Instructors’ Perceptions of Using Student Ratings for Improving Teaching Quality - Innovative Management in Information and Production - page 101

Tabl e 4 ANOVA results of instructor perceptions among groups of academic title

F
(Between
groups)

Background
variables

Mean
difference P Factor

Improving overall teaching quality Bachelor (A)

Master (B)

0.6307 (A-B) 0.002* 6.866

PhD (C)

Improving instructors' treatment of
students

Bachelor (A)

Master (B) 0.3540 (A-B) 0.027* 4.990

PhD (C)

Refining instructional objectives Bachelor (A)

Master (B) 0.9256 (A-B) 0.000** 21.232

PhD (C) 0.9891 (A-C) 0.000**

Refining teaching contents Bachelor (A)

Master (B) 1.0187 (A-B) 0.000* 19.593

PhD (C) 0.9473 (A-C) 0.000*

Refining teaching methods Bachelor(A)

Master (B) 0.5107 (A-B) 0.000**

PhD (C) 0.3782 (A-C) 0.004** 12.773

Modifying mid-term and final exams Bachelor (A) 0.6387 (A-B) .001*

Master (B) 1.0218 (A-C) 0.000* 14.701

PhD (C) 0.3832 (B-C) 0.033*

Altering course textbooks Bachelor (A) 0.8123 (A-B) 0.000*

Master (B) 1.3236 (A-C) 0.000* 27.414

PhD (C) 0.5113 (B-C) 0.001*

Selecting support material Bachelor (A) − 0.8123 (A-B) 0.000**

Master (B) 1.3236 (A-C) 0.000** 28.946

PhD (C) 0.5113 (B-C) 0.000**

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

(mean,male = 2.99; mean,female = 3.29); and “Altering course textbooks” ( p =

0 3.29). It could be said that female

instructors found usefulness of student ratings for selecting teaching materials than
did male counterparts.
ANOVA was employed to process first eight items about lecturer perceptions of
using student ratings for purposes of teaching with a background variable, academic
title. The results are presented with statistically significant differences at the 0.05
level for each factor.
There were eight statements that differed significantly in regard to academic
title. Specifically, bachelor's degree holding instructors rated seven out of eight
statements higher than did those with master's degree holding, except statement
“Selecting support material.” They also scored significantly higher than did those
with doctorate degree holding on six items: “Refining instructional objectives,”
“Refining teaching contents,” “Refining teaching methods,” “Modifying mid-term

. 015), (mean,male = 2.98; mean,female =