Professors on the Board: Do They Contribute to Society Outside the Classroom?

According to our data, 38.5 % of S&P 1500 firms have at least one professor on their boards. Given the lack of research examining the roles and effects of academic faculty as members of boards of directors (professor–directors) on corporate outcomes, this study investigates whether firms with professor–directors are more likely to exhibit higher corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance ratings. Results indicate that firms with professor–directors do exhibit higher CSR performance ratings than those without. However, the influence of professor–directors on firm CSR performance ratings depends on their academic background—the positive association between the presence of professor–directors and firm CSR performance ratings is significant only when their academic background is specialized (e.g., science, engineering, and medicine). Finally, this positive association weakens when professor–directors hold an administrative position at their universities

Exploring the impact of cumulative testing on academic performance of undergraduate students in Spain

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9208-zFrequent testing provides opportunities for students to receive regular feedback and to increase their motivation. It also provides the instructor with valuable information on how course progresses, thus making it possible to solve the problems encountered before it is too late. Frequent tests with noncumulative contents have been widely analysed in the literature with inconclusive results. However, cumulative testing methods have hardly been reported in higher education courses. This paper analyses the effect of applying an assessment method based on frequent and cumulative tests on student performance. Our results show that, when applied to a microeconomics course, students who were assessed by a frequent, cumulative testing approach largely outperformed those assessed with a single final exam.Doménech I De Soria, J.; Blázquez Soriano, MD.; De La Poza, E.; Muñoz Miquel, A. (2015). Exploring the impact of cumulative testing on academic performance of undergraduate students in Spain. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. 27(2):153-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9208-zS153169272Adelman, HS, & Taylor, L. (1990). Intrinsic motivation and school misbehaviour some intervention implications. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 541–550.Biggs, J, & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university 3rd edn. Open University Press.Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation 8.Brown, GA, Bull, J, Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education, 1st edn. Routledge.Cano, MD. (2011). Students’ involvement in continuous assessment methodologies: a case study for a distributed information systems course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54, 442–451.Casem, ML (2006). Active learning is not enough. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35.Chen, J, & Lin, TF. (2008). Class attendance and exam performance a randomized experiment. The Journal of Economic Education, 39, 213–227.Chickering, AW, & Gamson, ZF. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39, 3–7.Crooks, TJ. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438–481.De Paola, M, & Scoppa, V. (2011). Frequency of examinations and student achievement in a randomized experiment. Economics of Education Review, 30, 1416–1429.Deck, W. (1998). The effects of frequency of testing on college students in a principles of marketing course, PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Virginia: Blacksburg.Dempster, FN. (1991). Synthesis of research on reviews and tests. Educational Leadership, 48, 71–76.Dochy, F. (2008). The Edumetric Quality of New Modes of Assessment: Some Issues and Prospects. Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Eikner, AE, & Montondon, L. (2001). Evidence on factors associated with success in intermediate accounting I. Accounting Educators’ Journal 13.Emerson, TLN, & Mencken, KD. (2011). Homework to require or not? online graded homework and student achievement Perspectives on Economic Education Research 7.Fulkerson, F, & Martin, G. (1981). Effects of exam frequency on student performance, evaluations of instructor, and test anxiety. Teaching of Psychology, 8, 90–93.Furnham, A, & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). Individual differences and beliefs concerning preference for university assessment methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1968–1994.Gibbs, G, & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1 (August 5, 2011)3–31.Haberyan, KA. (2003). Do weekly quizzes improve student performance on general biology exams?. The American Biology Teacher, 65, 110–114.Kling, N, McCorkle, D, Miller, C, Reardon, J. (2005). The impact of testing frequency on student performance in a marketing course. Journal of Education for Business, 81, 67–72.Kuh, GD (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE Change 35.Kuo, T, & Simon, A. (2009). How many tests do we really need. College Teaching, 57, 156–160.Leeming, FC. (2002). The exam-a-day procedure improves performance in psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 210–212.Lumsden, KG, Scott, A, Becker, WE. (1987). The economics student reexamined Male-female differences in comprehension. Journal of Economic Education, 18, 365–375.Marriott, P. (2009). Students’ evaluation of the use of online summative assessment on an undergraduate financial accounting module. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 237–254.Marriott, P, & Lau, A. (2008). The use of on-line summative assessment in an undergraduate financial accounting course. Journal of Accounting Education, 26, 73–90.McNabb, R, Pal, S, Sloane, P. (2002). Gender differences in educational attainment. the case of university students in england and wales. Economica, 69, 481–503.Miller, F. (1987). Test frequency, student performance and teacher evaluation in the basic marketing class. Journal of Marketing Education, 9, 14–19.Nicol, DJ, & Macfarlane Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning, A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218.Nowell, C, & Alston, RM. (2007). I thought I got an A! Overconfidence across the economics curriculum. The Journal of Economic Education, 38, 131–142.Race, P (1995). The art of assessing 1 New Academic 4.Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation, vol 1 (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.Skinner, BF. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A Knopf.Taras, M. (2005). Assessment - summative and formative - some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, 466–478.Trotter, E. (2006). Student perceptions of continuous summative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 505–521.Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477–501

Improving well-being in Higher Education: Adopting a compassionate approach

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of a chapter published in the 'Values of the University in a Time of Uncertainty'. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15970-2_18Peer reviewe

Gauging the Student Learning Experience of a Mobile Application Using iBeacon Technology

Innovative technology has been revolutionizing the educational experience in tertiary institutions over the past decades. Using novel iBeacon Technology, a mobile application called “iClassPolyU” was developed for collecting and disseminating information to and from students. The application was employed in four medium to large classrooms and the user experience was evaluated through a survey. Usage of the application was examined through quiz completion and usage rates. Results showed that each class had a quiz completion rate of over 80%. Moreover, students believed that their physical participation could be enhanced by the application and that it was effective, easy to use, and flexible. Students proposed the inclusion of mixed reality, virtual reality, and augmented reality in the future. This type of technology provides another pathway for student learning, an opportunity to give students more control over their learning, and educators with more information regarding their students