Higher education plays a major role in defining the education system in India. This paper aimed at devising a structural equation model on professors' adeptness, students' expectations, and student perceived learning outcomes among engineering college students studying in Chennai. The study analyzed the impact of faculty performance and students’ expectations on perceived performance of the students. A structured questionnaire was administered for gathering the data. Primary data were collected from 250 engineering college students in Chennai. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to identify the various faculty performance factors, students’ expectations, and their effect on students’ performance. The results suggested that faculty behaviors and attitudes affect students profoundly, which in turn suggests that teachers play the single-most important role in student learning outcomes.

1. Aggarwal, R. (2017). Economics of E-learning in higher education: The Indian case. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 10(6), 40-48. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i6/115374 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i6/115374</a>
2. Bagga, T., Bansal, S., Kumar, P., & Jain, S. (2016). New wave of accreditation in Indian higher education : Comparison of accreditation bodies for management programmes. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 9(8), 26-40. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2016/v9i8/99778 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2016/v9i8/99778</a>
3. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
4. Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
5. Bowden, J., & D'Alessandro, S. (2011). Co-creating value in higher education: the role of interactive classroom response technologies. Asian Social Science, 7(11), 35-49. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n11p35 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n11p35</a>
6. Degroot M. H., Ferber, R., Frankel, M. R., Seneta, E., Watson, G. S., Kotz, S. (1982). Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Faa Di Bruno's formula to hypothesis testing. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
7. Dužević, I. (2015). A conceptual framework for analysing the impact of influences on student engagement and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(1), 66-79. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.1000368 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.1000368</a>
8. Evans, C. T. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350</a>
9. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
10. Jankowski, N. A. (2017). Unpacking relationships: instruction and student outcomes. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
11. Kaiser, H.F (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817</a>
12. Kalvakolanu, S., Balaji, D., & Bommaraju, S. (2018). Learning approaches: Whether demographics matter? - A study on business management students. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 11(7), 7-22. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2018/v11i7/129936 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2018/v11i7/129936</a>
13. Kaufer, D. (n.d.). What can neuroscience research teach us about teaching ? Berkeley Graduate Division. Retrieved from <a href=http://gsi.berkeley.edu/programs-services/hsl-project/hsl-speakers/kaufer/ target="_blank">http://gsi.berkeley.edu/programs-services/hsl-project/hsl-speakers/kaufer/</a>
14. Ngware, M. W., & Ndirangu, M. (2005). An improvement in instructional quality: Can evaluation of teaching effectiveness make a difference? Quality Assurance in Education, 13(3), 183-201. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880510607936 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880510607936</a>
15. Pat, H. (2016). Aligning educational outcomes and practices (Occasional Paper No. 26). Urbana, IL: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, University of Illinois and Indiana University.
16. Plybour, C. (2015). Integrating formative assessment into physics instruction: The effect of formative vs. summative assessment on student physics learning and attitudes (Doctoral Dissertation 536). Kalamazoo, MI : Western Michigan University. http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/536
17. Pollock, S. (2014). Interactive engagement in upper-division physics. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(3), 34-36. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2014.905425 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2014.905425</a>
18. Ramanathan, V. (2018). Internalization of higher education in India: Existing realities and future outlook.
19. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 11(6), 40-52. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2018/v11i6/128441 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2018/v11i6/128441</a>
20. Tinto, V. (2012). Enhancing student success: Taking the classroom success seriously. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(1), 1-8. <a href=https://fyhejournal.com/article/download/119/120/119-1666-1-10-20120315.pdf target="_blank">https://fyhejournal.com/article/download/119/120/119-1666-1-10-20120315.pdf</a>