The effect of perceived instructional effectiveness on student loyalty: A multilevel structural equation model

Eğitim araştırmalarında öğrencilerin, sınıfların ve okulların çok aşamalı yapıda olması gibi, aynı öğretim üyesinden ders alan öğrenciler de çok aşamalı veri yapısına bir örnektir. Bu çalışmada Algılanan Öğretim Üyesi Etkililiğinin (AÖÜE) Öğrenci Sadakatine (ÖS) etkisinin araştırılması için, çok aşamalı yapısal eşitlik modelinden yararlanılmıştır. 2004 akademik yılında 202 öğretim üyesinden (ikinci aşama örnekleme birimi) ders alan 17647 öğrenci (birinci aşama örnekleme birimi) araştırmanın örneklemini oluşturmuştur. Hem öğretim üyesi içi, hem de öğretim üyeleri arası yapısal eşitlik modelleri AÖÜE’nin ÖS’yi olumlu etkilediğini doğrulamıştır. ÖS’deki değişkenliğin AÖÜE tarafından açıklanan kısmı, öğretim üyesi içi modelde %57 iken, öğretim üyeleri arası modelde %92 bulunmuştur. Ayrıca çalışmada ikinci aşama değişkenlerinin öğretim üyeleri arası modelde ÖS’ye etkisi de araştırılmıştır.

Algılanan öğretimsel etkililiğin öğrenci sadakatine etkisi: Çok aşamalı yapısal eşitlik modeli

Social sciences research often entails the analysis of data with a multilevel structure. An example of multilevel data is containing measurement on university students nested within instructors. This paper concentrate on multilevel analysis of structural equation modeling with educational data. Data used in this study were gathered from 17647 university students in Turkey taking course from 202 instructors during the first term of 2004 academic year. The main topic of this paper is to investigate the effect of Perceived Instructional Effectiveness (PIE) on Student Loyalty (SL). From the both of within and between model results, it was supported that student loyalty is positively affected by perceived instructional effectiveness. The total variation of SL explained by PIE in within model was 57%; on the other hand total variation of SL explained by PIE and instructor’s academic status in between model was 92%. The effects of the other background variables were also considered.

PDF

___

Bearden, W.O., & Teel, J.E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 21-28.
Bonetti, S. (1994). On the use of student questionnaires. Higher Education Review, 26(3), 57- 64.
Chan, K.C. (2001). Does Instructor Witness and Character Matter in Student Perception of Faculty Performance and Course Quality. Paper presented at the meeting of The Christian Business Faculty Association 17th Annual Conference. Olivet Nazarene University.
Chau, C.T. (1997). A bootstrap experiment on the statistical properties pf students’ ratings of teaching effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 38(4), 497-517.
Cheung, M_KE. W-L., & Au, K. (2005). Applications of multilevel structural equation modeling to cross-cultural research. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(4), 598-619.
Dyer, G.N., Hanges, P.J., & Hall Rosalie, J. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 149-167.
Ekinci C. E., & Burgaz B. (2007). Hacettepe Üniversitesi öğrencilerinin bazı akademik hizmetlere ilişkin beklenti ve memnuniyet düzeyleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 120-134.
Guolla, M. (1999). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship: Applied customer satisfaction research in the classroom. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16, 87-97.
Heck, R.H., & Thomas, S.L. (2000). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hellier, P.K., Geursen, G.M., Carr, R.A., & Rickard, J.A. (2003). Customer repurchase intention: A general structural equation model. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), 1762-1800.
Hofmann, D.A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723-744.
Hox, J.J. (1993). Factor analysis of multilevel data: Gauging the Muthén model. In J.H.L. Oud and R.A.W. van Blokland-Vogelesang (Ed.), Advances in longitudinal and multivariate analysis in the behavioral sciences (pp. 141-156). Nijmegen: NL:ITS.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Innis, D.E. (1991). Customer service, repurchase intentions, market orientation and firm performance in the channel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ohio State.
Jackson, D.L., Teal, C.R., Raines, S.J., Nansel, T.R., Force, R. C., & Burdsal, C.A. (1999).The dimensions of students’ perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(4), 580-596.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1977). Structural Equation modeling in the social sciences: Specification, estimation and testing. In P.R. Krishnaiah (Eds.), Application of Statistics (pp. 265- 287). North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Kaplan, D., & Elliot, R.P. (1997). A didactic example of multilevel structural equation modeling applicable to study of organizations. Structural Equation Modeling, 4(1), 1-4.
Kozlowski, S.W., & Klein, K.J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent properties. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Lee, S.Y. (1990). Multilevel analysis of structural equation models. Biometrika, 77, 763-772.
Marsh, H.V., & Rochi, L.A. (1997). Making student’s evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187-1197.
Marsh, H.W. (1987). Student’s evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 263-388.
Marsh, H.W., Overall, U.J., & Kesler, P.S. (1979). Validity of student evaluation of instructional effectiveness: A comparison of faculty self-evaluations and evaluation by their students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 149-160.
Marsh, H.W., & Rochi, L.A. (2000). Effects of granting leniency and low workload on students’ evaluations of popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 149-160.
Muthén, B.O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54, 557-585.
Muthén, B.O. (1990). Mean and covariance structure analysis of hierarchical data. UCLA, Statistics Series.
Muthén, B.O. (1991). Multilevel factor analysis of class and student achievement components. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28(4), 338-354.
Muthén, B.O. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 376-398.
Muthén, B.O., & Sattora, A. (1989). Multilevel aspects of varying parameters in structural models. In R.D. Bock (Ed.), Multilevel analysis of educational data. San Diego: Academic.
Nasser, F., & Hagtvet, K.A. (2006). Multilevel analysis of the effects of student and instructor/course characteristics on student ratings. Research in Higher Education,47(5), 559-590.
Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469.
Oliver, R.L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 35-48.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Zheng, X. (2007). Multilevel structural equation modeling. Handbook of Latent Variable and Related Models (pp. 209-227). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Roest, H., & Pieters, R. (1997). The nomological net of perceived service quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(4), 336-351.
Roundenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Roundenbush, S.W., & Willams, J.D. (Eds.). (1991). Schools, classrooms, and pupils: International studies of schooling from a multilevel perspective. Orlando: Academic press.
Stapleton, L.M. (2006). Using multilevel structural equation modeling techniques with complex sample data. Structural Equation Modeling: A second course, 345-383.