Course selection: student preferences for instructor practices.
Pass, Michael W. ; Mehta, Sanjay S. ; Mehta, Gurinderjit B. 等
INTRODUCTION
Colleges guide students through the process of selecting courses to
meet requirements for academic majors. The students' choices
influence their development of competencies, the selection of future
courses, and career choices (Babad, 2001). They seek information to make
well-informed decisions by referring to degree requirements, class
schedules, course descriptions, instructor profiles, on-line rating
services (e.g., RateMyProfessor.com) and other sources of information.
They also rely on the opinions of fellow students and their own previous
experiences with instructors. The course selection process is not a
"uniform decision-making process repeated several times" but
it is "a flexible mixture of factors, academic and personal
considerations, idiosyncratic needs, and expected utilities."
(Babad & Tayeb, 2003, p. 376).
Opportunities exist to shape students beliefs (i.e. expectations)
by providing them with accurate and meaningful information as they
select courses. Doing this necessitates knowing and placing attention on
what matters to students when they compare courses and multiple sections
of classes. This study contributes to the literature by revealing
students' preferences for course and instructor related attributes;
these function as criteria for students when selecting classes. Findings
complement research on course selection with respect to student ratings
of instructors (e.g., Leventhal, Abrami, Perry & Breen, 1975;
Leventhal, Abrami & Perry, 1976), student self concept (Marsh &
Yeung, 1997), students' sources for information (Kerin, Harvey
& Crandall, 1975), and relationships between the types of
information provided and instructor evaluations (Babad, Darley &
Kaplowitz, 1999).
BACKGROUND
When class sections taught by different instructors are available,
the Students' Ratings of Teachers/Instructors (SRT) may be used as
a source of information. However, some colleges do not make SRTs
available and the statistical format may be difficult to interpret
correctly (Babad, Darley & Kaplowitz, 1999). Use of SRTs may also be
limited among students taking upper-level courses (i.e. juniors and
seniors). They may rely more on the opinions of fellow students because
SRTs appear to have a stronger influence on those choosing lower-level
course choices (Wilhelm, 2004). The SRTs may be less meaningful to
upper-level students, thus leading them to rely more on other students
for input when selecting courses. This would not pose a problem except
that the advice from other students may be inaccurate and inappropriate
(Dellar, 1994). The influence and inaccuracies of personal word-of-mouth
advice is described by Borgida and Nisbett (1977) as the "brief and
vivid face-to-face comments from another person" having a great
impact on course selection "despite their informational
deficiencies" (Babad, Darley & Kaplowitz, 1999, p. 159).
Whether relying on SRTs, or fellow students, information related to the
preferences of students may not be available; so students are less
likely to make the best course choices.
It is important to know student preferences for the academic
setting because they represent criteria used for comparisons of courses
and multiple sections of classes. Students also consider their
preferences to estimate their own potential for success when taking a
course and the estimates influence their academic performance. When
information related to the preferences (e.g., teaching methods) is
conveyed to students, via SRTs or other means, a student can select the
most preferable conditions available. The alignment of course conditions
with preferences is likely to increase the belief, or expectation, that
a course will be completed successfully. In turn, the student's
anticipated success influences persistence and subsequent achievement of
course objectives (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). This reasoning is
similar to the idea that matching learning methods preferred by students
with instructor teaching approaches directly influences performance in a
course (Davis, Misra & van Auken, 2000).
Learning about the students' preferences and attending to them
also has the potential to improving instructor evaluations, reported as
SRTs. Theoretically, the evaluations are likely to improve when students
receive accurate and meaningful information before course selection.
When selecting a course, more accurate student expectations are formed
that are compared to what actually occurs as a course is completed. The
student's degree of satisfaction is derived from these comparisons.
Consumer satisfaction literature supports this explanation when
describing one's level of satisfaction being formed by a gap; the
difference between what is expected and perceptions of the extent these
expectations are fulfilled (Oliver, 1980; Zeithaml, Berry &
Parasuraman, 1993; Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1994). Moreover,
the influence of providing meaningful information is indicated by
research findings that show associations between types of information
provided before course selection and instructor evaluations (Babad,
Darley & Kaplowitz, 1999).
