SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.36 número2Lectura de oraciones en español: similitudes y diferencias entre los niños con dislexia y niños con sorderaRegulación de la cognición: Validación de una escala corta para estudiantes universitarios portugueses de primer año índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Anales de Psicología

versión On-line ISSN 1695-2294versión impresa ISSN 0212-9728

Anal. Psicol. vol.36 no.2 Murcia may./sep. 2020  Epub 14-Dic-2020

https://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.36.2.335431 

Developmental and Educational Psychology

Teaching quality: The satisfaction of university students with their professors

Calidad de la docencia: La satisfacción del alumnado universitario con sus profesores

Jesús Santos del Cerro1  , Cecilia Ruiz-Esteban2  * 

1Universidad Castilla La Mancha (Spain)

2Universidad de Murcia (Spain).

Abstract:

For almost a century now, the concern of universities about student satisfaction with teaching quality has been increasing. A literature review has enabled the attributes of quality teaching to be classified into three main types: pedagogical, generic, and disciplinary. The aim of this paper is to identify the variables that, in the opinion of students, most influence student satisfaction regarding teaching quality. A total of 476 undergraduate students participated from Business Administration and Management of the University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). An ad hoc questionnaire was used to assess student satisfaction with teaching. Parametric (Logistic Regression Analysis) and non-parametric (Decision Tree) models were used. Our data indicate that if the professor explains the subject clearly, is concerned to find out whether the explanations have been understood, and carefully prepares the classes; the teaching-quality assessment will be very satisfactory. The identification of the attributes of quality teaching will enable universities to draw up initial and ongoing training plans for their teaching staff, bearing in mind the crucial role played by generic, pedagogical, and disciplinary competences in professor-student interaction.

Keywords: Teaching quality; Student satisfaction; Higher education; Teaching assessment; Decision tree; Logistic regression

Resumen:

Desde hace casi un siglo la preocupación de las universidades sobre la satisfacción de los estudiantes con la calidad de la docencia recibida se ha ido incrementando. La revisión de la literatura permite clasificar los atributos de una docencia de calidad en tres grandes tipos de competencias: pedagógicas, genéricas y disciplinares. El objetivo de este trabajo es señalar las variables, que a juicio de los estudiantes, más influyen en la satisfacción del alumnado con la calidad de la docencia. Los participantes fueron 476 estudiantes del grado de Administración y Dirección de Empresas de la Universidad Castilla La Mancha. Se utilizó un cuestionario construido ad hoc para valorar la satisfacción de los estudiantes con la docencia. Se utilizaron pruebas paramétricas (Análisis de Regresión Logística) y no paramétricas (árbol de decisión). Nuestros datos indican que si el profesor explica con claridad, se preocupa por averiguar si los conceptos explicados han sido entendidos y prepara sus clases la valoración sobre la calidad de su docencia será muy satisfactoria. El identificar los atributos de una docencia de calidad permitirá a las universidades elaborar planes de formación inicial y permanente de su profesorado teniendo presente el papel crucial que juegan las competencias genéricas, pedagógicas y disciplinares en la interacción profesor-estudiante.

Palabras clave: Calidad de la docencia; satisfacción del alumnado; Educación superior; Evaluación de la docencia; Árbol de decisión; Regresión logística

Introducción

In the mid-1920s, research began in the United States on the evaluation of the teaching quality at the university by applying questionnaires to students in order to determine their level of satisfaction with the teaching. Since then, this methodology has been widely used both nationally and internationally (Apodaka, & Grad, 2002; Cohen, 1980; Feldman, 1996; Marsh, 1987; Tejedor, Jato, & Mínguez, 1988; Villa, & Morales, 1993).

Expressions such as professor satisfaction are being used to measure professor quality. However, the teaching quality may not be used by all institutions and studies. Young and Shaw (2014) argue that the work of the teaching staff at the university is complex and therefore makes it difficult to reach a consensus on what teaching quality is. For Bain (2004), quality teaching is capable of generating optimal learning in students, i.e. permanent cognitive and personal development over time. Thus, some authors have identified the objective of evaluation as a determinant for the type of evaluation (Tejedor, 2003). There is consensus on two major goals, professor improvement and accountability. In recent years, however, universities have assumed that their teaching assessment must cover both objectives.

