STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION IN A GHANAIAN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

Francis Justice Kwesi Agbofa

Abstract


The study conducts an evaluation of tutors and instruction at the Seventh-Day College of Education at Asokore, Koforidua. The study employed an electronic version of Student Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) questionnaire to evaluate tutors and instruction at the college. A quantitative approach with a cross-sectional survey design was employed, where 317 respondent students who had spent at least one whole academic year were sampled by a multi-stage sampling approach, which blended quota and convenience sampling.  The data was analysed with SPSS 23, where means and standard deviations of questionnaire items were used to establish how students evaluate tutors. It was revealed that students have a good appreciation of their learning but are indifferent in terms of appreciation of tutors' enthusiasm for teaching. Student respondents agree that tutors have a good appreciation for group interaction during class but are also indifferent in agreement with tutors’ rapport with students. The study further revealed that students are neutral in terms of agreement with the overall expression of good presentation of academic content and use of alternative approaches and theories, as well as with the value and fairness of examinations and graded materials. Positive and statistically significant correlations were established among all the sub-scales of the SEEQ scale. A statistically significant correlation was also established between the years students have spent at the college and their overall evaluation of educational quality. The study recommends that management of the College and University of Education, Winneba should provide avenues for tutors’ continuous professional development to enhance their teaching skills and strategies.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


instruction, student evaluation of teaching, college of education, college tutor, Ghana

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andersen, K., & Miller, E. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. PS: Political science & politics, 30(2), 216-219. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/gender-and-student-evaluations-of-teaching/490655A1753FD14C181DEBFA0269018F

Astin, A. W. (1993). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus: How are students affected? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 25(2), 44-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1993.9940617

Astin, A. W. (1993). Principles of good practice for assessing student learning. In Leadership Abstracts (Vol. 6, No. 4, p. n4).

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Vol. 11). Washington, DC: National academy press.

Burdsal, C. A., & Harrison, P. D. (2008). Further evidence supporting the validity of both a multidimensional profile and an overall evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 567-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701699049

Chen, Y., & Hoshower, L. B. (2003). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: An assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 28(1), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301683

DeShields Jr, O. W., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg's two‐factor theory. International journal of educational management, 19(2), 128-139. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09513540510582426/full/html

Elliott, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of marketing for higher education, 10(4), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v10n04_01

Esarey, J., & Valdes, N. (2020). Unbiased, reliable, and valid student evaluations can still be unfair. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1106-1120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1724875

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineel.zng Education, 78(7), 674-68 1. Preceded by a preface in 2002: http://www.ncsu.edu/felderpublic/PapersILS-1988.pdf

Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning environments research, 1, 7-34.

Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 103-112.

Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American psychologist, 52(11), 1209. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1209

Hanna, G. S., Aubrecht, J. D., & Hoyt, D. P. (1983b). Discriminant and convergent validity of high school student ratings of instruction. Educational and psychological measurement, 43(3), 873-878. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448304300327

Hanna, G. S., Hoyt, D. P., & Aubrecht, J. D. (1983a). Identifying and adjusting for biases in student evaluations of instruction: Implications for validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43(4), 1175-1185. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/001316448304300428

Heffernan, T. (2022). Sexism, racism, prejudice, and bias: A literature review and synthesis of research surrounding student evaluations of courses and teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1888075

Heffernan, T. A., & Bosetti, L. (2020). The emotional labour and toll of managerial academia on higher education leaders. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 52(4), 357-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2020.1725741

Hornstein, H. A. (2017). Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1304016. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1304016

Howard, J. R. & Henney, A. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the mixed-age college classroom. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 384-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1998.11775141

Illeris, K. (2009). Transfer of learning in the learning society: How can the barriers between different learning spaces be surmounted, and how can the gap between learning inside and outside schools be bridged? International journal of lifelong education, 28(2), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370902756986

Illeris, K. (2018). A comprehensive understanding of human learning. In Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 1-14). Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/Contemporary-Theories-of-Learning-Learning-Theorists--In-Their-Own-Words/Illeris/p/book/9781138550490