In summary, students are less likely to make the best course
choices when they lack meaningful information and the opinions they
obtain may provide inaccurate information. To determine what is
meaningful to students, an understanding of their preferences is needed
because these function as criteria considered when selecting courses. As
explained, when information related to these criteria is provided, there
is the potential for better academic performance because students may
select courses that align with their preferences. Also, SRT may improve
because the students' expectations are likely to be more accurate
when information related to the criteria is provided.
COURSE SELECTION CRITERIA
Two broad areas represent student criteria (i.e. preferences)
considered during the course selection process: (1) academic, such as
course and instructor characteristics; and (2) personal, such as a need
to work while attending school (Babad & Tayeb, 2003). We place
attention on the academic area by obtaining student feedback with
respect to instructor practices. Academic criteria (i.e. course and
instructor characteristics) are suggested by several studies examining
student preferences and expectations for instructors. These are not
fully reviewed here but are well summarized by Whitlark, Geurts, and
Rhoads (2002) and Chonko, Tanner, and Davis (2002). Two of the previous
studies highlight areas we examined to learn more about student
preferences, used as criteria, when selecting courses. Grunenwald and
Ackerman (1986) followed a modified Delphi technique with students to
identify eight factors associated with good teaching: availability,
communication skills, grading, interaction, and knowledge of the
subject, rapport with students, teaching skills, and testing. Table 1
presents these factors with attributes from another study that were
determined by asking students to describe the most important thing they
expected of their instructors (Chonko, Tanner & Davis, 2002).
Criteria Examined
Findings from the aforementioned studies were used to guide
criteria selection for the current study. Table 1 presents the
attributes found by Chonko, Tanner and Davis (2002) matched-up with the
ranking of factors provided by Grunenwald and Ackerman (1986). The third
column (in Table 1) presents student preferences (i.e. criteria)
examined in this study. These were determined from focus groups with
students and based on our desire to examine potential actions that can
be taken by instructors to meet student preferences. Therefore, the
criteria suggest things considered as students select courses and what
instructors "can do"; placing attention on them may also
improve instructors' SRT scores. As noted, the potential for
improved SRT by informing students, in advance, about course details is
supported in the literature.
Previous research, focusing on students' academic
considerations, indicated nine variables representing characteristics
referred to when students select courses (Babad, Darley & Kaplowitz,
1999). These variables are similar to the factors and attributes
presented in Table 1 and many of the preferences we examined. They were
revealed by a content analysis of the Princeton Course Guide; it is
written by Princeton University students and provides full information
about forthcoming courses. The nine variables were significantly related
to instructor ratings that were obtained after course completion.
Specifically, the instructor variables included: personality, knowledge
and expertise, approachability, and use of humor. The course variables
were workload difficulty, interesting readings and papers, grading
leniency, interesting course, and any criticisms of the course.
METHODOLOGY
Questionnaires were administered to a sample of students taking
classes at a mid-size southwestern public university. In order to
provide more legitimacy and accuracy to the study, responses were
obtained from a proportionately larger percentage of students taking
upper-division courses because they tend to have more experience in
course selection, have experiences with a variety of instructors, and
previous research suggests they rely less on SRTs for information
(Wilhelm, 2004). We took a pluralistic approach to this study;
qualitative research was followed by quantitative research.
The questionnaire was developed after completion of two focus
groups. One was held to explore the topic and the second one confirmed
which attributes to examine in the study. The questionnaire was
pretested with a convenience sample of students to verify the format and
appropriate wording. During the pretest, any additional preferences that
were not identified during the two focus group sessions with students
were incorporated into the final version. The questionnaire informed
students of the study purpose to better understand the process they go
through when determining their semester class schedule. Statements
pertaining to student preferences for instructor provided resources,
instructor approaches to learning assessment (i.e. testing and grading)
and other areas of interest were presented. Student considered times
when they selected courses and reported the extent with which they
preferred the attribute by responding to a 7 point Likert-type scale
(1-Strongly Disagree, 7-Strongly Agree).
A total of 241 useable questionnaires were completed for data
analyses. Respondents were males (52%) and females (48%) classified as
freshmen (5%), sophomores (8%), juniors (29%), seniors (54%), and other
(4%). During the semester, 40% of the students took 13-18 course credit
hours and 50% were taking 6-12 hours. Respondents reported working each
week 1-10 hours (15%), 11-20 hours (29%) and 21-30 hours (27%) with 18%
not working. The majority of students held an overall GPA of 2.01-3.00
(67%) and 29% reported a GPA above 3.00.