Several studies show a close relationship between the teaching quality, learning quality, and teaching effectiveness (Devlin, & Samarawickrema, 2010; Glenn et al., 2012). A substantial amount of research indicates that most universities worldwide use student responses to assess teaching as part of their assessment of teaching effectiveness (Abrami, Marilyn, & Raiszadeh, 2001; Hobson, & Talbot, 2001; Sarwar, Dildar, Shah, & Hussain, 2017; Wagenaar, 1995).

Teaching assessment remains controversial. Some authors point out that the student's opinion is a partial view of the construct “teaching competence”. Students are not a valid or reliable source of information on aspects of teaching where conflict of interest or motivation clearly bias their perceptions and assessments. Therefore, many authors hold that student surveys should be complemented with other indicators in order to ensure a more precise evaluation of professors (Apodaka, & Grad, 2002; De Miguel, 1998). Some research concludes that student opinions are not consistent and may vary according to different variables. For example, they argue that questions about students' general perception of the professor tend to produce more positive scores than specific ones regardless of the actual level of effectiveness of teaching (Mittal, & Gera, 2013). Some studies show that using dichotomous attributes such as good-bad (Kelly, 1950) has a major effect on students' judgement of their professors. Other factors influencing student judgements are "Halo and Horns effects" (Vernon, 1964).

In addition, research shows that external factors can also influence students' opinions concerning the effectiveness of teaching and, therefore, the validity of the approach in specific contexts assumes importance for proper professor evaluation. In this regard, Fernández Rico, Fernández Fernández, Álvarez Suárez and Martínez Camblor (2007) pointed to a weak relationship between class size and student satisfaction in the sense that smaller classes give the most positive grades. Marsh and Roche (1993) indicated the positive relationships between the subject's satisfaction and previous interest in the subject and the reason for the subject's choice. Greenwald and Gillmore (1997), Marsh (1987), and Feldman (1996) noted the relationship between professor indulgence in their assessment and student satisfaction with the professor. Moreover, the relationship between student grades and professor satisfaction is evident in the study of Sarwar et al. (2017). However, according to Marsh (1987) and Marsh and Bailey (1993), the scores students give are reliable, in the sense that there is consistency among students. It was also found that students rarely change their perceptions of the professor, even after several years.

Increasing attention is now being paid to measuring the perceived quality of service from the perspective of university students (O'Neill, & Palmer, 2004; Stodnick, & Rogers, 2008). However, this creates other problems such as how to determine the dimensions that are part of this concept of quality. It is therefore essential to determine the types of attributes that students take into account when assessing the quality of teaching received and its relative importance (Nath, & Zheng, 2004). In addition, according to De Miguel (1998, p. 73), they offer information that is "of little relevance so that the professor can clearly perceive the aspects in which he or she is failing and what needs to be improved".

Ever since the establishment of the European Higher Education Area, European universities have seen teaching as a key element of quality assurance: "Professors are the most important learning resource available to the majority of students" (ENQA, 2005, p. 18). In the United States, this indicator has become one of the most prominent indicators in its universities (Fry, Ketteridge, & Marshall, 2008; Marzano, 2010). In Australia, the main concerns in recent years have been the improvement of teaching and the professional development of professors; thus, teaching has become the most important factor in the quality of universities (Lee, Manathunga, & Kandlbinder, 2010).

Jeréz, Orsini and Hasbún (2016) in a systematic review classified the attributes of quality teaching into three main types of competencies. The first corresponds to pedagogical competencies that are composed of teaching and learning strategies and planning and management. The second group according to the relative weight in the quality of teaching is the generic competences, subdivided into personal, attitudinal, and communicative characteristics. The last group corresponds to disciplinary competences. Vergara-Morales, Del Valle, Díaz, Matos, & Pérez (2019) pointed out that students grouped into profiles with higher levels of autonomy for learning, presented the highest levels of academic satisfaction.

The present study aims to contribute to the existing literature on teaching effectiveness by validating a measure of student assessment of teaching effectiveness, assessing the relationship of the dimensions to the overview measurement of general professor satisfaction. In this sense, this work attempts to identify the variables that, in the opinion of the students, have the greatest influence on student satisfaction with the professor. Furthermore, opinion questionnaires are one of the main tools of valuation of a public service such as higher education and, therefore, the results of this study will make available to public and private university managers useful tools to implement mechanisms of improvement. Parametric (logistic regression) and non-parametric (decision tree) techniques are used for this purpose.

