Evaluating Higher Education Teaching Dimensions through Student Feedback: An Exploratory Factor Analysis

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4924069/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Evaluating Higher Education Teaching Dimensions through Student Feedback: An Exploratory Factor Analysis

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4924069/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Considering the dynamism of learning, diversity of learners, and ambiguous criteria for effective teaching, the validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) as a measure of effectiveness and high-stakes decisions concerning faculty members is being challenged. This exploratory-descriptive study investigates the latent dimensions of teaching quality in higher education as perceived by students. Conducted at the University of the Cordilleras, Philippines, it employs exploratory factor analysis of 276 teacher education student feedback to identify crucial teaching dimensions. The 30-item survey tool, modeled after the university’s SET instrument, used a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (Poor) to 6 (Excellent) in evaluating descriptive statements of teaching practices. The analysis revealed three significant factors: resource optimization and learning support, ethical conduct and emotional intelligence, and innovative pedagogy and critical engagement. This research contributes to the discourse on improving teaching quality by providing evidence-based insights into the aspects of teaching most valued by students.

Educational Philosophy and Theory

Educational Psychology

higher education

student evaluation of teaching

teaching effectiveness

The 4th Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 4) of Quality Education is seen as both a target and a tool to achieve most, if not all, of the other SDGs. In its crux are the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), which are seen as the incubators of one’s core professional competencies. HEIs are also considered the “most concentrated communities of scholars, facilities, and collective expertise” (Rosowsky, 2022) which serve as the movers and shakers of various industries. With this, these academic institutions continuously ensure the quality of service provided to their stakeholders by monitoring and evaluating their teachers’ performance from different perspectives, such as their colleagues and students This is to have a more indiscriminate feedback provided to teachers to help them set their goals for their own professional development.

While educators and administrators are aware of the importance of evaluating teaching performance, the idea is also met with indifference, opposition, and even hostility by the professors themselves. The main reason for this reaction is not on the reliability of the evaluation as a practice but on the tool being used and the evaluators, particularly in terms of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET). This is more so since effective teaching is still debatable, as there is no unified expert idea or consensus as to what it really entails (Uttl, 2021). Moreover, one of the facets of learning is its dynamism, and the nature of the learners is dynamic as well as it changes over time. This plasticity would again challenge the validity of SET as a measure of teaching quality. On top of this, the existing practice of HEIs in using SET for high-stakes decisions, such as tenure and promotion, may force teachers to compromise and change their teaching and assessment approaches to cater to student satisfaction rather than deep learning (Uttl, 2023; Chen, 2023). SET also puts undue pressure on both teachers and administrators to prioritize positive evaluation results, thus leading to the erosion of academic standards. This pressure also affects the mental health and well-being of educators (Lakeman et al., 2022).

As such, it is recognized that there are several difficulties in defining and measuring teaching effectiveness. However, identifying latent and significant factors that drive the decisions of the evaluators may provide a clearer pathway towards a more objective and transparent evaluation practice. This also aims to get HEIs to rethink how quality and performance of teaching is measured and the implications of SET in this process. This paper also intends to bring to light how SET underpins and reflects the changes in the thrust of HEIs in terms of its productivity and role in the society – from simply a tool for improvement to an entire mechanism for sustainable and market-responsive quality assurance practices.

Effective teaching is not achieved unilaterally as it involves a lot of components and is affected by a lot of influents. This multi-dimensional process entails making sure that learners are in a safe, conducive learning environment which utilizes a variety of teaching methods and strategies in order to cater to different learning styles, needs, and contexts (Steinert et al., 2016). With this, teachers should be intentional and reflective in their practices and continuous development to cater to the ever-changing demands of the profession.

A critical, collaborative, and innovative learning climate is much more emphasized in higher education. This is because, as pointed out earlier, this academic level is not just simply about the acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values but transforming these to become the building blocks of adaptive industries and societies. So, teachers in higher education must then ensure that they create a culture of success in their respective institutions by being open to constructive feedback and by practicing reflective teaching and learning.

