=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1830/Paper40
|storemode=property
|title=Students’ Perception of Online Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) in Nigeria
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1830/Paper40.pdf
|volume=Vol-1830
|authors=Muhammad Aminu Umar,Barroon I. Ahmad,Aliyu Muhammad Kufena,Aminu Onimisi Abdulsalami,Sheidu Salami Tenuche,Yusuf Ali Sahabi,Umar Manko Ahmad
}}
==Students’ Perception of Online Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) in Nigeria==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1830/Paper40.pdf
International Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Its Applications
(ICTA 2016)
Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria
November 28 – 30, 2016
Students’ Perception of Online Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) in Nigeria
Muhammad Aminu Umar1*, Barroon I. Ahmad1, Aliyu Muhammad Kufena1, and Aminu Onimisi Abdulsalami1,
Sheidu Salami Tenuche1, Yusuf Ali Sahabi1, and Umar Manko Ahmad2
1
Department of Mathematics, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria
2
Department of Science Education, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria
Zaria, Nigeria.
*maumar@abu.edu.ng
Abstract—Evaluations of teaching effectiveness are considered administrators, government policy makers and researchers.
critical elements in teaching and learning processes in higher There is increase in number of literatures with respect to
institutions. They allow students to complete course students’ assessment of teachings in tertiary institution and
evaluations as part of the institution-wide assessment process. largely the importance of course evaluation as medium of
This paper examines students’ perception of teaching communicating the difference in the strengths and the
evaluation system in the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. In weaknesses of the teaching method against that of
this study, a questionnaire was administered to some instructional [1]. Despite the existence of alternative methods
undergraduate students from the Mathematics Department. A of teaching evaluation, SET remains the most widely used
total of 99 students filled the web-based questionnaire.
and popular [2].
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the
data collected through the activation of the SPSS and
In this regards, validity of the survey instrument has
Microsoft Excel application software. The results showed that taken the most focused on SET related studies. Nevertheless,
the students have positive perception to teaching evaluation. several studies [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] have investigated
They were optimistic that the result of their evaluation would students and faculty members general perceptions on the
be taken seriously for further evaluation and capacity building process of SET. On the studies examining student
of their lecturers. The results also indicated that the students perception, a number of findings and conclusions were
were more comfortable filling the evaluation at the end of class reached. This ranged from students understanding of the
session rather than at the beginning. Thus, it could be importance of SET in improving teaching [10][2] to students
submitted that the evaluation platform has contributed more been pessimistic about whether their comments would be
significantly in determining the students’ perception of the taken seriously [9]. In relation to how SET is been
teaching evaluation in the university. In general, the students administered, students mostly have more preference for
in this study agreed that the teaching evaluation system will online than the paper-based SET surveys for reasons of
improve teaching and learning activities of both the lecturers convenience, anonymity, privacy, and availability of time to
and the students respectively. reason and think about their responses [5][11].
Even though the earlier cited studies exist with their
Keywords-student evaluation of teaching (SET); students’ respective findings, this current study intends to conduct a
perception; higher education
similar study in a different context in terms of environment
and other infrastructural and administrative system
peculiarities. A number of factors can influence results of
I. INTRODUCTION studies of this nature. Recently, that is, 2014, the Ahmadu
Teaching is increasingly more important to the research Bello University has moved from the paper-based to
goals of higher education [1]. In addition to research, computerized online teaching evaluation system. For the
teaching constitutes an integral part of higher education, paper-based evaluation, copies of questionnaire are
hence, the need to have an effective delivery system distributed to students before the commencement of
enhanced through responsive evaluation mechanisms. examination right inside examination hall. This method has
Teaching Evaluations are conducted in order to improve the its associated challenges and shortcomings such as anxiety,
overall teaching effectiveness. In higher education, students lack of privacy, phobia arising from the controlled
evaluations of teaching (SET) is the most commonly environment and so on. Meanwhile, the current computer-
employed method of assessing teaching effectiveness, as it is based teaching evaluation provides the students with the
the currently successful online platform and out-of-class flexibility of time for response and environment.
setting teaching evaluation mechanism [2]. The results of Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to examine
these evaluations usually serve as important feedback to the students’ perception of online SET. Hence, the students’
various stakeholders along the educational value chain which perception is expected to provide an overview of themselves,
includes: students, teachers, departments, faculty, university their lecturers, the evaluation process and the evaluation
23
International Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Its Applications (ICTA 2016)
platform. Thus, the paper will add to the growing body of and not randomly picked, thus may have had a particular
literature on students’ perception on teaching evaluation in interest in the topic.
