Download Student Perception of Teaching Effectiveness

Do Student Attributes Matter in Determining Student
Perception of Teaching Effectiveness? Some Australian
Experience
Mohammad Alauddin
School of Economics, The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Australia 4072
Email: [email protected]
&
Clem Tisdell
School of Economics, The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Australia 4072
Email: [email protected]
Presented at the Third Biennial Developments in Business and Economics Education
(DEBE) Conference, Cambridge, UK, 1-2 September 2005.
1
Abstract
•Student scores of perception of teaching effectiveness are probably used as the most significant
indicator of teaching quality. The existing literature assumes (almost as an article of faith) that an
average student inter alia puts in the expected number of hours for study, comes well prepared
for tutorials, consults the teaching staff on a regular basis, and does not leave all or most of
his/her studies until very late in the semester. That these variables determining student attitude
and behaviour toward learning can affect student perception of teaching effectiveness has barely
been addressed.
•Employing student survey data and alternative proxies for perceived teaching quality, this paper
argues that perceived teaching quality depends not only on the student perception of instructor
attributes, such as presentation and explanation of lecture material, and organisation of the
instruction process, but also on the student attributes characterised by student learning attitudes.
Deviation from the norm in either situation can significantly affect student assessment of
perceived teaching quality.
•The findings reveal that instructor’s improvement in organisation, presentation and explanation,
emphasis on critical and analytical ability, student’s efforts measured by hours allocated,
regularity in consultation make the student better informed and hence, create a positive
perception of teaching quality. On the other hand, the lower the number of hours allocated by
students to their studies, the higher the propensity to leave everything to the end or just before
the final exam, the more prone the students are to record a lower rating for perceived teaching
quality.
Key words: Teaching effectiveness, Student attributes and behaviour, Instructor attributes,
Student effort.
2
JEL Classification: A2, I2.
Structure & Organization of the Paper
Introduction & Background
Objectives
Data & Methodology
Results & Discussion
•Results from SETI (Student Evaluation of Teaching
Instruments) data
•Results from survey data
Concluding Comments & Implications
3
Introduction and Background
•
Student scores of perception of teaching effectiveness probably used as the most significant indicator of ‘teaching
quality’.
•
The existing literature assumes (almost as an article of
faith) that an average student inter alia puts in the expected
number of hours for study, comes well prepared for
tutorials, consults the teaching staff on a regular basis, and
does not leave all or most of his/her studies until very late
in the semester.
•
That these variables/attributes determining student attitude
and behaviour toward learning can affect student
perception of teaching effectiveness has barely been
addressed in the existing literature.
4
Introduction and Background continued
•It argues that perceived teaching quality depends
not only on the student perception of instructor
attributes, such as presentation and explanation of
lecture material, and organisation of the instruction
process, but also on the student attributes
characterised by student learning attitudes.
•Deviation from the norm in either situation can
significantly affect student assessment of perceived
teaching quality.
5
Objectives
The paper addresses, amongst others, the following
questions:
•What are the principal determinants of teaching effectiveness
score?
•How does an increase or decrease in the perceived score of
any determinant affect the probability of getting a higher or
lower rating of perceived of teaching effectiveness score?
•To what extent do factors representing course content
influence their perception of ‘good teaching’?
•Two what extent do factors representing student attribute
matter in determining student perception of ‘good teaching’?
6
Data & Methodology
• This paper commences with the use of SETI data across three
courses (two undergraduate and one postgraduate) and over five
years involving nearly 1100 students. These are ‘official’ data.
Note that they do not include any factors that relate to student
attributes.
•Subsequently this paper uses student survey data over three years
and involving nearly 250 students in two undergraduate courses
of different levels. These data contain information on student and
course attribute related factors.
•Ordered probit analysis is used as a methodology given the
ordinal nature of the multiple choice data.
•Table 1 presents descriptive statistics using SETI data.
•Table 4 provided a description of the variables based on the
survey data.
7
Results & Discussion
•Results from SETI data (Tables 2 , 3A & 3B)
•Results from survey data (Tables 5, 6A, 6B & 6C)
Table 2 – Ordered probit analysis of SETI data.
