IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i21p6063-d282288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality Control Systems in Higher Education Supported by the Use of Mobile Messaging Services

Author

Listed:
  • Luis Matosas-López

    (Department of Financial Economics, Accounting and Modern Language, Rey Juan Carlos University, Paseo Artilleros s/n, 28032 Madrid, Spain)

  • Cesar Bernal-Bravo

    (Department of Education Sciences, Language, Culture and Arts, Rey Juan Carlos University, Paseo Artilleros s/n, 28032 Madrid, Spain)

  • Alberto Romero-Ania

    (Department of Applied Economics, Rey Juan Carlos University, Paseo Artilleros s/n, 28032 Madrid, Spain)

  • Irene Palomero-Ilardia

    (Department of Education Sciences, Language, Culture and Arts, Rey Juan Carlos University, Paseo Artilleros s/n, 28032 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

This study breaks away from the immobility experienced by quality control systems in higher education. The authors, following the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on quality education set by the United Nations, propose a questionnaire delivery system through mobile messaging services that overcomes the problem of the low response rates of students for these surveys. The research follows an experimental design, is developed over three years, and involves 811 subjects who are distributed in two groups: an experimental group, in which the questionnaires are delivered through mobile messaging services, and a control group. The researchers examine the existence of differences in response rates through a descriptive comparative exploration between the two groups, also applying the Student’s t -test to evaluate the significance of the findings. The results reveal that the rates for the experimental group are not only higher than those achieved for the control group but are also significant. The authors conclude that the delivery of surveys through mobile messaging services significantly increases response rates. This fact improves the representativity of the information collected and meets the goals of the quality control system with greater certainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis Matosas-López & Cesar Bernal-Bravo & Alberto Romero-Ania & Irene Palomero-Ilardia, 2019. "Quality Control Systems in Higher Education Supported by the Use of Mobile Messaging Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:6063-:d:282288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6063/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6063/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosemary J. Avery & W. Keith Bryant & Alan Mathios & Hyojin Kang & Duncan Bell, 2006. "Electronic Course Evaluations: Does an Online Delivery System Influence Student Evaluations?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 21-37, January.
    2. Amalia Vanacore & Maria Sole Pellegrino, 2019. "How Reliable are Students’ Evaluations of Teaching (SETs)? A Study to Test Student’s Reproducibility and Repeatability," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 77-89, November.
    3. Trey Standish & Jeff A. Joines & Karen R. Young & Victoria J. Gallagher, 2018. "Improving SET Response Rates: Synchronous Online Administration as a Tool to Improve Evaluation Quality," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 59(6), pages 812-823, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. María del Carmen Olmos-Gómez & Mónica Luque-Suárez & Concetta Ferrara & Jesús Manuel Cuevas-Rincón, 2020. "Analysis of Psychometric Properties of the Quality and Satisfaction Questionnaire Focused on Sustainability in Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Melchor Gómez-García & Luis Matosas-López & Julio Ruiz-Palmero, 2020. "Social Networks Use Patterns among University Youth: The Validity and Reliability of an Updated Measurement Instrument," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephen B. DeLoach, 2011. "What Every Economist Should Know About the Evaluation of Teaching: A Review of the Literature," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 34, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. María del Carmen Olmos-Gómez & Mónica Luque-Suárez & Concetta Ferrara & Jesús Manuel Cuevas-Rincón, 2020. "Analysis of Psychometric Properties of the Quality and Satisfaction Questionnaire Focused on Sustainability in Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Sam Allgood & William B. Walstad & John J. Siegfried, 2015. "Research on Teaching Economics to Undergraduates," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(2), pages 285-325, June.
    4. Anna Salomons & Maarten Goos, 2014. "Measuring Teaching Quality in Higher Education: Assessing the Problem of Selection Bias in Course Evaluations," Working Papers 14-16, Utrecht School of Economics.
    5. Neckermann, Susanne & Turmunkh, Uyanga & van Dolder, Dennie & Wang, Tong V., 2022. "Nudging student participation in online evaluations of teaching: Evidence from a field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    6. Solmaz Ghaffarian Asl & Necdet Osam, 2021. "A Study of Teacher Performance in English for Academic Purposes Course: Evaluating Efficiency," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, October.
    7. Maarten Goos & Anna Salomons, 2017. "Measuring teaching quality in higher education: assessing selection bias in course evaluations," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 58(4), pages 341-364, June.
    8. Lütkenhöner, Laura, 2012. "Effekte von Erhebungsart und -zeitpunkt auf studentische Evaluationsergebnisse," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 8/2012, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    9. Oana Eugenia & Gogu Emilia & Roman Monica & Marin Erika, 2022. "Students’ Perceptions on the Quality of the Economics Higher Education in Romania," Journal of Social and Economic Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 11(1-2), pages 14-35, December.
    10. Edgar Treischl & Tobias Wolbring, 2017. "The Causal Effect of Survey Mode on Students’ Evaluations of Teaching: Empirical Evidence from Three Field Experiments," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 58(8), pages 904-921, December.
    11. Trey Standish & Jeff A. Joines & Karen R. Young & Victoria J. Gallagher, 2018. "Improving SET Response Rates: Synchronous Online Administration as a Tool to Improve Evaluation Quality," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 59(6), pages 812-823, September.
    12. Kifle, Temesgen & Alauddin, Mohammad, 2016. "What determines students’ perceptions in course evaluation rating in higher education? An econometric exploration," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 123-130.
    13. Ille, Sebastian & Peacey, Mike W., 2019. "Forced private tutoring in Egypt: Moving away from a corrupt social norm," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 105-118.
    14. Cannon, Edmund & Cipriani, Giam Pietro, 2021. "Gender Differences in Student Evaluations of Teaching: Identification and Consequences," IZA Discussion Papers 14387, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:6063-:d:282288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.