FINDINGS
Students reported they prefer taking classes from professors that
taught them previously (mean 5.25, SD 1.37) and would like to enroll in
the same classes that friends plan to take (mean 4.21, SD 1.74). Work
schedules are considered when selecting courses (mean 4.37, SD 2.00) and
students prefer courses with lenient attendance policies (mean 4.51, SD
1.76). In addition, they want to take classes from instructors that
maintain regular office hours (mean 5.37, SD 1.50).Findings related to
student preferences for assessment practices and learning resources are
reported in Table 2.
Regarding assessment, they place a relatively strong emphasis on
knowing about testing formats used by an instructor and whether or not
extra credit activities will be available. Consideration of an
instructor's use of graded homework assignments and the grading
system is relatively lower as compared to that given to testing formats
and extra credit activities. Learning resources (Table 2) represent
actions by an instructor that enhance learning and improve the
student's success with assessment activities (e.g., exams).
Students prefer courses in which the instructor places previous exams on
reserve at the library and makes lecture notes available before class
meetings. On average, the use of regular homework is not preferred by
students as indicated by a mean score of 3.15 (SD 1.49) that is lower
than the 7 point scale midpoint. Student preference for a required
textbook is essentially neutral (mean 3.58, SD 1.71).
DISCUSSION
This study examined preferences of students considered as criteria
when they complete the process of course selection. By doing so, the
findings indicate student driven course selection criteria that should
be communicated to them in order to improve the course selection
process. Providing students with meaningful information to support
course selection could also result in academic performance improvements
as well as increases in SRTs. Findings supplement previously noted
research that examined students' expectations for instructors and
what students believe about them to be most important.
Students' strong preference for taking classes from
instructors they know indicates their desire to function with accurate
beliefs about a class and the individual teaching it. Since
opportunities for this may not be available, the students' desire
related to this preference may be handled in two ways. First, colleges
could distribute course syllabi, in advance of course selections (i.e.
prior to registration), so that students have information related to
instructor practices. To be effective with this initiative, instructors
would update syllabi to reflect their approaches in relation to student
preferences that function as selection criteria. Many instructors
already include information related to these preferences but may have
overlooked some that were found in this study to be meaningful.
Secondly, the students' desire to know more about a course and
instructor could be handled by having student and faculty "meet and
greets." These would facilitate interactions between students and
faculty and might be informal get-togethers, or more formal events,
including instructors' overviews of their classes.
In addition to communicating information related to student
preferences, instructors can take steps to modify course components
based on the preferences. This could improve student satisfaction with
the course, thus increasing their SRT. Instructors could first place
attention on attributes associated with the stronger student
preferences. Considering both the assessment and learning resource areas
(Table 1), the assessment preferences would first receive attention.
Specifically, it is important to confirm with students that the testing
format is acceptable and that extra credit opportunities are made
available. Following these actions, an instructor would want to focus on
the learning resource area by placing previous exams on reserve at the
library and distributing lecture notes (e.g., Powerpoint handouts) for
use during each class.
This study will hopefully stimulate discussion to advance research
activity in the area of student course selection. It would be beneficial
to obtain instructors views of student preferences and compare them to
those held by students. This could be done using a dyadic approach to
examine potential gaps and their influence on students' academic
performance, course satisfaction, and SRT. In addition, changes in the
very nature of students' preferences may also be revealed through
more research. For instance, this study showed that students prefer
instructors that maintain regular office hours. However, technology may
have changed students' perceptions of the "office";
asynchronous communication (e.g., e-mail) may be perceived as an
acceptable substitute for face-to-face interactions at a campus office.
If this were found to be true, there would be support for making changes
in the way instructors manage their schedules.
Future research could also explore the effectiveness of different
ways to inform students of course characteristics and increase their
familiarity with instructors. Much of this information is obtained via
student word-of-mouth and SRT reports, but students also refer to
instructor rating web-sites and may utilize social networks. Examining
the extent with which they refer to these sources would suggest where
colleges can inform students. Assessing the accuracy of information
conveyed by these sources would also be beneficial. Research may reveal
information that is not being provided and certain types of information
that are inaccurate. Colleges addressing these issues are likely to
improve outcomes of the course selection process.
REFERENCES
Babad, E., J.M. Darley & H. Kaplowitz (1999). Developmental
aspects in students' course selection. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91(1), 157-168.
Babad, E. & A. Tayeb (2003). Experimental analysis of
students' course selection. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73(3), 373-393.
