Course Delivery Evaluation as an Instrument for Quality Enhancement in Higher Education Institutions

Abstract

Course delivery evaluation of programmes by students in higher education institutions has become a global phenomenon for improving the quality of teaching and learning. From the past, it has been discovered that the quality of effective teaching and learning in Higher Education is dwindling and thus, the relevance of graduates to the development of national growth becomes an issue to be addressed. To solve this challenge, quality control and enhancement of course delivery comes to the fore in attacking the menace. The data used in this chapter consist of six thousand, eight hundred and fifty-eight responses from four hundred and seventy-six courses. The data were clustered first according to departments and then according to the lecturers. The thematic areas studied are lecture delivery, lecturer’s attitude to learners, coverage of curriculum, use of library and internet for research, healthy lecturers-learners’ relationships, and feedback system. A simple but powerful statistical analysis was deployed to analyse the data. The results reflected areas that have critical effect on teaching and learning. The results showed that 24% of the factors considered in this study have significant effects on effective teaching and learning. Furthermore, about 20% of the lecturers assessed were lacking in the determined factors.

1. Introduction

Quality assurance of teaching and learning procedures has become an important tool in ensuring the production of competent and relevant graduates from higher education institutions of learning. It is, therefore, important to review, examine and critique higher education processes and procedures such as teaching and learning to ensure fitness of purpose and for purpose [1]. Course evaluation instruments are frequently used in higher education institutions to address the relevant and crucial aspects that are required for effective teaching and learning to take place. Course evaluation instruments should be used to assess some key factors that are believed to have significant influence on teaching and learning. The factors such as communication skills, organisational skills, enthusiasm, flexibility, attitude towards the student, teacher–student interaction, encouragement of the student, knowledge of the subject, clarity of presentation, course difficulty, fairness of grading and exams and global student rating have been listed in the literature [2]. Course delivery evaluation instrument can be used to harvest feedback from students for the assessment of quality of instruction. It can also be for gathering information about the impact of learning and teaching, analysing and interpreting information gathered and responding to and acting on the obtained results [3]. Therefore, the information gathered can be used by administrators, along with other input, to make decisions on staff for promotion, tenure, salary increases and identification of areas of improvement [4]. In the university where the data used in this study was collected, course evaluations are combined with annual performance evaluation report by supervisor and the grades of students to determine the overall performance of academic staff. Course evaluations can be implemented, either as summative or formative. Student evaluations are said to be formative when the purpose is to assist faculty members in improving and enhancing their teaching skills [5]. Another model that has been shown to be highly effective for getting feedback for course improvement is the ‘Stop, Start, Continue’ (SSC) format (see [6, 7, 8]). However, some of these methods have their own disadvantages, which thus do not make them all sufficient approaches.

Student ratings of teaching have been used, studied and debated for almost a century [9]. According to Lakeman et al. [10], student evaluation of teaching (SET) has become a ubiquitous feature of higher education. Intentional design, structured administration processes and transparent reporting of result of evaluation have been advocated by Melissa et al. [11] to be adopted to better ensure that student ratings of instruction are used to improve teaching. However, student evaluations have limitations in informing improvements to the quality of teaching and effective learning [12].

The focus of this paper is to determine the areas of weakness of instructors based on the perspective of students of a higher education institution. Apart from using simple statistical tools to unravel the unknown in the raw data, the Pareto analysis was conducted to determine the most influential variable that affects course delivery to achieve effective teaching and learning in higher education institutions.

2. Methodology

A questionnaire was designed for the purpose of evaluating course delivery and lecturers’ performance. The sample of the questionnaire is in the appendix. The questionnaire contained twenty-nine factors, which were carefully selected to assess the course delivery and performance of lecturers.

The twenty-nine factors were coded Q1, Q2, Q3, … and Q29 for the purpose of analysis and they were clustered into five subgroups, which are: lecturer’s behaviour in the lecture room, lecturer’s adherence to teaching etiquettes, students/lecturers’ relationship, mode of course delivery and use of smart electronic board. The four-Likert scale instrument was used because of the nature of the study. It is our belief that it is not possible for a student who is the respondent to be neutral in the choice of options available for the assessment of a course taken over a period of 14 weeks.

The completion of the questionnaire was done online by each student evaluating each lecturer that taught in the semester. The period for the exercise was well communicated to the students through different channels such as email, public announcement and department notice board. Furthermore, an electronic slip was generated for the student once the questionnaire was completed. This approach ensures high degree of compliance and reduction of non-response rate.

Two major statistical tools used in this study are the median and percentage scores. Furthermore, the Pareto analysis was used to determine the factors that have more impact on the academic performance of the students out of the twenty-nine variables captured in the questionnaire.

3. Analysis

The Data used in this paper is six thousand, eight hundred and fifty-eight (6858) responses, which account for 98% of response. Thus, the reliability and validity of the instrument is reasonably high.

The following indices were determined for each course taught by a lecturer:

1. Percentage of respondents (i.e., percentage of students that completed the form for the course and lecturer)

2. Area(s) for improvement. This is the percentage score less than 62.5% (2.5 out of 4)

3. Overall percentage scores. This parameter was used to summarise the overall performance of each lecturer. The parameter takes into consideration the total number of courses taught in the semester under study.

4. To further strengthen the index and measure students’ performance per course, the above-listed indices were aligned with the scores of students in the semester’s examinations.

4. Results

The obtained results were summarised to capture for each lecturer the number of registered students, percentage of respondents, overall performance, weak areas (average score of less than 2.5) and percentage of students with scores Grade A to F.