Nigeria. The study took place at department of Mathematics Abedin, et al. [21] attempted to investigate lecturers’ and
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. students’ perceptions of Student Feedback Online (SuFO) in
four aspects: 1) Lecturers’ and students’ perceptions on
II. LITERATURE REVIEW students’ evaluation. 2) The significance of SuFO evaluation
to lecturers and students. 3) The differences between
Lecturer evaluation is a periodic exercise of measuring
lecturers’ and students’ perceptions on the SuFO evaluation
lecturers’ performance by students [17]. It is a systematic
process. 4) Students’ response to their evaluation. The study
collection and analysis of information from which certain
was conducted using questionnaire given out to 97 lecturers
decisions related to effectiveness, efficiency and/or
and 330 second-semester students selected from various
competence of a lecturer in realising set professional goals
programmes in UiTM Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. Findings
are made. In addition, Cross [18] mentioned that “lecturers’
expressed that there were no significant differences between
anxiety about students’ evaluations seems alleviated if
students’ and lecturers’ perceptions on course evaluation
lecturers are convinced that the evaluation results are meant
process.
to help them assess their own teaching and identify areas to
There were other studies that have investigated students’
improve”.
perception of SET in selected schools, subject areas and
Among the early studies of teaching evaluation in
evaluation modalities (paper-pencil/online). However, paper-
Nigeria is the work of Watkins & Akande [19]. They
pencil is most common in Nigeria and this has posed serious
reported an investigation which tested the applicability of
challenges to the use of SET especially in Ahmadu
two American instruments (the Students' Evaluation of
University, Zaria. One outstanding challenge is the negative
Educational Quality and the Endeavor Instruments) designed
perception of students about the integrity and effectiveness
to assess tertiary students' evaluations of teaching
of the system. Nevertheless, the focus of the current study is
effectiveness with 158 Nigerian undergraduates. This
to examine students’ perception of new computer-based SET
research findings indicated that teaching effectiveness can be
in operation in the university.
measured in a Nigerian setting, that evaluation instruments
developed at American universities may well be reliable in
Nigeria. III. METHODS
Blair & Inniss [20] conducted a pilot study to determine
whether an online student evaluation questionnaire (SEQ) The purpose of this study is to explore students’
offered a pragmatic alternative to the hard copy version and perception of teaching evaluation system. To achieve this, a
whether the students in this developing nation (Trinidad and quantitative empirical research method was adopted. This
Tobago) were ready for the change to the online modality. section discussed the instrument used for data collection.
The pilot study was analyzed against three success The structured questionnaire was used to collect data
indicators: 1) that the average student response rate should from the respondents in this study. The Faculty and Course
be maintained. 2) That the turn-around-time should be Evaluation Questionnaire (FCEQ) by Heine and Maddox
improved. 3) That student satisfaction should be increased. [12] was adopted with slight modifications.
However, specific limitations were also acknowledged as This study targets responses from students of the
this pilot study was specific to one case, and therefore, not Mathematics Department in Faculty of Science, Ahmadu
easily generalizable. Furthermore, the research also Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. These students mainly
suggested that results from the pilot study expressed positive comprises of 2nd to 4th (final) year students. These set of
student perception of online SEQ as they were likely to use students were chosen because of their relative/reasonable
online SEQs just as they would with their hard copy experience with the teaching evaluation system of the
University. Even though random selection would have been
equivalents, and that future students were more likely to
favour the online format. preferred, this was not employed because of the large
A study [2] investigated motivators and barriers to number of students in the department. In order to reach out
student and faculty engagement with an online SET process. as many as possible respondents, the participation was
This was done by conducting semi-structured interviews voluntary with instructions that participating students should
with selected students, who self-identified as either help reach out to their colleagues through mobile phone, e-
“completers” or “non-completers” of SET, and 12 faculty mail and other communication channels. The purpose of this
members. Results from the study showed students was to attract many students through peer group
motivation to complete SET were backed by students’ broadcasting. Consequently a web-based (google form)
perception that results would be used and/or considered by questionnaire was posted on the authors’ websites. The
instructors. On the other hand, students’ barriers to complete questionnaire was divided into two parts A and B.
