How do university students value economics courses? A hedonic approach
AbstractThis paper adopts a hedonic approach and uses a multinomial logit model to assess students' valuation of courses based on their characteristics, e.g. presentation, organization, knowledge, accessibility, responsiveness, enthusiasm of the instructor (i.e. instructor), student's amount and type of thinking (i.e. intellectual stimulation), and how demanding a course is (i.e. demand level). Students applied the same quality standards consistently across courses regardless of the class size and the title, degree and position of the instructor. However, elective courses valued more favourably. The most important course attribute is the instructor, intellectual stimulation is the close second, and demand level has a negative impact on the value of a course. Yet, having found that intellectual stimulation's positive contribution is much bigger than the negative impact of demand level, the following emerges as an important yard stick for increasing the value of a course: as long as intellectual stimulation level gets higher, students are willing to put more time into a course.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics Letters.
Volume (Year): 7 (2000)
Issue (Month): 8 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Joe Hirschberg & Jenny Lye & Martin Davies & Carol Johnston, 2011. "Measuring Student Experience: Relationships between Teaching Quality Instruments (TQI) and Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series, The University of Melbourne 1134, The University of Melbourne.
- Martin Davies & Joe Hirschberg & Jenny Lye & Carol Johnston & Ian Mcdonald, 2007.
"Systematic Influences On Teaching Evaluations: The Case For Caution ,"
Australian Economic Papers,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 18-38, 03.
- M. Davies & J. Hirschberg & J. Lye & C. Johnston & I. McDonald, 2005. "Systematic Influences on Teaching Evaluations : The Case for Caution," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series, The University of Melbourne 953, The University of Melbourne.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.