1 / 23

Quality lies in the eyes of the beholder: A mismatch between student evaluation and peer observation of teaching

Quality lies in the eyes of the beholder: A mismatch between student evaluation and peer observation of teaching. Dr. S. Hassan & Mr. W. Wium CPUT. Problem statement . Prompted by the poor performance of students in an “at risk subject” in an Applied Science Faculty.

marcella
Télécharger la présentation

Quality lies in the eyes of the beholder: A mismatch between student evaluation and peer observation of teaching

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality lies in the eyes of the beholder: A mismatch between student evaluation and peer observation of teaching Dr. S. Hassan & Mr. W. Wium CPUT

  2. Problem statement • Prompted by the poor performance of students in an “at risk subject” in an Applied Science Faculty. • Lecturer performance could contribute to poor student performance. • Performance of a Chemistry lecturer was evaluated: by his students and through peer observation of teaching.

  3. Research questions • Are students’ evaluations of lecturer performance a valid measure of teaching quality? • How do students and peers assess teaching quality and against what parameters?

  4. Theoretical framework • Bernstein’s concept of framing which is used to discuss the control that lecturers have over the pedagogical situation.

  5. Degree of framing • Strong or weak framing is dependent on whether the locus of control lies with the transmitter (teacher) or the acquirer (student) (Bernstein, 1995).

  6. Strong frame vs weak frame

  7. Evaluation of teaching effectiveness by students • Increasingly being used for purposes of improving teaching, tenure, promotion and quality assurance initiatives.

  8. Limitations of student evaluation of teaching • Lack of reliability is well published, (Simmons, 1996;Emery, Kramer and Tian, 2003). • Content analysis of items within evaluation Instruments showed that 79% of the items were flawed, ambiguous, unclear or did not identify with teaching performance (Tagomori’s 1993)

  9. Limitations of student evaluation of teaching • Students are being asked questions that they might not have considered and are expected to answer them accurately. • “Students’ subjective opinions can so be varied that the overall results are untrustworthy”(Simmons 1996:17).

  10. Evaluation of teaching effectiveness by students • In spite of limitations, it is still perceived to be an unsurpassed indicator of teaching effectiveness Ramsden (1991) . • Relatively valid against a repertoire of indicators of effective teaching (Marsh 2007). • Giving students a voice in making a judgement about the quality of teaching augurs well for weak framing.

  11. Methodology

  12. Sampling • Purposive: first year chemistry students. • 22 students. • 100% response rate.

  13. Table 1: Responses to structured items with strong framing

  14. Responses that reflect strong framing • WHAT DID YOU BENEFIT MOST FROM THIS LECTURER? • “He brings everything that is beneficial to the lecture”.  • “He is teaching me chemistry and he is good at it”. • “Lecturer is always presenting work well and is easy to understand”.

  15. Results: Student evaluation • Overall, students evaluated their lecturer positively, indicating that he was an “effective lecturer”.

  16. Table 2: Responses to structured items with weak framing

  17. Table 2: Responses to structured items with weak framing (con’t)

  18. Results: Peer observation of teaching (POT) • Lecturer employed predominantly teacher-centered, passive approaches to teaching, and the facilitation of active learning was minimal. • Interaction among students was minimal. • Stifled questions from students to get through lesson. • Few opportunities for self-directed learning. • Framing was strong.

  19. Discussion and conclusion • The perception of what constitutes “quality teaching” is viewed differently by peers and students. • Students not sophisticated enough to know about student-centeredness. •  Evaluated their teacher positively yet they were failing.

  20. Discussion and conclusion • Students perceive behaviourist approaches to teaching as being effective because of their assumptions and previous experience of teaching being teacher-centered. • They may not have been exposed to constructivist approaches of teaching. • Not in an optimum position to identify indicators of quality teaching. • Students’ feedback on teaching is not necessarily accurate or useful.

  21. Recommendations • Different perspectives are needed to form a holistic view of what constitutes good teaching. • Student evaluation of teaching might not always be valid, but cannot do away with their evaluations. • Improve students’ perceptions and evaluation of teaching quality.

  22. Recommendations (con’t) Hallmarks of accomplished teaching should be taken cognizance of in designing student evaluation instruments.

  23. Thank you !

More Related