Student evaluation of teaching: the use of best–worst scaling

References

• Attarian, A. 1996. “Using Importance-performance Analysis to Evaluate Teaching Effectiveness.” In Proceedings of the 1995 International Conference on Outdoor Recreation and Education, edited by R. Koesler and R. Watters, 145–150. Pocatello, ID: Idaho State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Auger, P., T. Devinney, and J. Louviere. 2007. “Using Best–Worst Scaling Methodology to Investigate Consumer Ethical Beliefs across Countries.” Journal of Business Ethics 70: 299–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badri, M., M. Abdulla, M. Kamali, and H. Dodeen. 2006. “Identifying Potential Biasing Variables in Student Evaluation of Teaching in a Newly Accredited Business Program in the UAE.” International Journal of Educational Management 20 (1): 43–59.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, H., and J. Steenkamp. 2001. “Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation.” Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2): 143–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, P., C. Burton, T. Huybers, J. Louviere, and C. Wise. 2007. “Museum Visitors Care about Everything! Using Best–Worst Scaling for Strategic Focus.” In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference of the Australia New Zealand Marketing Academy, edited by M. Thyne, K. Deans, and J. Gnoth, 459–467. Dunedin: University of Otago and ANZMAC.
   Google Scholar
• Chrzan, K., and N. Golovashkina. 2006. “An Empirical Test of Six Stated Importance Measures.” International Journal of Market Research 48 (6): 717–740.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayson, D., and M. Sheffet. 2006. “Personality and the Student Evaluation of Teaching.” Journal of Marketing Education 28 (2): 149–160.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, S. 2003. “Maximum Difference Scaling: Improved Measures of Importance and Preference for Segmentation.” In Proceedings of the 2003 Sawtooth Software Conference, 1–18. San Diego, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, E. 2009. “Applying Best–Worst Scaling to Wine Marketing.” International Journal of Wine Business Research 21 (1): 8–23.
   Google Scholar
• Colbourn, D., and J. Dinitz. 1996. Handbook of Combinatorial Designs. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. 1950. “Further Evidence on Response Sets and Test Design.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 10: 3–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, M., J. Hirschberg, J. Lye, and C. Johnston. 2007. “Let’s Evaluate the Possibilities.” The Australian Newspaper, September 12.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, M., J. Hirschberg, J. Lye, and C. Johnson. 2010. “A Systematic Analysis of Quality of Teaching Surveys.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (1): 83–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dochy, F., M. Segers, and D. Sluijsmans. 1999. “The Use of Self-, Peer and Co-assessment in Higher Education: A Review.” Studies in Higher Education 24 (3): 331–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolnicar, S., and B. Gruen. 2007. “Cross-cultural Differences in Survey Response Patterns.” International Marketing Review 24 (2): 127–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn, A., and J. Louviere. 1992. “Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 11 (1): 12–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn, T., J. Louviere, T. Peters, and J. Coast. 2007. “Best-Worst Scaling: What It Can Do for Health Care Research and How to do It.” Journal of Health Economics 26: 171–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. 1997. “Validity Concerns and Usefulness of Student Ratings of Instruction.” American Psychologist 52 (11): 1182–1186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hein, K., S. Jaeger, B. Carr, and C. Delahunty. 2008. “Comparison of Five Common Acceptance and Preference Methods.” Food Quality and Preferences 19: 651–661.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isley, P., and H. Singh. 2005. “Do Higher Grades Lead to Favourable Student Evaluations?” Journal of Economic Education 36: 29–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kember, D., and D. Leung. 2008. “Establishing the Validity and Reliability of Course Evaluation Questionnaires.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (4): 341–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koh, H., and T. Tan. 1997. “Empirical Investigation of the Factors Affecting SET Results.” International Journal of Educational Management 11 (4): 170–178.
   Google Scholar
• Langbein, L. 2008. “Management by Results: Student Evaluation of Faculty Teaching and the Mis-measurement of Performance.” Economics of Education Review 27: 417–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. 2004. “Importance-Performance Analysis.” Australasian Journal of Engineering Education 2: 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Louviere, J., D. Street, L. Burgess, N. Wasi, T. Islam, and A. Marley. 2008. “Modeling the Choices of Individual Decision-makers by Combining Efficient Choice Experiment Designs with Extra Preference Information.” Journal of Choice Modelling 1: 126–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marley, A., and J. Louviere. 2005. “Some Probabilistic Models of Best, Worst, and Best–Worst Choices.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 49: 464–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martilla, J., and J. James. 1977. “Importance-Performance Analysis.” Journal of Marketing 41: 77–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazanov, J., T. Huybers, and J. Connor. 2012. “Prioritising Health in Anti-doping: What Australians Think.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 15: 381–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, J., and A. Mills. 2007. “Flaws in the SET System.” The Australian Newspaper, September 12.
