A Study on Professors' Adeptness and Students' Expectations on Perceived Student Learning Outcomes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2020/v13i1/149945Keywords:
Education Management
, Higher Education, Learning Outcome, NAAC, NBA, Professors' Adeptness, Student Engagement.JEL Classification
, A2, I21, I22, I23.Paper Submission Date
, June 3, 2019, Paper Sent Back for Revision, November 16, Paper Acceptance Date, December 15, 2019.Abstract
Higher education plays a major role in defining the education system in India. This paper aimed at devising a structural equation model on professors' adeptness, students' expectations, and student perceived learning outcomes among engineering college students studying in Chennai. The study analyzed the impact of faculty performance and students’ expectations on perceived performance of the students. A structured questionnaire was administered for gathering the data. Primary data were collected from 250 engineering college students in Chennai. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to identify the various faculty performance factors, students’ expectations, and their effect on students’ performance. The results suggested that faculty behaviors and attitudes affect students profoundly, which in turn suggests that teachers play the single-most important role in student learning outcomes.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
References
Aggarwal, R. (2017). Economics of E-learning in higher education: The Indian case. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 10(6), 40-48. https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i6/115374
Bagga, T., Bansal, S., Kumar, P., & Jain, S. (2016). New wave of accreditation in Indian higher education : Comparison of accreditation bodies for management programmes. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 9(8), 26-40. https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2016/v9i8/99778
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bowden, J., & D'Alessandro, S. (2011). Co-creating value in higher education: the role of interactive classroom response technologies. Asian Social Science, 7(11), 35-49. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n11p35
Degroot M. H., Ferber, R., Frankel, M. R., Seneta, E., Watson, G. S., Kotz, S. (1982). Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Faa Di Bruno's formula to hypothesis testing. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Dužević, I. (2015). A conceptual framework for analysing the impact of influences on student engagement and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(1), 66-79. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.1000368
Evans, C. T. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120. https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jankowski, N. A. (2017). Unpacking relationships: instruction and student outcomes. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Kaiser, H.F (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817
Kalvakolanu, S., Balaji, D., & Bommaraju, S. (2018). Learning approaches: Whether demographics matter? - A study on business management students. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 11(7), 7-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2018/v11i7/129936
Kaufer, D. (n.d.). What can neuroscience research teach us about teaching ? Berkeley Graduate Division. Retrieved from http://gsi.berkeley.edu/programs-services/hsl-project/hsl-speakers/kaufer/
Ngware, M. W., & Ndirangu, M. (2005). An improvement in instructional quality: Can evaluation of teaching effectiveness make a difference? Quality Assurance in Education, 13(3), 183-201. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880510607936
Pat, H. (2016). Aligning educational outcomes and practices (Occasional Paper No. 26). Urbana, IL: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, University of Illinois and Indiana University.
Plybour, C. (2015). Integrating formative assessment into physics instruction: The effect of formative vs. summative assessment on student physics learning and attitudes (Doctoral Dissertation 536). Kalamazoo, MI : Western Michigan University. http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/536
Pollock, S. (2014). Interactive engagement in upper-division physics. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(3), 34-36. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2014.905425
Ramanathan, V. (2018). Internalization of higher education in India: Existing realities and future outlook.
Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 11(6), 40-52. https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2018/v11i6/128441
Tinto, V. (2012). Enhancing student success: Taking the classroom success seriously. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(1), 1-8. https://fyhejournal.com/article/download/119/120/119-1666-1-10-20120315.pdf