Method

Participants

A study was made on the students' perception of the performance of the teaching staff at the University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). The questionnaire was applied to undergraduate students of Business Administration and Management of all the courses and of all the centres and campuses where this degree was offered. The resulting sample (after the cases with missing information had been resolved) included 476 students, mostly between the ages of 18 and 24, with 64.28% being females.

Instrument

A 20-item questionnaire developed ad hoc by the Quality Assessment Office of the University of Castilla-La Mancha was used. The questionnaire concerned the degree of student satisfaction with their professors. Among the explanatory variables used, some were related to the planning of the teaching, others to the attitude of the professor towards the student, some to the evaluation criteria, the bibliography and recommended material, the academic office hours, etc. Thus, the 5 initial items investigated were related to socio-demographic variables. The next 14 items focused on professor's approach to teaching, such as: the information provided by the professor on the objectives and content of the course, whether the course was being prepared, whether the course had been adapted to the skills and content set, the explanation of the course, the recommended bibliography, the ability to arouse interest in the subject, the professor's attitude towards the students, the teaching methods, the evaluation criteria, the concern for the understanding and learning of the students, and the interest generated by the course. Finally, an item was included for a general assessment of the student's satisfaction with the professor (item P20). Students were required to evaluate their professors, scoring statements on an 11-point Likert scale ranging from 'strongly disagree' (0) to 'strongly agree' (10).

The target variable for this work was the so-called P20: “Considering all the above, I am satisfied with the professor’s work”. This in turn was split into satisfied (≥ 7) and not satisfied (< 7).

Procedure

The questionnaire was filled out anonymously at the end of the term in the usual classroom and without the presence of the professor. The application was collective and administered by qualified personnel.

In this study, a logistic regression (LR) was used to relate a dichotomous variable (P20) to a set of continuous variables, which enabled the identification of the significant aspects of student satisfaction with the teaching staff. To analyse the effect of each variable separately, we performed a simple LR (gross odds ratio). In addition, to identify the variables related to satisfaction, we calculated a LR and a stepwise LR in order to reduce the Akaike coefficient (AIC). Ratio probabilities (OR) and 95% confidence interval were calculated for each case. In these multiple models, the fit to the model (McFadden test R2, 1979), the estimation of the coefficients associated with each explanatory variable, as well as an estimation of the Cox-Snell and Nagelkerke determination coefficients were weighted. Non-parametric tests were also used to estimate the same model but with a classification methodology based on decision trees. In this way, both models were compared and conclusions were drawn in addition to those already based on the logistic regression. For both techniques, the total sample was divided into two subsamples, which we called the learning sample, which was used to estimate both models and a validation or test sample that enabled the estimated models to be validated. All analyses were performed with the software R.

Results

The LR model finally proposed drew a relation between the general satisfaction of students with the work of the professor and certain explanatory variables (P6, P9, P13, P16, P18 and P19) described in Table 1. These variables were selected using the criterion of reduction of the Akaike coefficient (AIC).

Table 1 shows the explanatory importance of each of the variables in the model. The explanatory capacity that the variable P6 (“The professor prepares the classes”) presented in our LR model was especially relevant. Secondly, with much less importance appeared the P9 (“The professor explains clearly”). The rest of the variables, although significant, were considerably less important. This means that the professor's assessment by the students depends fundamentally on the quality of the professor's teaching activity in the classroom. The clarity of the explanations and the preparation of the presentations or master classes is a basic element for students to understand the subject, and these are the key aspects to evaluate the satisfaction towards the professor. The variables referring to the professor's attitude towards encouraging students to participate in class (P14) or the professor's receptive attitude towards students (P15) and the quality of attention during office hours (P17) were not significant in explaining general satisfaction with the professor. Neither were aspects that have to do with the information on the objectives and contents of the course (P5 and P7) or whether these were developed and identified during the course (P8 and P10). The usefulness of the recommended teaching materials, bibliography, and other sources of information (P11) was also not significant. On the other hand, the gender variable (P3) was not significant, which means that the assessments on the level of satisfaction are not affected by the gender of the student. Finally, other aspects that proved significant within the model but with less explanatory capacity had to do with attitudes that can be called “teaching excellence”. This involves the ability to stimulate student interest in the subject matter (P13), as well as the attitude of the professor who shows concern and interest in the process of student assimilation of the concepts explained (P18).