From the results, the following information was inferred:

1. There was positive correlation between lecturers’ ratings and examination results.

2. Staff with the highest overall score per programme were determined for appreciation.

3. The weak areas were determined across board out of the twenty-nine factors using Pareto analysis. The Pareto chart reflects that Factors Q29, Q28 and Q27 are the most prevalent factors that most lecturers that are rated weak lack substantially (see Figure 1).

4. Figure 2 presented the frequency of weak areas for the twenty-nine variables used to evaluate each academic staff and courses taught. The idea was to know the areas that need urgent intervention of the management of the higher education institution for effective teaching and learning to take place. Furthermore, the pattern of the information, in Figure 2, reflected a close relationship between the number of courses and the number of lecturers affected by each of the factors considered in this study.

5. Twenty per cent of the lecturers assessed were rated weak in the following variables:

   1. An appropriate course description/course outline was not provided at the beginning of the course;

   2. Course outline was not structured and detailed enough;

   3. The course curriculum was not adequately covered;

   4. Lecturer do not make effort to explain difficult topics to students;

   5. Marked tests and assignments were not returned to students regularly;

   6. The lecturer’s attendance at lectures was not usually punctual and regular;

   7. The lecturer does not usually provide adequate examples and illustrations.

Figure 1.

Pareto chart on number of lecturers rated weak.

Figure 2.

Frequency of courses and lecturers with weak areas.

From the obtained results, it was observed that higher percentage of weak areas has no significant effect on the performance of the students in the courses. This is a reflection that the course evaluations of lecturers might not be a yardstick to measure performance of students. A course with 85% weak areas has 63% of the students that have C grade and above while a course with 38% weak areas has 50% of the students that have grade and above. Whereas, a course with 55% weak areas has 100% of the students that have grade C and above. Thus, there is no definite pattern that can be used to describe the relationship between student’s performance in a course and the performance of the lecturer that taught the course. However, the beauty of the course delivery evaluation instrument is in the x-ray of the behaviour of lecturer in the lecture room, lecturer’s adherence to teaching etiquettes, students-lecturer relationship while lecture is ongoing and mode of course delivery.

5. Conclusion

The course delivery evaluation instrument has been shown to be a useful instrument to significantly improve the commitment of faculty members to teaching and learning and by effect, the performance of students in examination over time. Furthermore, the Pareto analysis reveals that academic staff needs more training on the use of the smart board for the delivery of instructions for courses at higher education institutions. It should be noted that the data used in this paper was collected prior to the COVID-19 era. The results of the study were useful for the implementation of blended teaching during and post Covid-19 era. The university was relatively prepared for online teaching and learning, though majority of lecturers were not fully equipped with the use of the smart board as reflected in the Pareto analysis. It is recommended that there is the need for more training of academic staff in the use of smart board in the new norm where the hybrid model and AI (artificial intelligence) in higher education teaching and learning is trending. Furthermore, the embracement of course delivery evaluation of lecturers by students has become an exercise that should not be discarded if graduates from higher education institutions must be relevant in the labour market.

Appendix: course delivery and lecturer’s evaluation questionnaire to be Completed by Students.

Please complete the form below:

1. Information on Course

   1. Course Title: ………………………………………………

   2. Course Code: ………………………………………

   3. Course Units: ………….………………

   4. Name of Instructor: ………………………………………………………

   5. Program of Study of Student: ………………………………………

   6. Semester/Session: ………………………………………………

2. Assessment/Evaluation

Dear Student, this questionnaire is a valuable tool for improving the quality of teaching. Please tick the appropriate response and be as objective and honest as possible as the Lecturer will be looking forward to fair criticism as well as praise.

Your response will be of immense help to improve the quality of teaching as the result has the purpose of returning the lecturers’ feedback on their teaching skills and ability and it will be used for joint discussion concerning the quality of the courses.

The four-Likert scales used are Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree.

B1 Instructor’s Behaviour in Lecture Room

1. Coursework, continuous assessment tests and assignments were given during the course.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree□.

2. Marked tests and assignments were returned to students regularly.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree□.

3. The instructor usually arranged make-up classes for missed lectures.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

4. The instructor usually explains complex subjects to the students.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

5. The instructor has enthusiasm for teaching.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

6. The instructor demonstrated fair temperament in handling students in class.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

7. The instructor did not tolerate distractions during lectures.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

8. The instructor displayed adequate command of accurate and simple English in class.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

B2 Instructor’s Adherence to Teaching Etiquettes

1. The instructor hour (period) was always fully utilised.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

2. The instructor was usually punctual and regular in class.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

3. The instructor encouraged students’ participation in class.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

4. Adequate examples and illustrations were provided by the instructor.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

5. The instructor always ensured mode of presentation was used to advantage.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

6. The instructor was usually quite audible during lectures.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

7. Attendance at lectures was regularly taken by the instructor.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

B3 Students-Instructor Relationship

1. The instructor was concerned that students understood his/her lectures.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

2. The instructor was always ready to offer individual assistance.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

3. Would you want this instructor to teach you again? Yes □ No □.

B4 Mode of Course Delivery

1. Lectures were regularly delivered as scheduled on the timetable.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

2. Lecture materials were presented in a way that students could readily assimilate.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

3. An appropriate course description/course outline and expected learning outcomes were provided at the beginning of the course.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

4. Course outline was structured and detailed enough.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

5. Textbooks, reading lists and reference materials were recommended.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

6. Students were encouraged to use the main library and the electronic library regularly.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

7. The course curriculum was adequately covered.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

B5 Use of Electronic Smart Board

1. The instructor always used the smart board to deliver his lecture.

   Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

2. The instructor used the smart board appropriately to deliver his lecture.

Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree □.

Thank you for your time and sincerity, please look forward to the best improvement based on your response.