SET were backed by timing and number of surveys Demographic questions were captured in Part A with the
presented to the students. Results also showed that faculty background information of the respondents which include:
members were motivated to engage with SET when the Age distribution
response rates were high and when senior administrators Gender
acknowledged survey results. This investigation of Level of study
motivators and barriers to engagement with online SET was
subjected to certain limitations. First, this study drew from a While, the Part B was made up of four sections that
small number of students and faculty members within a address: 1) Students responses about themselves; 2) Students
single institution. Second, all participants were self-selected responses about lecturers; 3) Students responses about
24
International Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Its Applications (ICTA 2016)
Evaluation Process; 4) Students responses about the B. Students’ Perception on Teaching Evaluation
Evaluation platform used. For all the items in Part B, the In this section, the results of responses gathered on
Likert scale 1 to 5 response options were used. students’ perception of teaching evaluation were presented.
Data collected were re-coded and analyzed in terms of mean
IV. RESULTS and standard deviations.
From the survey, 99 responses were collected. Basic
quantitative data analysis was done using the SPSS and the 1) Students Responses about Themselves
Microsoft Excel application software. The sample size for This section presents results on students’ responses about
this study adopted the recommendation by Tabachnick and themselves (see Table I). The results shows the mean and
Fidell [13] who stated that the sample size (N) should be standard deviation (SD) of the responses.
greater than 50 + 8m (where m is number of independent
variables). In this study, the independent variables were 3
(i.e. Platform, Students and Lecturers). Therefore, 50 + 8(3) TABLE I. STUDENTS RESPONSES ABOUT THEMSELVES
= 74; this made the sample size (99) adequate for this study. Item Question Mean SD
The results of the findings are presented as follows: 1 I take evaluating the lecturers in my courses 3.71 1.163
seriously.
2 I feel comfortable giving a negative 3.32 1.413
evaluation for a bad lecturer.
3 I rate lecturers based on their personality 2.80 1.421
and enthusiasm and not on what I have
learned.
4 The higher the grade that I expect to receive 3.07 1.380
in a class, the more positive my evaluation.
5 I don’t write negative comments on the 2.71 1.566
evaluation form for fear of being identified.
6 Overall, I think the lecturer and course 4.28 1.011
evaluation process is important.
2) Students Responses about Lecturers
Figure 1. Age distribution of respondents
Table II shows the mean and standard deviation of
students’ responses about their lecturers.
A. Demographic Information
Most of the students (46%) were within the age bracket TABLE II. STUDENTS RESPONSES ABOUT LECTURES
of 20 - 23 years as presented in Figure 1. This age bracket
represented the average age of the undergraduate students in Item Question Mean SD
the department as at the time of the study. On the other hand, 1 Lecturers take my evaluation comments 3.26 1.200
most of the respondents were 400 level students which seriously.
constituted 51% of the total respondents. Figure 2 shows the 2 My evaluations are used in lecturer 2.53 1.190
tenure and salary raise decisions.
Class level distribution of the respondents. Majority of the 3 Lecturers use their evaluations to 3.77 1.159
respondents were male students which accounted for 81% of improve their courses.
the responses while 19% were female students. 4 When students give low evaluations, 3.57 1.239
lecturers adjust to improve their
teaching.
5 Lecturers adjust their behavior at the 3.24 1.294
end of the semester to get better
evaluations.
3) Students Response about the Evaluation
The result of responses of students about the evaluation
process is presented on Table III.
TABLE III. STUDENTS RESPONSES ABOUT EVALUATION PROCESS
Item Question Mean SD
1 Completing the evaluation form in the 2.49 1.487
beginning of a class is better than later in
the class.
2 The questions asked on the form are 4.02 1.069
clear to me.
3 The questions asked on the form are 3.91 1.070
relevant to evaluating a course/lecturer.