Table 1.  Analysis of Deviance. 

As for the estimation of the model itself (see Table 2), we should firstly point out that, according to the Global significance test, it is considered significant as a whole. In other words, the variables included in the model significantly influence student satisfaction with the professor’s work. Each of the explanatory variables was evaluated one by one, and all but two (P9 and P16) proved to be significant for an alpha=5% level of significance. However, for alpha=10%, so were P9 and P16.

Table 2.  Model estimation. 

For the variable P6 (“The professor prepares the classes”), a unit increase in the assessment resulted in an increase of 118.61% in the relative advantage of 1 vs. 0, which is to say that the odds ratio more than doubled, showing the relevant effect that this aspect has on the satisfaction with the professor's teaching activity. The effect of the assessment of the clarity of explanations (P9) was less intense, so that a rise by one point signified an increase of approximately 34.4% in the relative advantage of 1 vs. 0. One point higher in the P18 score (“The professor is concerned to find out whether the concepts explained were understood”) indicated that the probability of being satisfied with the professor augmented by 93.16%. The odds ratio increased by 58.7% when the score was raised by one point of P19 (“It is helpful to attend class to learn the subject properly”). The effect of the other variables of the model was significant but with less influence on the odds ratio or relative advantage of being satisfied as opposed to not being satisfied (P13 and P16) than the first three. All had growing relationships, i.e. better scores tended to boost the likelihood of being satisfied with the professor. The effect of a higher score of each of them, all things being equal, led to an increase of about 30% to 120% in the relative advantage of 1 over 0.

The degree of fit of the model was measured through several coefficients, between which R2 McFadden (68.17%) and R2 Nagelkerke (81.02%) stand out, implying a high degree of goodness of fit and therefore a model with great explanatory capacity.

Regarding the discriminant and predictive capacity of the model, the confusion matrix and the ROC curve were calculated from a random validation sample. The distribution of students in both groups was considered balanced (180 students were unsatisfied, compared to 296 satisfied). Randomizing the sample into two subsamples, we also found that in both the learning and validation subsamples the groups derived from the target variable can be considered balanced.

Table 3.  Balanced subsamples. 

The confusion matrix showed an accuracy of approximately 90%, which reflected a high degree of predictive capacity of the predictive model.

Table 4.  Confusion Matrix. 

The ROC (Receiver operating characteristic) is a curve generated by plotting the true positive rate (TPR) against the false positive rate (FPR) at various threshold settings while the AUC (Area under the curve) is the area under the ROC curve. As a rule of thumb, a model with good predictive ability should have an AUC closer to 1 (1 is ideal) than to 0.5. As reflected in the ROC curve, the optimum classification probability value is 0.502 (almost the same as the one considered in our case: 0.5). In addition, the optimal values for sensitivity and specificity have been 94.7% and 88.1%, respectively (Hanley & McNeil, 1982). The predictive capacity of our model was excellent with an AUC coefficient equal to 0.970.

Finally, following the name Norusis (2008), the calibration of the model was evaluated through the Hosmer and Lemeshow test (1980) in which it was established as a null hypothesis that the observed values coincide with the expected ones. The p value of this test was 0.9949, meaning that our LR model was excellent in terms of predictive capability.

Figure 1.  ROC curve. 

In addition, the same model was estimated but with a classification methodology based on decision trees. In this way, the two models could be compared and additional conclusions to those already arrived at with logistic regression could be drawn. Classification trees are a non-parametric procedure for classifying a dependent variable from a set of predictive or explanatory variables.

Table 5 shows the explanatory importance of each of the variables of the model on the general satisfaction of the student with the teaching activity of the professors.

Table 5.  Explanatory importance of the items. 

In the case of the decision tree, the most relevant variable was P9 (“The professor explains clearly”). The rest of the variables had a lower weight but of a similar order of magnitude. For the two nodes with the highest weight (both with 29% of the total sample) the error rate was zero or negligible. For the terminal node with SATISFIED prediction, the classification was based on two variables: P9 > 6.5 and P18 > 7.5 (“The professor is concerned to find out whether the concepts explained were understood”). For the terminal node NOT SATISFIED, its classification was also based on two variables: P9 < 6.5 and P13 < 5.5 (“The professor helped stir my interest in the subject). The next node in sample importance (16%) has a SATISFIED character and the classification rule was P9 > 6.5, P18 < 7.5 and P6 > 7.5 (”The professor prepares the classes”). The fourth node in sample importance (10%) had a SATISFIED character and the classification rule was as follows: P9 < 6.5, P13 > 5.5 and P18 > 5.5. The remaining four nodes constituted less than 5% of the validation sample and their predictive capacity was significantly high. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that if the professor clearly explains (with a score of more than 6.5), this is practically a necessary condition for the student to consider the professor's teaching activity satisfactory. To this should be added the professor's concern to find out whether the concepts explained were understood and the student's perception that the professor prepared the classes (with ratings higher than 7.5) to explain a satisfactory assessment of the professor. On the other hand, if the professor did not explain with sufficient clarity (score below 6.5) and either did not stir interest in the subject (score below 5.5) or did not take the trouble to find out whether the concepts explained were understood (score below 5.5), this would lead to dissatisfaction with the professor's performance.

Figure 2.  Decision Tree. 

The following table shows the confusion matrix, in which the accuracy measurement is close to 90%, signifying a high predictive capacity of the classification tree.

Table 6.  Confusion Matrix. 

The conditional inference tree is an important variant of traditional decision trees. Trees based on inference are similar to traditional trees but the variables and divisions are based on the significance of some contrasts rather than on measures of purity or homogeneity. The results are similar to those found using the traditional tree.

Figure 3.  Conditional Inference Tree. 

Its matrix of confusion with the validation sample is the following and is similar to that of the traditional classification tree.

Table 7.  Confusion Matrix. 

Discussion

Ensuring the quality of teaching in European universities has become a requirement in management processes (Pozo, Bretones, Martos, & Alonso, 2011) that constitutes a key element of their quality-assurance systems. Teaching quality assessments from Spanish universities lay emphasis on student perceptions, but this aspect should go beyond mere description in order to truly improve university teaching by identifying its weaknesses and strengths (Llorent-Bedmar, & Palma, 2019).

In line with the findings of Monereo and Domínguez (2014), our data indicate that students consider variables related to pedagogical planning and management skills the most important. This means that students' assessments of teaching depend fundamentally on their perception of the class preparation by the professor, whereas the variables related to the information concerning the objectives and contents of the subject as well as with the usefulness of the material did not prove significant.

Bartram and Bailey (2009) noted that 268 students rated as “effective teaching” the performance of a professor who explains and conveys information clearly. In this sense, our study indicates that the type of didactic explanation is the second variable with the greatest weight in the student satisfaction with teaching quality. The communicative characteristics are intended to facilitate understanding through discursive strategies, adjusted to the audience (Monereo, & Domínguez, 2014).

On the other hand, the variables referring to the professor's attitude such as promoting student participation in class, the professor's receptiveness to students and the quality of attention during office hours, which in other research has been deemed important (Cabalín, & Navarro, 2010; Gargallo, 2008; Glenn et al., 2012; Jahangiri, McAndrew, Muzaffar, & Mucciolo, 2013; Monereo, & Domínguez, 2014), did not prove significant in the present study. This may be because with the creation of the EHEA these types of variables have become so common that students no longer consider them exceptional. While other variables, such as the ability to stir interest in the subject or the concern in the process of assimilation of students explain student satisfaction in the present work, in agreement with the findings of other authors (Basow, Phelan, & Capotosto, 2006; Bhattacharya, 2004; Cox, & Swanson, 2002; Jahangiri, et al., 2013; Martínez, García, & Quintanal, 2006; Singh et al., 2013). In line with Tomás & Gutierrez (2019) most important aspect for students’ satisfaction is the subjective perception of well-being. The incorporation of activities that imply support for autonomy can lead to a better perception of classroom instruction and motivation, learning and subjective well-being.

In the study by Cabalín and Navarro (2010) the results found that the most decisive characteristics for teachers were being empathic, first, and expert on their subject in second. However, for students the traits should focus on being respectful and empathic with the students. Previously in Casero (2010) the expertise of their subject was verified as an essential factor of teaching quality, but based on an attitude free of arrogance, evoking interest in student learning from respect and consideration. Another particularity of the good university professors is focused on ambition to achieve changes that involve personal growth among students. Furthermore, all teacher quality surveys should be aimed at achieving personal teacher reflection, which helps teacher to identify strengths and weaknesses and to develop individualized improvement plans.

Delving into the results using non-parametric techniques, for the case of the decision tree, we found that the most relevant variable was a communicative pedagogical competence related to the explanatory capacity of the teaching staff. Secondly, the attitudinal competences related to the empathy of the professor (their concern for the student comprehension). Other authors point out that the students consider it fundamental for the professor to promote student-centred learning through a variety of active learning strategies adapted to student interests and characteristics (Cox and Swanson, 2002; Duvivier, Van Dalen, Van der Vleuten, & Scherpbier, 2009; Friz, Sanhuenza, & Figueroa, 2011; Gargallo, 2008) in line with our results. Our data indicate that if the professor explains clearly, is concerned to find out whether the concepts explained were understood, and ensures that the student perceives that classes were well prepared, and then the teaching-quality assessment will be very satisfactory. On the other hand, if the professor does not explain clearly enough, does not stir student interest in the subject and does not care to find out whether the concepts explained were understood, then the teaching-quality assessment will be negative.

Numerous works (García Ramos, 1997; Villa, & Morales, 1993; Tejedor, 2003) investigate the quality of teaching using both parametric and non-parametric techniques, although the former are clearly dominant. However, few studies have been undertaken in Spanish universities and almost all use exploratory and confirmatory factorial analysis (García Ramos, 1997; Tourón, 1989; Villa, & Morales, 1993), so that this work can help improve teaching activity and measure the quality of service perceived by the perspective of university student.

This study has certain limitations, such as a sample restricted to a single university and a single major. Furthermore, our conclusions are based on correlational relationships, although the combined use of non-parametric evidence allows us to draw conclusions that would be more limited if the logistic regression analysis were used exclusively. Further research on these variables is needed with a representative sample or other research of a similar nature at other universities to corroborate our results.

The results of this study may be of particular relevance to professors, managers, and university faculty trainers. ENQA (2005) noted the responsibility of universities to ensure that their professors are competent and prepared to deliver quality teaching. The type competencies identified are feasible to be learned and trained so that the quality of teaching can be improved. It would be helpful to continue research in the future on the quality components of teaching in higher education, especially with regard to the characteristics of the professor and their impact on student learning. Identifying the attributes of quality teaching will enable universities to plan initial and ongoing training for their teaching staff, taking into account the crucial role played by generic, pedagogical, and disciplinary variables in the professor-student interaction.

Referencias

Abrami, P.C. (1989). How should we use student ratings to evaluate teaching?. Research in Higher Education, 30(2), 221-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992718 [ Links ]

Abrami, P.C., Marilyn, H. M., & Raiszadeh, F. (2001). Business students' perceptions of faculty evaluations. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(1), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540110366097 [ Links ]

Apodaka, P. y Grad, H. (2002). Análisis dimensional de las opiniones de los alumnos universitarios sobre sus profesores (Dimensional analysis of the opinions of university students about their teachers: comparison between parametric and non-parametric techniques). Revista de Investigación Educativa, 20(2), 385-409 [ Links ]

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do? Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [ Links ]

Bartram, B., & Bailey, C. (2009). Different students, same difference?: A comparison of UK and international students' understandings of 'effective teaching'. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 172-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787409104903 [ Links ]

Basow, S. A., Phelan, J. E., & Capotosto, L. (2006). Gender patterns in college students' choices of their best and worst professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00259.x [ Links ]

Bhattacharya, B. (2004). What is 'good teaching' in engineering education in India? A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(3), 329-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290410001733258 [ Links ]

Cabalín, D., & Navarro, N. (2010). Conceptualización de los estudiantes sobre el buen profesor universitario en las carreras de la salud de la Universidad de La Frontera - Chile (Conceptualization of students about the good university professor in health careers at the University of La Frontera - Chile). Int J Morphol, 26, 887-892. [ Links ]

Casero, A. (2010). ¿Cómo es el buen profesor universitario según el alumnado?.Revista española de pedagogía, 246, 223-242. [ Links ]

Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: A meta-analysis of findings. Research in higher education, 13(4), 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00976252 [ Links ]