Borgida, E. & R. Nisbett (1977). The differential impact of
abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 7(3), 258-271.
Chonko, L., J.F. Tanner & R. Davis (2002). What are they
thinking? Students' expectations and self-assessments. Journal of
Education for Business, 77(5), 271-281.
Davis, R., S. Misra & S. van Auken (2000). Relating pedagogical
preference of marketing seniors and alumni to attitude toward the major.
Journal of Marketing Education, 22(2), 147-154.
Dellar, G. (1994). The school subject selection process: A case
study. Journal of Career Development, 20(3), 185-204
Eccles, J.S. & A. Wigfield (2002). Motivational beliefs,
values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
Grunenwald, J.P. & L. Ackerman (1986). A modified delphi
approach for the development of student evaluations of faculty teaching.
Journal of Marketing Education 8(2), 32-38.
Kerin, R., M. Harvey & N. Crandall (1975). Student course
selection in a non-requirement programme: An exploratory study. Journal
of Educational Research, 68(5), 175-177.
Leventhal, L., P. Abrami & R. Perry (1976). Do teacher rating
forms reveal as much about students as about teachers? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 68(4), 441-445.
Leventhal, L., P. Abrami, R. Perry & L. Breen (1975). Section
selection in multi-section courses: Implications for the validation and
use of teacher rating forms. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
35(4), 885-895
Marsh, H.W. & A.S. Yeung (1997). Coursework selection:
Relations to academic self-concept and achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 34(4), 691-720.
Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research,
17(4), 460-69.
Parasuraman, A., V.A. Zeithaml & L.L. Berry (1994).
Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring
service quality: Implications for further research. Journal of
Marketing, 58(1), 111-124.
Whitlark, D.B., M.D. Geurts & G.K. Rhoads (2002). Student
evaluations of teaching: A literature review of evaluation instruments.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Marketing Educators'
Association, 1921, April, San Diego, CA.
Wilhelm, W.B. (2004). The relative influence of published teaching
evaluations and other instructor attributes on course choice. Journal of
Marketing Education, 26(1), 17-30.
Zeithaml, V.A., L.L. Berry & A. Parasuraman (1993). The nature
and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 1-12.
Michael W. Pass, Sam Houston State University
Sanjay S. Mehta, Sam Houston State University
Gurinderjit B. Mehta, Sam Houston State University
Table 1: Student Course Selection: Instructor Related Attributes
Factor * Rank Attribute Percentage Current
of Students Study
Expressing ** Attributes
Examined
Communication 1 Interesting 11.9 Course
Skills syllabus
Communicates 10.7 available
ell before course
selection
Easy to Talk 10.3
to
Interested in 4.0
Subject
Enthusiastic 2.7
Loves to Teach 1.9
Sense of Humor 1.5
Rapport with 2 Wants Students 1.4 Know
Students to Learn instructor
before
Good 7.9 course
Personality selection
Kind 6.0
Understanding 4.7
Teaching 3 Organized 1.10 Previous
Skills exams on
Helps 11.6 reserve
Students Lecture notes
available
Uses notes
from text
book Requires
text book
Gives regular
homework
Knowledge of 4 Knowledgeable 3.4
Subject
Experienced 1.1
Grading 5 Fair 2.5 Acceptable
grading
system Extra
credit
opportunities
Homework is
graded
Interaction 6 Easy-going 1.2 Lenient
Style attendance
policy
Open-minded 1.1
Testing 7 No Attributes Type of
Categorized testing
format
Availability 8 No Attributes Keeps regular
Categorized office hours
Table 2: Student Course Selection: Preferences for
Instructor Practices
Assessment (1-Strongly Disagree, n Mean SD
7-Strongly Agree)
Testing format (multiple choice or 241 5.41 1.46
essay) is important
Instructor must provide opportunities to 240 5.35 1.69
earn extra credit
Instructor collects and grades all 241 3.78 1.89
assigned homework
Chooses classes based on the grading 241 3.76 1.64
system
Learning Resources (1-Strongly Disagree, 7-Strongly Agree)
Instructor must keep previous exams on 240 4.62 1.58
reserve at library
Lecture notes must be made available 240 4.56 1.70
prior to class
Class notes must come from the text book 241 3.71 1.76
Instructor must require a text book for 241 3.58 1.71
the course
Instructor must give regular homework 239 3.15 1.49