Jarvis, P. (2012). Learning to be a person in society. Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/Learning-to-be-a-Person-in-Society/Jarvis/p/book/9780415419031

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308

Lakeman, R., Coutts, R., Hutchinson, M., Lee, M., Massey, D., Nasrawi, D., & Fielden, J. (2022). Appearance, insults, allegations, blame and threats: an analysis of anonymous non-constructive student evaluation of teaching in Australia. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1245-1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2012643

Lawrence Neuman, W. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson. Retrieved from https://letrunghieutvu.yolasite.com/resources/w-lawrence-neuman-social-research-methods_-qualitative-and-quantitative-approaches-pearson-education-limited-2013.pdf

Marsh, H. W. (1982). SEEQ: A Reliable, Valid, and Useful Instrument for Collecting Students' evaluations of University Teaching. British journal of educational psychology, 52(1), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1982.tb02505.x

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Chung, C. M., & Siu, T. L. (1997). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Chinese version of the Students' Evaluations of Educational Quality Instrument. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 568. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.568

Martin, E. (1984). Power and authority in the classroom: Sexist stereotypes in teaching evaluations. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 9(3), 482-492. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/494073?journalCode=signs

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2013). Essential questions: Opening doors to student understanding. ASCD. Retrieved from https://www.ascd.org/books/essential-questions?variant=109004

Miller, A. H. (1988). Student assessment of teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 17(1), 3-15. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3446996

Murray, H. G. (1997). Does evaluation of teaching lead to improvement of teaching? The International Journal for Academic Development, 2(1), 8-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144970020102

Newton, J. D. (1988). Using student evaluation of teaching in administrative control: the validity problem. Journal of Accounting Education, 6(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0748-5751(88)90033-4

Osei-Asibey, E., Kusi P., Nimoh, V., & Bosson-Amedenu, S. (2020). Evaluation of Assessment Strategies Used by Basic School Teachers in Ghana: The Case of Assessment for Learning. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 33(4), 58-66. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.9734/jesbs/2020/v33i430218

Patrick, B. C., Hisley, J., & Kempler, T. (2000). “What's everybody so excited about?”: The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. The Journal of experimental education, 68(3), 217-236. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/00220970009600093

Peterson, R. M. (2001). Course participation: An active learning approach employing student documentation. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475301233004

Petress, K. (2006). An operational definition of class participation. College Student Journal, 40(4), 821-823. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-23101-012

Pratt, D. D. (1997). Reconceptualizing the evaluation of teaching in higher education. Higher education, 34(1), 23-44. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1003046127941

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering education, 93(3), 223-231. Retrieved from https://www.engr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/drive/1smSpn4AiHSh8z7a0MHDBwhb_JhcoLQmI/2004-Prince_AL.pdf

Quansah, F. (2022). Item and rater variabilities in students’ evaluation of teaching in a university in Ghana: application of many-facet Rasch model. Heliyon, 8(12). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12548

Quansah, F., Cobbinah, A., Asamoah-Gyimah, K., & Hagan, J. E. Jr. (2024). Validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: a systematic review. Front. Educ. 9:1329734. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1329734

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Seldin, P. (1989). How Colleges Evaluate Professors. 1988 vs. 1983. AAHE Bulletin, 41(7), 3-7. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED305872

Shevlin, M., Banyard, P., Davies, M., & Griffiths, M. (2000). The validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: love me, love my lectures?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 397-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611436

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007

Vacca, R. & Vacca, J. (1996). Content area reading. 5th Ed. New York: Harper Collins. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264869786_Content_Area_Reading_Literacy_and_Learning_Across_the_Curriculum

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: the synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(2), 246. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246

Vernadakıs, N., Gıannousı, M., Tsitskari, E., Antonıou, P., & Kıoumourtzoglou, S. (2012). A comparison of student satisfaction between traditional and blended technology course offerings in physical education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 137-147. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ976936

Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British educational research journal, 22(5), 537-548. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1501668

Wolfer, T. A., & Johnson, M. M. (2003). Re-evaluating student evaluation of teaching: The teaching evaluation form. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(1), 111-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2003.10779122




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v11i8.5450

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Francis Justice Kwesi Agbofa

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).