   Google Scholar
• McKeachie, W. 1997. “Student Ratings: The Validity of Use.” American Psychologist 52 (11): 1218–1225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nale, R., D. Rauch, S. Wathen, and P. Barr. 2000. “An Exploratory Look at the Use of Importance-Performance Analysis as a Curricular Assessment Tool in a School of Business.” Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today 12 (4): 139–145.
   Google Scholar
• Nygaard, C., and D. Belluigi. 2011. “A Proposed Methodology for Contextualised Evaluation in Higher Education.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36 (6): 657–671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill, M., and A. Palmer. 2004. “Importance-Performance Analysis: A Useful Tool for Directing Continuous Quality Improvement in Higher Education.” Quality Assurance in Education 12 (1): 39–52.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A., and G. Weems. 2004. “Response Categories on Rating Scales – Characteristics of Item Respondents Who Frequently Utilize Midpoint.” Research in the Schools 11 (1): 50–59.
   Google Scholar
• Ortinau, D., A. Bush, R. Bush, and J. Twible. 1989. “The Use of Importance-Performance Analysis for Improving the Quality of Marketing Education: Interpreting Faculty-Course Evaluations.” Journal of Marketing Education 11 (2): 78–86.
   Google Scholar
• Palermo, J. 2013. “Linking Student Evaluations to Institutional Goals: A Change Story.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (2): 211–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick, C. 2011. “Student Evaluations of Teaching: Effects of the Big Five Personality Traits, Grades and the Validity Hypothesis.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36 (2): 239–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pike, S. 2004. “The Use of Repertory Grid Analysis and Importance-Performance Analysis to Identify Determinant Attributes of Universities.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 14 (2): 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Pounder, J. 2007. “Is Student Evaluation of Teaching Worthwhile? An Analytical Framework for Answering the Question.” Quality Assurance in Education 15 (2): 178–191.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. 2005. “Instruments for Obtaining Student Feedback: A Review of the Literature.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 30 (4): 387–415.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. 2012. “The Role of Response Biases in the Relationship between Students’ Perceptions of Their Courses and Their Approaches to Studying in Higher Education.” British Educational Research Journal 38 (3): 399–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rolfe, H. 2002. “Students’ Demands and Expectations in an Age of Reduced Financial Support: The Perspectives of Lecturers in Four English Universities.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 24 (2): 171–182.
   Google Scholar
• Saroyan, A., and C. Amundsen. 2001. “Evaluating University Teaching: Time to Take Stock.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 26 (4): 341–353.
   Google Scholar
• Sproule, R. 2000. “Student Evaluation of Teaching: A Methodological Critique of Conventional Practices.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 8 (50). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n50.html.
   Google Scholar
• Stowell, J., W. Addison, and J. Smith. 2012. “Comparison of Online and Classroom-based Student Evaluations of Instruction.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37 (4): 465–473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Street, D., and A. Street. 1987. Combinatorics of Experimental Design. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Surgenor, P. 2013. “Obstacles and Opportunities: Addressing the Growing Pains of Summative Student Evaluation of Teaching.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (3): 363–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swait, J., and J. Louviere. 1993. “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 30: 305–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szeinbach, S., J. Barnes, W. McGhan, M. Murawski, and R. Corey. 1999. “Using Conjoint Analysis to Evaluate Health State Preferences.” Drug Information Journal 33: 849–858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurstone, L. 1927. “A Law Comparative Judgment.” Psychological Review 34: 273–286.
   Google Scholar
• Voss, R., and T. Gruber. 2006. “The Desired Teaching Qualities of Lecturers in Higher Education: A Means End Analysis.” Quality Assurance in Education 14 (3): 217–242.
   Google Scholar
• Webster, C. 1990. “Evaluation of Marketing Professors: A Comparison of Student, Peer and Self Evaluations.” Journal of Marketing Education 12 (1): 11–17.
   Google Scholar
• Yorke, M. 2009. “‘Student Experience’ Surveys: Some Methodological Considerations and an Empirical Investigation.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (6): 721–739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar