The purpose of this study was to (a) develop an evaluation instrument capable of rating students' perceptions of the instructional quality of an online course and the instructor’s performance, and (b) validate the proposed instrument with a study conducted at a major public university. The instrument was based upon the Seven Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The study examined four specific questions. 1. Is the underlying factor structure of the new instrument consistent with Chickering and Gamson's Seven Principles? 2. Is the factor structure of the new instrument invariant for male and female students? 3. Are the scores on the new instrument related students’ expected grades? 4. Are the scores on the new instrument related to the students' perceived course workload? The instrument was designed to measure students’ levels of satisfaction with their instruction, and also gathered information concerning the students’ sex, the expected grade in the course, and the students’ perceptions of the amount of work required by the course. A cluster sample consisting of an array of online courses across the disciplines yielded a total 297 students who responded to the online survey. The students for each course selected were asked to rate their instructors with the newly developed instrument. Question 1 was answered using exploratory factor analysis, and yielded a factor structure similar to the Seven Principles. Question 2 was answered by separately factor-analyzing the responses of male and female students and comparing the factor structures. The resulting factor structures for men and women were different. However, 14 items could be realigned under five factors that paralleled some of the Seven Principles. When the scores of only those 14 items were entered in two principal components factor analyses using only men and only women, respectively and restricting the factor structure to five factors, the factor structures were the same for men and women. A weak positive relationship between students’ expected grades and their scores on the instrument was found (Question 3). There was no relationship between students’ perceived workloads for the course and their scores on the instrument (Question 4).

No description available.

Fundamental engineering courses are important to the undergraduate engineering student experience but have been associated with challenging educational environments. Several factors influence the educational environment, although learning experiences are primarily the outcome of interactions between instructors and students. To initiate change, it is important to understand teaching and learning experiences in fundamental engineering courses from the perspectives of the key players in these environments: instructors and students. To accomplish the goal of understanding teaching and learning experiences, I conducted studies that examined instructors' and students' perspectives on their experiences and the educational environments, using qualitative research methodology. Through these studies, this dissertation: 1) examined instructors' beliefs and self-described behaviors, guided by motivation theory and focusing on the role of instructors as socializers in the learning process; 2) considered interacting fundamental engineering courses as a foundational curriculum within engineering curricula to describe the educational environment in these courses from instructors' perspectives; and 3) examined student perceptions of their learning experiences and the educational environments in fundamental engineering courses using responses to open-ended items in end-of-semester student evaluations of teaching surveys. Data indicate that participants strive to integrate strategies that promote effective learning despite challenges posed by course environments, although expected gains from these behaviors may not always be maximized. Students and instructors may benefit from a student-focused, collaborative and holistic course planning process that considers interacting fundamental courses as a foundational curriculum within engineering curricula, and that engages instructors as equal partners in the planning process. Student feedback may be infused into the course planning process by productively and meaningfully utilizing students' responses to end-of-semester student evaluations of teaching surveys. Overall, the results of this dissertation highlight the importance of institutional support, collaboration, and integrating student feedback in the quest for facilitating effective educational environments and positive learning experiences in engineering. / Doctor of Philosophy / Introductory engineering courses are important to engineering students’ college experience but have been associated challenging learning environments. Several factors influence the learning environment, although learning experiences are primarily the outcome of interactions between instructors and students. To initiate change, it is important to understand teaching and learning experiences in introductory engineering courses from the points of view of the key players in these environments: instructors and students. To accomplish the goal of understanding teaching and learning experiences, I conducted qualitative studies that examined instructors’ and students’ points of view on their experiences and the learning environments. Through these studies, this dissertation: 1) examined instructors’ beliefs and self-described behaviors, guided by motivation theory and focusing on the role of instructors as socializers in the learning process; 2) considered interacting introductory engineering courses as a foundational curriculum within engineering curricula to describe the learning environment in these courses from instructors’ points of view; and 3) examined student perceptions of their learning experiences and environments in introductory engineering courses using responses to open-ended items in end-of-semester student evaluations of teaching surveys. Results show that participants strive to integrate strategies that promote effective learning despite challenges posed by learning environments, although the expected benefits from these strategies may not always be realized. Students and instructors may benefit from a student-focused, collaborative and holistic course planning process that considers interacting introductory engineering courses as a foundational curriculum within engineering curricula, and that involves v instructors as equal partners in the planning process. Student feedback may be included in the course planning process by productively and meaningfully using students’ responses to end-of-semester student evaluations of teaching surveys. Overall, the results of this dissertation highlight the importance of institutional support, collaboration, and integrating student feedback in the quest for facilitating effective learning environments and positive learning experiences in engineering.

This study used simulated results to evaluate four alternative methods of computing confidence intervals for class means in the context of student evaluations of teaching in a university setting. Because of the skewed and bounded nature of the ratings, the goal was to identify a procedure for constructing confidence intervals that would be asymmetric and not dependent upon normal curve theory. The four methods included (a) a logit transformation, (b) a resampling procedure, (c) a nonparametric, bias corrected accelerated Bootstrapping procedure, and (d) a Bayesian bootstrap procedure. The methods were compared against four criteria including (a) coverage probability, (b) coverage error, (c) average interval width, and (d) the lower and upper error probability. The results of each method were also compared with a classical procedure for computing the confidence interval based on normal curve theory. In addition, Student evaluations of teaching effectiveness (SET) ratings from all courses taught during one semester at Brigham Young University were analyzed using multilevel generalizability theory to estimate variance components and to estimate the reliability of the class means as a function of the number of respondents in each class. The results showed that the logit transformation procedure outperformed the alternative methods. The results also showed that the reliability of the class means exceeded .80 for classes averaging 15 respondents or more. The study demonstrates the need to routinely report a margin of error associated with the mean SET rating for each class and recommends that a confidence interval based on the logit transformation procedure be used for this purpose.