Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 79–99 | Cite as

Identifying factors underlying the quality of online teaching effectiveness: An exploratory study

  • Arthur W. Bangert


TRADITIONALLY CAMPUS-BASED COURSES rely on student evaluations to provide instructors with feedback about their teaching effectiveness. However, current student evaluations of teaching instruments do not adequately assess many of the essential constructivist-based teaching practices recommended for quality online learning experiences. One of the best known summaries of research-based instructional practices is the widely disseminatedSeven Principles of Effective Teaching authored by Chickering and Gamson (1987). The majority of learner-centered instructional practices which comprise the Seven Principles framework are clearly focused on constructivist-based teaching practices. This study was an initial effort toward the development of a student evaluation of online teaching instrument based on the Seven Principles framework. Four hundred and eighty-nine students enrolled in WebCT courses at Montana State University completed the 26 item instrument. TheStudent Evaluation of Online Teaching Effectiveness (SEOTE) was found to be highly reliable and yielded four interpretable factors. The four factors were interpreted as Student-Faculty Interaction, Active Learning, Time on Task, and Cooperation Among Students.


online teaching effectiveness Internet-based statistics student evaluations of teaching 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrami, P.C., & d’Apollonia, S. (1991). Multidimensional students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness-Generalizability of N=1" research: Comment on Marsh (1991).Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 221–227.Google Scholar
  2. Abrami, P.C., d’Apollonia, S., & Rosenfield, S. (1997). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. In R.P. Perry & J.C. Smart (Eds.),Effective Teaching In Higher Education: Research and Practice (pp. 321–367). New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  3. Aleamoni, L.M. (1978). Development and factorial validation of the Arizona Course/Instructor Evaluation Questionnaire.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 1063–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aleamoni, L.M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal ofPersonal Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. American Psychological Association (1997, November).Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school design and reform. Retrieved April 21, 2005, from Scholar
  6. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997).Psychological testing (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1986).Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Billings, D.M. (2000). A framework for assessing outcomes and practices in Webbased courses in nursing.Journal of Nursing Education, 39(2), 60–67.Google Scholar
  9. Bonk, C.J., & Cunningham, D.J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.),Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Boyer, E.L. (1990).Scholarship reconsidered. Priorities of the professorate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  11. Cashin, W.E., & Downey, R.G. (1992). Using global student ratings items for summative evaluation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 563–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Centra, J.A. (1993).Reflective faculty evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Chickering, A.W., & Erhmann, S.C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever.AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3–6.Google Scholar
  15. Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (March 1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, P.A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies.Research in Higher Education, 13, 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cross, P.K. (1999). What do we know about students’ learning and how do we know it?Innovative Higher Education, 23(2), 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donald, J.G. (1999). Motivation for higher-order learning.New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 7, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fabrigar, L.R., Wenger, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feldman, K.A. (1988). Effective college teaching from the students’ and faculty’s view: Matched or mismatched priorities.Research in Higher Education, 28(4), 291–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feldman, K.A. (1997). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R.P. Perry & J.C. Smart (Eds.),Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp. 368–395). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  22. Field, A. (2000).Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Giguere, P., & Minotti, J (2003). Developing high quality Internet-based training for adult learners.Educational Technology, 4, 57–58.Google Scholar
  24. Graham, C., Caglitay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., &, Duffy, T.M. (2001). Seven principles for effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses.The Technology Source. Retrieved February 19, 2004, from Scholar
  25. Hacker, D.J., & Niederhauser, D.S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom.New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jonassen, D.H. (2000).Computers as mindtools for schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G. (1999).Learning with technology, Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Kaiser, H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koch, L.C., Holland, L.A., Price, D., Gonzalez, G.L., Lieske, P., Butler, A., Wilson, K., & Holly, M.L. (2002). Engaging new faculty in the scholarship of teaching.Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, K.C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Magnani, L, Nersessian, N.J., & Thagard, P. (1999).Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. New York: Kluwer Acdemic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  32. Marsh, H.W. (1982). SEEQ:A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 77–95.Google Scholar
  33. Marsh, H.W. (1987). Student evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research.International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marsh, H.W. (1991). A multidimensional perspective on students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: Reply to Abrami and d’Apollinia.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 416–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marsh, H.W. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility.American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marsh, H.W., & Bailey, M. (1993). Multidimensional students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness. A profile analysis.The Journal of Higher Education, 64(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marsh, H.W., & Roche, L.A. (1993). The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 30, 217–251.Google Scholar
  38. Millis, B.J., & Cottrell, P.G. (1998).Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.Google Scholar
  39. Moskal, P.D., & Dziuban, C.D. (2001). Present and future directions for assessing cyber education: The changing research paradigm. In L.R. Vandervert, L.V. Shavinina & R.A. Cornell (Eds.)Cybereducation: The future of long-Distance Learning. (pp. 157–184). Larchmont, NY: Mary Ann Liebert.Google Scholar
  40. Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning.Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Partlow, K.M., & Gibbs, W.J. (2003). Indicators of constructivist principles in Internet-based courses.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14(2), 68–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991).How college affects students. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Phipps, R.A., & Merisotis, J.P. (2000).Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.Google Scholar
  44. Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reeves, T.C., & Reeves, P.M. (1997).Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In Bradual H. Kahn (Ed.),Internet-based instruction (pp. 59–66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  46. Relan, A., & Gillani, B.B. (1997). Internet-based instruction and the traditional classroom: Similarities and differences. In B.H. Kahn (Ed.),Internet-based instruction (pp. 41–46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Schunk, D. (1983). Developing children’s self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social comparative information and goal setting.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stevens, J.P. (2002).Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  49. Svinicki, M.D. (1999). New directions in learning and motivation.New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vye, N.J., Schwartz, D.L., Bransford, J.D., Barron, B.J., Zech, L., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revision. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser, (Eds.),Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 305–346). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Watchtel, H.K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief overview.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2). 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur W. Bangert
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationMontana State UniversityBozeman

Personalised recommendations