| Preface | 4 |
|---|
| Contents | 8 |
|---|
| Contributors | 10 |
|---|
| Part I Introduction: Different Perspectives of the Evaluation of the Italian University System | 13 |
|---|
| 1 TES From Impressionism to Expressionism | 14 |
| Lorenzo Bernardi | 14 |
| 1.1 Foreword: Excusatio Non Petita | 14 |
| 1.2 Pars Destruens: Accusatio Manifesta | 15 |
| 1.3 Pars Costruens: Non nova, Sed Nove | 17 |
| 1.3.1 Guiding Principles | 17 |
| 1.3.2 The Proposal: A First, Almost Utopian Design | 21 |
| 1.3.3 A Possible Design | 23 |
| 2 The Assessment of University Teaching by Students: TheOrganizational Perspective | 26 |
| Luigi Enrico Golzio | 26 |
| 2.1 Assessment in Organisations | 26 |
| 2.2 Assessment by Students in Italian Universities | 28 |
| 2.3 Assessment by Students as an Organisational Process | 29 |
| 2.4 The Content of Assessment by Students | 34 |
| 2.5 The Case of the University of Sassari | 39 |
| References | 42 |
| 3 University League Tables | 43 |
| L. Bernardi, P. Bolzonello, and A. Tuzzi | 43 |
| 3.1 Introduction | 43 |
| 3.2 The Censis Ranking System | 44 |
| 3.3 Indicators for Evaluation and Measurement | 45 |
| 3.4 The Censis Data | 47 |
| 3.4.1 Normalization and Aggregation | 47 |
| 3.4.2 The Simple Indicators Used by Censis | 48 |
| 3.4.3 Preliminary Analysis | 48 |
| 3.5 Alternative Ways to Analyse the Data | 52 |
| 3.6 Results | 55 |
| 3.7 Conclusions | 56 |
| References | 60 |
| Part II The Evaluation in the Italian Universities: Student Teaching Evaluation | 62 |
|---|
| 4 Structural Equation Models and Student Evaluation of Teaching: A PLS Path Modeling Study | 63 |
| Simona Balzano and Laura Trinchera | 63 |
| 4.1 Introduction | 63 |
| 4.2 PLS Approach to Structural Equation Models | 64 |
| 4.3 Applying PLS-PM to Students Evaluation of Teaching | 67 |
| 4.3.1 The Data and Model Specification | 67 |
| 4.3.2 The Results | 69 |
| 4.4 Concluding Remarks | 73 |
| References | 73 |
| 5 A Study on University Students' Opinions about Teaching Quality: A Model Based Approach for Clustering Ordinal Data | 75 |
| Marcella Corduas | 75 |
| 5.1 Introduction | 75 |
| 5.2 A Mixture Distribution for Ordinal Data | 76 |
| 5.3 The Kullback-Liebler Divergence | 77 |
| 5.4 Clustering | 78 |
| 5.5 The Analysis of Students' Opinions | 79 |
| 5.5.1 The Data Set | 79 |
| 5.5.2 The Results | 80 |
| 5.6 Final Remarks | 84 |
| References | 84 |
| 6 The Impact of Teaching Evaluation: Factors that Favour Positive Views from Student Representatives | 86 |
| Simone Gerzeli | 86 |
| 6.1 Introduction | 86 |
| 6.2 Methods | 87 |
| 6.2.1 Study Design | 87 |
| 6.2.2 Statistical Analysis | 88 |
| 6.3 Results | 90 |
| 6.3.1 Respondents | 90 |
| 6.3.2 The Availability and Discussion of the Teaching Evaluation Results | 91 |
| 6.3.3 Changes Induced by the Results of the Teaching Evaluation | 93 |
| 6.3.4 The Usefulness of the Teaching Evaluation as Perceived by the Student Representatives | 94 |
| 6.3.5 The Multilevel Regression Model | 96 |
| 6.4 Concluding Remarks | 97 |
| References | 99 |
| 7 University Teaching and Students' Perception: Models of the Evaluation Process | 100 |
| Maria Iannario and Domenico Piccolo | 100 |
| 7.1 Introduction | 100 |
| 7.2 Measurement of Students' Perception About Teaching Quality | 101 |
| 7.3 Perception and Rating as Complex Decisions | 102 |
| 7.4 Latent Variables and Item Response Theory | 103 |
| 7.5 An Alternative Model for the Evaluation Process | 106 |
| 7.5.1 Rationale for CUB Models | 107 |
| 7.5.2 CUB Models | 107 |
| 7.6 Empirical Evidences for University Teaching Evaluation | 109 |
| 7.6.1 CUB Models Without Covariates | 109 |
| 7.6.2 CUB Models with Covariates | 111 |
| 7.7 Concluding Remarks | 114 |
| References | 115 |
| 8 Students' Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness: Satisfaction and Related Factors | 120 |
| Michele Lalla, Patrizio Frederic, and Davide Ferrari | 120 |
| 8.1 Introduction | 120 |
| 8.2 Literature Review | 122 |
| 8.3 Questionnaire and Data | 124 |
| 8.4 Models and Results | 127 |
| 8.5 Conclusions | 134 |
| References | 135 |
| Part III The Evaluation in the Italian Universities: Statistical Methods for Careers and Services Evaluation | 137 |
|---|
| 9 Modeling Ordinal Item Responses via Binary GLMMs and Alternative Link Functions: An Application to Measurement of a Perceived Service Quality | 138 |
| Vito M.R. Muggeo and Fabio Aiello | 138 |
| 9.1 Introduction | 138 |
| 9.2 Data | 139 |
| 9.3 Methods | 141 |
| 9.3.1 The GLMM Framework | 141 |
| 9.3.2 Alternative Link Functions | 142 |
| 9.4 Results | 143 |
| 9.5 Conclusions | 147 |
| References | 148 |
| 10 Analyzing Undergraduate Student Graduation Delay: ALongitudinal Perspective | 149 |
| Paola Costantini and Maria Prosperina Vitale | 149 |
| 10.1 Introduction | 149 |
| 10.2 The Graduation Delay Issue | 150 |
| 10.3 Measuring and Analyzing Graduation Delay | 151 |
| 10.4 Defining a Longitudinal Graduation Delay Indicator | 153 |
| 10.5 Latent Curve Model to Monitor Student Careers | 154 |
| 10.6 A Case Study: The Delay Patterns of a Cohort of Undergraduate Students | 155 |
| 10.6.1 A Conditional Linear Latent Curve Model | 156 |
| 10.7 Some Concluding Remarks | 162 |
| References | 162 |
| 11 Assessing the Quality of the Management of Degree Programsby Latent Class Analysis | 164 |
| Isabella Sulis and Mariano Porcu | 164 |
| 11.1 Introduction | 164 |
| 11.2 Building up a Composite Indicator | 164 |
| 11.2.1 A Measure of the Perceived Quality of a University Service | 165 |
| 11.3 Methodological Issues | 166 |
| 11.3.1 Sorting Latent Classes | 167 |
| 11.4 The Application | 167 |
| 11.4.1 The Data | 167 |
| 11.4.2 The Analysis | 169 |
| 11.5 Final Remarks | 174 |
| References | 174 |
| Part IV Research Design and Data for Evaluation: University Between the High School and the L
|