Figure 2. Level of study of the respondents 4 Overall, I think the lecturer and course 3.73 1.150
evaluation process is effective
25
International Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Its Applications (ICTA 2016)
4) Students Response about the Platform evaluation would be used in lecturer service tenure (e.g. full
Table IV presents results of students’ responses about the or part-time basis), and salary increment. Further, the
evaluation platform. students were optimistic that their evaluation (especially the
low evaluations) will prompt lecturers to improve on the
TABLE IV. STUDENTS RESPONSES ABOUT EVALUATION PLATFORM course content and teaching generally. Previous studies like
Item Question Mean SD [2][15] also reported that students were confident that their
1 Learning to operate the system was easy evaluations would be taken seriously by the school
for me 3.98 1.097 administrators. Even though [12] reported that students
2 My interaction with the system was clear remained neutral on whether their evaluation comment
4.08 1.075
and understandable would prompt lecturers to improve on general teaching and
3 I find the system flexible to interact with 4.02 1.097 learning process.
4 It would be easy for me to become skillful Responses about the evaluation process suggested that
3.96 1.059
at using the system
5 I would find the system easy to use students preferred completing the evaluation form at the end
3.91 1.089 of the class session rather than at the beginning. The students
considered the questions on the form appropriate and clear
Linear regression was used to determine the effect of the enough for their understanding, and relevant for the
independent variables on the dependent variable evaluation of the courses/lecturers. Overall, they were
(Perception). confident that the evaluation was more effective considering
The significance (Sig.) on Table V determines if the the fact that it was done online. Hence, some students
independent variables make a significant unique contribution believed the online based evaluation would be easier and
to the prediction of the dependent variable. Using 0.05 more realistic to manage their comments compare to the
significant level (p), it was observed that Platform (p=0.000) paper-based SET. This is in accordance with the findings of
and Students (p=0.039) had a significant unique contribution, [16][20] that students were comfortable with the online
while Lecturers (p=0.996) had non-significant contribution evaluation because of its convenience and ability to make
toward prediction of the dependent variable. the respondents anonymous.
Students’ responses about the evaluation platform
TABLE V. LINEAR REGRESSION revealed the platform was easy to learn, to operate and to
interact with. They also claimed the system was clear and
Variable B Beta t Sig. understandable. Further, the system, they stated was flexible.
Students 0.167 0.182 2.094 0.039 Conclusively, in determining students’ perception of
Lecturers 0.000 0.000 -0.005 0.996 teaching evaluation system, the platform contributed more
Platform 0.444 0.575 6.291 0.000 significantly compared to the students and lecturers as
F= 26.987 R2= 0.460 independent variables in the study.
The three independent variables explained 46% of the VI. LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
variance in students’ perception about evaluation process.
Questionnaire was used as the only data collection
instrument; generally, questionnaire is as a data collection
tool is streamlined to predefined items. Also, the scope of the
V. DISCUSION study was within the Department of Mathematics with a
sample size of 99 respondents. Increasing the sample size
From the findings above, note that the responses were and widening the case study would increase the gamut of the
mostly from 200 and 400 level students. The reason was that generalization of the findings from the study.
the 100 level students are usually more of faculty students as
they have more general faculty courses to offer than
departmental course work. Meanwhile, the 300 level students VII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
were on industrial training mostly outside the university at This study explored students’ perception of teaching
the time of this study. evaluation system in Nigerian University. The result revealed
Responses about students themselves revealed that that students were usually motivated to fill the online
students usually take evaluating lecturers in their courses teaching evaluation form which they considered a very
seriously and were comfortable giving negative evaluation important exercise. However, they were skeptical if their
about “bad” lecturers. For the negative comments on the comments as registered on the form would be taken seriously
evaluation form, the results showed that students were for the improvement and advancement of teaching and
skeptical about making such comments for the fear of learning in the department. The study also showed that the
identification. As in [12] findings from this study also students preferred that the teaching evaluation be done at the
revealed that the students were not too keen about the beginning of the semester rather than the later part of the
personality of the lecturers when rating them. However, they semester. On the evaluation platform, the students found it
were overwhelmingly convinced that the process is easy to use, they also understood the content which they
important for the advancement of university education. This claimed was flexible to interact with.
finding also agrees with the findings of [12][15]. To be succinct, it could be concluded that for student
Students responses about lecturers showed that the evaluation of teaching to have a meaningful role in the
students were confident that their lecturers took evaluation operation of Nigerian universities and other higher institution
comments seriously but they were not sure whether their of learning, it is important that these institutions focus on
26
International Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Its Applications (ICTA 2016)
students’ expectation and perception with regards to the role [9] K. J. Spencer and L. P. Schmelkin, "Student perspectives on teaching
of teaching evaluation using the emerging Information and its evaluation," Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
vol. 27, no. 5, p. 397–409., 2002.
