IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2022i1p2-d1008707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Many Students and Items Are Optimal for Teaching Level Evaluation of College Teachers? Evidence from Generalizability Theory and Lagrange Multiplier

Author

Listed:
  • Guangming Li

    (Key Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences, Ministry of Education, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
    School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China)

Abstract

Budget and cost are two of the problems that cannot be ignored when conducting a measure study. Based on the application of generalizability theory, combined with Lagrange multiplier, this paper explores how many students and items are optimal for teaching level evaluation of college teachers under budget constraints to maintain the sustainable development of higher education. A total of 397 students are required to evaluate 10 teachers’ teaching level using the Teaching Level Evaluation Questionnaire for College Teachers, and we make different generalizability designs (i.e., ( s:t ) × i , ( s:t ) × ( i:v ) and ( s:t ) × ( i:v ) × o ) for the collected data. The study unifies the Lagrange multiplier formula, derives the optimal sample size formula of different designs under budget constraints in generalizability theory, and calculates the optimal sample size for teaching level evaluation of college teachers in different designs with the estimated variance components. Results indicate that: (1) the unified formula of Lagrange multiplier has a stronger robustness and can be applied to different study designs under budget constraints in generalizability theory; (2) the occasion has a great effect on teaching level evaluation for college teachers; (3) the ( s : t ) × ( i:v ) × o design has a high efficiency in estimating the optimal sample size of teaching level evaluation for college teachers; (4) the design of ( s:t ) × ( i : v ) × o is the optimal generalizability design of teaching level evaluation for college teachers under budget constraints in generalizability theory; and (5) under budget constraints of teaching level evaluation for college teachers in generalizability theory, the optimal sample size of students is 31 for each teacher and the optimal sample size of items is 7 for each dimension.

Suggested Citation

  • Guangming Li, 2022. "How Many Students and Items Are Optimal for Teaching Level Evaluation of College Teachers? Evidence from Generalizability Theory and Lagrange Multiplier," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:2-:d:1008707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/2/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/2/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. Sanders & T. Theunissen & S. Baas, 1989. "Minimizing the number of observations: A generalization of the spearman-brown formula," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 54(4), pages 587-598, September.
    2. Bergsmann, Evelyn & Schultes, Marie-Therese & Winter, Petra & Schober, Barbara & Spiel, Christiane, 2015. "Evaluation of competence-based teaching in higher education: From theory to practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1-9.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Elisabeth Deutskens & Ad Jong & Ko Ruyter & Martin Wetzels, 2006. "Comparing the generalizability of online and mail surveys in cross-national service quality research," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 119-136, April.
    2. Jules L. Ellis & Klaas Sijtsma, 2024. "Proof of Reliability Convergence to 1 at Rate of Spearman–Brown Formula for Random Test Forms and Irrespective of Item Pool Dimensionality," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 774-795, September.
    3. Honggang Liu & Wenxiu Chu & Fan Fang & Tariq Elyas, 2021. "Examining the Professional Quality of Experienced EFL Teachers for Their Sustainable Career Trajectories in Rural Areas in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-14, September.
    4. Tajammal Hussain & Jacob Eskildsen & Rick Edgeman & Muhammad Ismail & Alaa Mohamd Shoukry & Showkat Gani, 2019. "Imperatives of Sustainable University Excellence: A Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-21, September.
    5. Lidia Alexa & Veronica Maier & Anca Șerban & Razvan Craciunescu, 2020. "Engineers Changing the World: Education for Sustainability in Romanian Technical Universities—An Empirical Web-Based Content Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Helen Lee Curtis & Lucas Catalani Gabriel & Marlyne Sahakian & Sandro Cattacin, 2021. "Practice-Based Program Evaluation in Higher Education for Sustainability: A Student Participatory Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-14, September.
    7. P. Sanders & T. Theunissen & S. Baas, 1991. "Maximizing the coefficient of generalizability under the constraint of limited resources," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 87-96, March.
    8. Pilar Laguna-Sánchez & Jesús Palomo & Concepción de la Fuente-Cabrero & Mónica de Castro-Pardo, 2020. "A Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approach to Designing Teaching Plans in Higher Education Institutions," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Kooli, Chokri, 2019. "Governing and managing higher education institutions: The quality audit contributions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    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:15:y:2022:i:1:p:2-:d:1008707. 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.