Cox, S. S., & Swanson, M. S. (2002). Identification of teaching excellence in operating room and clinic settings. American Journal of Surgery, 183(3), 251-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(02)00787-0 [ Links ]

De Miguel, M. (1998). La evaluación del profesorado universitario. Criterios y propuestas para mejorar la función docente (The evaluation of the university teaching staff. Criteria and proposals to improve the teaching function). Revista de Educación, 315, 67-84. [ Links ]

Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903244398 [ Links ]

Duvivier, R. J., Van Dalen, J., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2009). Teacher perceptions of desired qualities, competencies and strategies for clinical skills teachers. Medical Teacher, 31(7), 634-641. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590802578228 [ Links ]

ENQA. (2005). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 41. [ Links ]

Feldman, K. A. (1996). Identifying exemplary teaching: Using data from course and teacher evaluations. New directions for teaching and learning, 65, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966509 [ Links ]

Fernández Rico, J.E., Fernández Fernández, S., Álvarez Suárez, A. y Martínez Camblor, P. (2007). Éxito académico y satisfacción de los estudiantes con la enseñanza universitaria (Academic success and student satisfaction with university education). RELIEVE, 13(2), 203-214. [ Links ]

Friz, M., Sanhueza, S., & Figueroa, E. (2011). Concepciones de los estudiantes para profesor de matemáticas sobre las competencias profesionales implicadas en la enseñanza de la estadística (Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Concepts Regarding the Professional Competencies Involved in the Teaching of Statistics). Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 13, 113-131. [ Links ]

Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2008). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice. London: Routledge. [ Links ]

García Ramos, J. M. (1997). Análisis Factorial Confirmatorio en la validación del constructo competencia docente del profesor universitario. (Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the validation of the teacher's teaching competence construct) Bordón, 49(4), 361-391. [ Links ]

Gargallo, B. (2008). Estilos de docencia y evaluación de los profesores universitarios y su influencia sobre los modos de aprender de sus estudiantes (Teaching and assessment styles of university professors and their influence on the ways of learning of their students). Revista Española de Pedagogía, 66(241), 425-445. [ Links ]

Glenn, D., Patel, F., Kutieleh, S., Robbins, J., Smigiel, H., & Wilson, A. (2012). Perceptions of optimal conditions for teaching and learning: a case study from Flinders University. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.555390 [ Links ]

Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American psychologist, 52(11), 1209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1209 [ Links ]

Hanley, J.A. y McNeil, B.J. (1982). The meaning and use of the área under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC). Radiology, 143(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747 [ Links ]

Hobson, S. M., & Talbot, D.M. (2001). Understanding student evaluations. College Teaching, 49(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550109595842 [ Links ]

Hosmer, D.W. y Lemeshow, S. (1980). A goodness-of-fit test for multiple logistic regression model. Communications in Statistics, 10, 1043-1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610928008827941 [ Links ]

Jahangiri, L., McAndrew, M., Muzaffar, A., & Mucciolo, T. W. (2013). Characteristics of effective clinical teachers identified by dental students: a qualitative study. European Journal of Dental Education, 17(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12012 [ Links ]

Jerez Yañez, Ó., Orsini Sánchez, C. y Hasbún Held, B. (2016). Atributos de una docencia de calidad en la educación superior: una revisión sistemática (Attributes of quality teaching in higher education: a systematic review). Estudios Pedagógicos, 42(3), 483-506. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052016000400026 [ Links ]

Kelly, F. J. (1950). Toward a Better College Teaching (No. 13). Federal Security Agency, Office of Education. [ Links ]

Lee, A., Manathunga, C., & Kandlbinder, P. (2010). Shaping a culture: Oral histories of academic development in Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(3), 307-318. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903252128 [ Links ]

Llorent-Bedmar, V., & Palma, V. C. C. D. (2019). Análisis crítico de las encuestas universitarias de satisfacción docente1 Critical analysis of university teacher satisfaction surveys.Revista de Educación,385, 91-117. [ Links ]

Marsh, H. W. & Roche, L. (1993). The use of students' evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 217-251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312030001217 [ Links ]

Marsh, H. W. (1987). Student's evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 253-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(87)90001-2 [ Links ]

Marsh, H. W. y Bailey, M. (1993). Multidimensional students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1993.11778406 [ Links ]