•All Courses – All the instructor attributes except Feedback and
communicating Enthusiasm appear significant. This is true for the
combined undergraduate group as well.
•Organisation, Presentation and Explanation appear to be more
important factors given the absolute size of the coefficients.
Feedback is a significant factor at the upper undergraduate course.
Respect to students seem important for the lower undergraduate
course and the combined undergraduate program.
8
Results & Discussion continued
• Encouragement to Thinking rather than
Memorising is more important for the upper
undergraduate course than for the lower. The
opposite seems to be the case for Explanation.
• Instructor Knowledge of the course seems
important for the lower and combined
undergraduate courses but insignificant for the
postgraduate course.
• Instructor help to develop student Learning Skills
is equally important across all the courses.
9
Results & Discussion continued
•Table 3A and Table 3B presents results of sensitivity analysis
and assess the impact on probability of TEVAL of rating of
each instructor attribute of increasing from 4 to 5 or
decreasing from 4 to 3.
•All variables impact on the probability of getting an Overall
rating of 5 given that the attribute ratings increase or decrease
–Organisation, Explanation, and Presentation are the most
important factors that make perceived teaching effectiveness
more sensitive.
•Noticeable variation across courses and levels can be
identified.
10
Results & Discussion continued
Table 5 sets out results of analysis of survey data for
two undergraduate courses.
•Student effort measured by number of Hours
allocated is highly significant across courses.
•Leaving most of the studies until the very end of the
instruction period or for the SWOT vac has a
negative impact on the perception of Overall
teaching effectiveness.
11
Results & Discussion continued
•Perceived Relevance and Practical attributes of the topics
covered in the course, a perception of a good Blend of theory of
application, the extent to which the course overall is perceived to
be Practical impact positively on the Overall student rating of the
teaching and learning process.
•The extent to which student perceive Load to be the same across
the courses that the students were completing at the Same time
has a significant positive impact on the Overall perception of the
teaching quality. On the other hand, Load in the overall degree
program or to support oneself financially does not appear to be
significant.
12
Results & Discussion continued
The extent to which the process is perceived to have
developed students’ Analytical Skills and Critical
Abilities and the extent to which the student was able
to apply what was learned in the course to noneconomics courses have significantly positive effect on
the perceived Overall satisfaction.
•Students in higher level Course seemed to be more
appreciative of the process.
•Students who relied more or less exclusively on the
lecture Notes i.e. on a narrow range of reading
materials displayed a higher propensity to have a
negative view of the process.
13
Results & Discussion continued
Sensitivity analysis results reported in Tables 6A-6C
suggest that:
•Increasing/decreasing student efforts and
relevance of contents and topics would have the
strongest positive/impact on the probability of
getting a rating of 5 in the overall satisfaction
rate.
•Likewise being less regular entails a reduction in
the probability of a higher overall rating.
14
Concluding Comments & Implications
•Instructor’s improvement in organisation, presentation and
explanation, emphasis on critical and analytical ability,
student’s efforts measured by hours allocated, regularity in
consultation make the student better informed and hence,
create a positive perception of teaching quality.
•On the other hand, the lower the number of hours allocated
by students to their studies, the higher the propensity to leave
everything to the end or just before the final exam, the more
prone the students are to record a lower rating for perceived
teaching quality.
15
Concluding Comments & Implications continued
•There seems to be a strong case for redesigning SETI questionnaires
to make it more comprehensive so it can take account of the student
efforts.
•Additional questions involving student and course attributes are
essential to obtain a balanced perspective on measures of teaching
quality. This can be a cost effective way of generating a
comprehensive set of information that can provide a more definite
view of the teaching and learning process. This can also be a very cost
effective way of information gathering as a prelude to in-depth
analysis.
•The present ‘official’ process of collecting data assumes as though
student attributes do not matter or at best students behave normally.
This is somewhat akin to assuming that the least squares assumptions
about the residual term hold and violations are unlikely to occur. This
is unrealistic. Ignoring this implies an abstraction from reality.
16