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