Communication Technology and the New Media especially
[10] Y. Chen and L. B. Hoshower, "Student evaluation of teaching
the online system. effectiveness: an assessment of student perception and motivation,"
On the future direction of this study, this study is Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 28, no. 1, p. 71–
expected to be extended to other departments, universities 88., 2003.
etc., with more number of respondents to enable it come up [11] D. S. Fike, D. J. Doyle and R. J. Connelly, "Online vs. Paper
with a more generalizable results. In addition, it is intended Evaluations of Faculty: When Less is Just as Good," The Journal of
here that a comparative study on students’ perception of Effective Teaching, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 42-54, 2010.
teaching evaluation in different faculties of the Ahmadu [12] P. Heine and N. Maddox, "Student Perceptions of the Faculty Course
Evaluation Process: An Exploratory Study of Gender and Class
Bello University is conducted. Differences," Research in Higher Education Journal, vol. 3, pp. 1-10,
2009.
REFERENCES
[13] B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics.
[1] J. Delaney, A. Johnson, T. Johnson and D. Tresslan, "Students' Boston: Pearson, 2007.
Perceptions of Effective Teaching in Higer Education," St. John's NL: [14] H. M. Anderson, J. Cain, and E. Bird, “Online Student Course
Distance Education and Learning Technologies, 2010 Evaluations: Review of Literature and a Pilot Study”. American
[2] I. Iqbal, J. D.Lee, M. L.Pearson and S. P. Albon, "Student and faculty Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2005; 69 (1) Article 5.
perceptions of student evaluations of teaching in a Canadian [15] A. A. Al-Kuwaiti, “Students Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness
pharmacy school," Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, vol. Process in Saudi Arabian Medical Colleges: A Comparative Study of
8, p. 191–199, 2016. Students’ and Faculty Members Perception” Saudi Journal of
[3] S. C. K and S. P. Desselle, "Pharmacy students’ perceptions of a Medicine & Medical Sciences, 2(3), 166-172, 2014.
teaching evaluation process," Am J Pharm Educ. ; 71(1):, 2007. [16] J. Donovan and C. Mader and John Shinsky, “Online vs. Traditional
[4] H. M. Anderson, J. Cain and E. Bird, "Online student course Course Evaluation Formats: Student Perceptions” Journal of
evaluations: review of literature and a pilot study," American Journal Interactive Online Learning 6(3), 2007.
of Pharmaceutical Education, vol. 69, no. 1, p. 34–43, 2005. [17] E.O.S. Iyamu and J. Aduwa. “Assessment of the Inquiry-Teaching
[5] D. Judy, M. Cynthia and S. John, "Online vs. traditional course Competences of Social Studies Teachers in Junior Secondary Schools
evaluation formats: student perceptions," Journal of Interactive in Edo State.” University of Benin: Benin. 2005.
Online Learning, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 158–180., 2007. [18] R. Cross. “Measuring Quality in Education.” New York: El- Kley.
[6] P. M. Simpson and J. A. Siguaw, "Student evaluations of teaching: an 2002.
exploratory study of the faculty response," Journal of Marketing [19] D. Watkins and A. Akande. Student evaluations of teaching
Education, vol. 22, no. 3, p. 199–213, 2000. effectiveness: a Nigerian investigation. Higher Education 24, 453-
[7] W. Y. Wong and K. Monia, "Teachers’ perceptions of and responses 463, 1992.
to student evaluation of teaching: purposes and uses in clinical [20] E. Blair and K. Inniss. “Student evaluation questionnaires and the
education," Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 39, developing world: An examination of the move from a hard copy to
no. 4, p. 397–411, 2014. online modality” Studies in Educational Evaluation, 40 (2014) 36–42.
[8] T. B. Crews and D. F. Curtis, "Online course evaluations: faculty [21] N. F. Z. Abedin, J. M. Taib, H. M. T. Jamil. “Comparative Study on
perspective and strategies for improved response rates," Assessment Course Evaluation Process: Students’ and Lecturers’ Perceptions”
& Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 36, no. 7, p. 865–878, 2011. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123 (2014) 380 – 388.
27