Martínez, M. M., García, B., & Quintanal, J. (2006). El perfil del profesor universitario de calidad desde la perspectiva del alumnado (The qualified university teacher from the students' perception). Educación XXI, 9(1), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.9.0.325 [ Links ]

Marzano, R. J. (2010). On excellence in teaching. Bloomington: Solution Tree. [ Links ]

Mittal, S., & Gera, R. (2013). Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (SET): An SEM Study in Higher Education in India. International. Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(10), 289-298 [ Links ]

Monereo, C., & Dominguez, C. (2014). La identidad docente de los profesores universitarios competentes (The teaching identity of competent university teacher). Educación XX1, 17(2), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.17.2.11480 [ Links ]

Nath, A., & Zheng, L. (2004). Perception of service quality in E-commerce: An analytical study of Internet auction sites (Unpublished Master dissertation). [ Links ]

Norusis, M.J. (2008). SPSS Statistics 17.0 Statistical Procedures Companion. Prentice-Hall Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ. [ Links ]

O'Neill, M. A., & Palmer, A. (2004). Importance-performance analysis: a useful tool for directing continuous quality improvement in higher education. Quality assurance in education, 12(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880410517423 [ Links ]

Pozo, C., Bretones, B., Martos, J. M., & Alonso, E. (2011). Evaluación de la actividad docente en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior: un estudio comparativo de indicadores de calidad en universidades europeas (Evaluation of the educational activity in the European Space of Higher Education: A comparative study of quality indicators in European Universities). Revista Española de Pedagogía, 69(248), 145-163. [ Links ]

Sarwar, M., Dildar, M., Shah, A. A., & Hussain, S. (2017). Relationship among Students' Academic Achievement, Students' Evaluation of Teacher and Students' Evaluation of Course. Dialogue, 12(1), 50. [ Links ]

Singh, S., Pai, D. R., Sinha, N. K., Kaur, A., Soe, H. H. K., & Barua, A. (2013). Qualities of an effective teacher: what do medical teachers think? Medical Education, 13(128), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-128 [ Links ]

Stodnick, M., & Rogers, P. (2008). Using SERVQUAL to measure the quality of the classroom experience. Decision Sciences. Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 115-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00162.x [ Links ]

Tejedor, F. J. (2003). Un modelo de evaluación del profesorado universitario (An evaluation model for university professors). Revista de Investigación Educativa, 21(1), 157-182. [ Links ]

Tejedor, F. J., Jato, E., & Mínguez, C. (1988). Evaluación del profesorado universitario por los alumnos de la universidad de Santiago (Evaluation of the university professors by the students of the University of Santiago). Studia Paedagogica, 20, 73-134. [ Links ]

Tejedor, F. J., Jato, E., & Mínguez, C. (1988). Evaluación del profesorado universitario por los alumnos de la universidad de Santiago (Evaluation of the university professors by the students of the University of Santiago). Studia Paedagogica, 20, 73-134. [ Links ]

Tourón, J. (1989). La validación de constructo: su aplicación al CEED (cuestionario de evaluación de la eficacia docente) (Construct validation: its application to the CEED (teacher effectiveness evaluation questionnaire)). Bordón, 41(4), 735-756. [ Links ]

Vergara-Morales, J., Del Valle, M., Díaz, A., Matos, L., & Pérez, M. V. (2019). Motivational profiles related to the academic satisfaction of university students.Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology,35(3), 464-471. [ Links ]

Vernon, P.E. (1964). Personality Assessment: a critical survey. London: Methuen. [ Links ]

Villa, A. y Morales, P. (1993). La evaluación del profesor (Teacher’ evaluation). Vitoria-Gasteiz: Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco. [ Links ]

Wagenaar, T.C. (1995). Student evaluation of teaching: some cautions and suggestions. Teaching Sociology, 64(1), 64-68. https://doi.org/10.2307/1319382 [ Links ]

Young, S., & Shaw, D. G. (2014). Profiles of Effective College and University Teachers. The Journal of Higher Education, 70, 670-686. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1999.11780803 [ Links ]

Annex 1.

Received: June 26, 2018; Revised: December 02, 2019; Accepted: December 16, 2019

*Correspondence address [Dirección para correspondencia]: Cecilia Ruiz-Esteban, Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Campus de Espinardo, Universidad de Murcia. 30100 Espinardo, Murcia (Spain). E-mail: cruiz@um.es

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License