Developing and validating a student-centered Quality Teaching Constructs Scale (QTCS) for practice-based higher education: A digital age case study in design
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to develop a student-centered Teaching Quality assessment tool—the Quality Teaching Constructs Scale (QTCS)—tailored for design education in the digital age. The QTCS framework was established through an extensive literature review and theoretical foundation, followed by an open-ended survey to form an initial item pool. Expert consultations, key student feedback, and pilot testing were conducted to refine the scale. The final version of the scale was validated using a formal survey with 383 valid responses. Reliability analysis showed a high overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.962, with composite reliabilities exceeding 0.95 for all subdimensions. Average variance extracted (AVE) values were above the recommended threshold, confirming adequate convergent validity. Construct validity was confirmed through factor loadings that exceeded 0.77 for all items and cross-loadings that demonstrated good discriminant validity. The predictive validity of the scale was supported by a model that explained 55.7% of the variance in students’ Academic Scores (R² = 0.557). The findings suggest that the three dimensions of the QTCS—Practice Patterns, Teaching Quality, and Pedagogical Quality—have a significant positive impact on student performance. While the QTCS provides a robust framework for assessing teaching quality in design education, the study’s limitations include a sample limited to two institutions and reliance on subjective student evaluations, which may affect generalizability and broader applicability. This research offers valuable insights and empirical evidence for optimizing teaching practices, curriculum design, and faculty development in practice-based higher education.
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development. American Psychologist, 32 (7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86 (6), 84-92.
Bryan-Kinns, N., Liu, Y., Zhang, D., Tan, Z., & Tan, H. (2024). The Role of Digital Technologies in Contemporary Craft Practice from Uk–China Insights. Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art,11 (1), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.1386/jcca_00093_1
Burić, I., Butković, A., & Kim, L. E. (2023). Teacher personality domains and facets: Their unique associations with student-ratings of teaching quality and teacher enthusiasm.Learning and instruction,88, 101827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101827
Dewey, J. (1986, September). Experience and education. The Educational Forum, 50 (3), 241–252.
Fu, B., & Ni, M. (2023). Construction of Teaching Quality Monitoring System under the “Maker Studio” Training Mode. China University Science & Technology (07), 81-87. https://doi.org/10.16209/j.cnki.cust.2023.07.013
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction-4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Giday, D. G., & Perumal, E. (2024). Students’ perception of attending online learning sessions post-pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, 100755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100755
González-Zamar, M. D., & Abad-Segura, E. (2021). Digital Design in Artistic Education: An Overview of Research in the University Setting. Education sciences, 11(4), 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040144
Harjpal, P., Chitlange, M. S., Anjankar, V. P., Kovela, R. K., & Phansopkar, P. (2024). Development and Content Validity of Cervicogenic Headache Patient Questionnaire: New Tool for Assessing Severity and Impact. Cureus 16(9): e68432. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.68432
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. FT Press.
Kolb, D. A., Tile, T., Puei, T. H., Hall, P., & Jords, K. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall.
Laurillard, D. (2013). Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies. Routledge.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Liu, W., Fu, Z., Zhu, Y., et al. (2024). Co-making the future: Crafting tomorrow with insights and perspectives from the China-U.S. young maker competition. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34(4), 1763–1783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09887-5
Pinar, W. F. (2019). What Is Curriculum Theory?. Routledge.
Quinlan, K. M., Thomas, D. S. P., Hayton, A., Astley, J., Blackwood, L., Daramy, F. K., Duffin, M., Haider, M. A., Husbands, D., Joiner, R., Kay, H., Mosoeunyane, M., Turner, I. J., Walsh, C., & West, D. (2024). Promoting Students’ Interest Through Culturally Sensitive Curricula in Higher Education. Higher Education 88, 1331–1351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01172-z
Samaniego, M., Usca, N., Salguero, J., & Quevedo, W. (2024). Creative Thinking in Art and Design Education: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences, 14(2), 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020192
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
Souleles, N. (2017). iPad Versus Traditional Tools in Art and Design: A Complementary Association. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 586-597. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12446
Sunshine Gaokao. (2025). Number of undergraduate students in design-related disciplines in China’s general higher education institutions. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from https://gaokao.chsi.com.cn/zyk/zybk/
Thornhill-Miller, B., Camarda, A., Mercier, M., Burkhardt, J. M., Morisseau, T., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Vinchon, F., El Hayek, S., Augereau-Landais, M., Mourey, F., & Lubart, T. (2023). Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: Assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education. Journal of Intelligence, 11(3), Article 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054
Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Villagrá Sobrino, S., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., Martínez Monés, A., & Ioannou, A. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools’ digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8
Uttl, B. (2024). Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET): Why the Emperor has no clothes and what we should do about it. Human Arenas, 7(2), 403-437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-023-00361-7
Xu, L., & Gou, F. (2023). A Study on Students’ Satisfaction with Education and Teaching Quality in Application-Oriented Universities — based on a Survey of Undergraduate Students in 178 Universities in China. Higher Education Review. (01), 210-226.
Yan, J., An, J., & Sun, G. (2023). Reconstruction of the Evaluation Index System for Classroom Teaching Quality. China University Teaching (12), 74-78+91.
Zhao, Y., Li, W. J., Jiang, H., Siyiti, M., Zhao, M., You, S. P., Li, Y., & Yan, P. (2024). Development of a Blended Teaching Quality Evaluation Scale (BTQES) for Undergraduate Nursing Based on the Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) Evaluation Model: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Nurse Education in Practice, 77, 103976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2024.103976