoll and Wicks (1998) suggest that a strong marketing orientation may be a potential threat to program quality. They indicate that a marketing approach assumes that student needs and wants are proper to satisfy, that student customers are aware of their needs and can communicate and use them as a basis to make selections. A distinction between customerled and marketoriented marketing approaches is also required (Slater and Narver, 1998). One problem in the customer-led approach is defining the customer (Bailey and Dangerfield, 2000). Is the customer the student, the taxpayer, the organization that hires the student graduate or some other third party? While acknowledgment that all the preceding may constitute “customers,” it is typically the student providing information on teaching performance. Despite potential shortcomings, a more meaningful question is what happens to the resulting data gathered and how is that data used? In a study by Comm and Mathaisel (1998), 71.8% of schools do not share the results of evaluations beyond the faculty and administration. This calls into question the notion that evaluations are used to satisfy customer demands. Also, the evidence that evaluations are used to improve teaching performance is suspect. Evaluation processes often lack followup and quality assurance checks and are often conducted on an annual basis post-facto for data gathering and reporting purposes only (Comm and Mathaisel, 1998). A research project was initiated to analyze student evaluations associated with an executive MBA program of a large regional university. Response rates and influences on ratings of instruction quality were considered in light of the importance placed on student ratings. A key investigation is to determine whether student evaluations warrant the influence universities place on them for determining program success or failure. In short, are response rates numerous enough to make program decisions based on evaluation results? Do superfluous factors influence student evaluations rendering them less useful for the strategic decisions mentioned earlier?
更多
分享
引用