As pointed out earlier, changes in higher education practices are highly-reliant on feedback practices such as the SET. Student evaluation feedback elucidates the strengths and areas of improvement for the institution and their faculty members from the perspective of their primary stakeholder. This feedback mechanism offers a clear understanding of the ways how the students’ and the society’s needs can be met, while continuously aiming for engagement, satisfaction, and achieving learning outcomes (Ahmad, 2018; Kinash et al., 2015). Examining effective teaching in the lenses of the students fosters a more dynamic and inclusive learning opportunities for the teachers and the institutions, in general.

Factors affecting students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness

What teachers do for the students go beyond academic success. An effective teacher can positively influence the personal and professional development of their students, their character, and even their life choices (Stronge et al., 2015).

Previously, teaching skills (Yu, 2022; Uprety, 2018; Mohammed & Pandhiani, 2017; Mittal et al., 2015; Van der Merwe, 2015), professional characteristics (Mehrparvar et al., 2023; Tampang & Wonggo, 2018; Merkt, 2017; Schumacher et al., 2015; Smithson et al., 2015), and classroom climate (Mohammed & Pandhiani, 2017; Simendinger et al., 2017; Blazar & Kraft, 2016; Klassen & Tze, 2014) have all been identified as significant factors affecting how students perceive what effective teaching is.

Firstly, teaching skills help acquire and apply content knowledge in students through diverse methods of achieving learning outcomes, usually targeting critical and creative thinking. Secondly, professional characteristics necessitate a passion for teaching and genuine dedication to students’ success, while exhibiting a strong work ethic. Specifically, characteristics like approachability and empathy build a strong rapport and enrich the learning experiences for the students. Lastly, a collaborative and respectful classroom climate can help buttress a sense of acceptance, connectedness, and camaraderie between and amongst students, thus positively impacting their evaluation of teaching effectiveness.

Apart from these general factors, student-related factors like prejudice and biases (Heffernan, 2021; Kreitzer & Sweet-Cushman, 2021; Chavez & Mitchell, 2020; Ye & Singh, 2016; Kornell & Hausman, 2016; Wolbring & Treischl, 2015), learning styles (Lawrence et al., 2020; Ridwan et al., 2019; Bhagat et al., 2015; Jepsen et al., 2015), and expectations, academic and otherwise (Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2020; Warren, 2020; Carpenter et al., 2020; Smithson et al., 2015) have all been identified to affect the ways that higher education students view their teachers.

Prejudice and biases can subconsciously alter the students’ perspective on what effective teaching is all about. These may result from one’s preference or understanding of race, gender, or socioeconomic status. These judgments are directly related to one’s environment and past experiences. Learning styles can also affect how students perceive their compatibility with their teachers. What makes teaching and learning a success is measured by the appreciation of the students with the strategies and methods used by a teacher. Anent to this, this appreciation is often based on the perceived affinity between the style of the teacher and the learner. A mismatch of styles may lead to the underappreciation or misinterpretation of the teacher’s efforts by the learners.

Besides these, students’ expectations towards their teachers based on their past experiences, cultural backgrounds, and their assessment of their own capacity to learn and abilities prove to be influential, as well. Some of these expectations include their teachers to demonstrate expert knowledge and excellent grasp of industry practices and provide adequate support to their learning needs. Beyond academics, students may also expect their teachers to become life coaches, providing guidance for personal, professional, and social development, while understanding and addressing their individual needs and challenges.

Given how education has transformed in recent years, the researchers aim to understand as to how these factors play into current contexts. The researchers also aim to scour if there are other factors that are more relevant and meaningful to students that should be considered in evaluation tools used in SET.

Research Questions

This study investigated student perceptions of effective teaching in higher education. Specifically, it seeks to answer the question:

What are the underlying dimensions of effective teaching in higher education?

Participants

This study was conducted using criterion sampling of 276 second-year teacher education students from the University of the Cordilleras who were enrolled in Technology for Teaching and Learning 1 (Prof Ed 108). The choice of the population was to ensure a homogenous grouping as these students share significant experiences in higher education practices and a foundational understanding of pedagogical practices, making them better equipped for the task of evaluating these practices.

Methodology

This study is exploratory-descriptive in nature. This was conducted using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) without a predetermined hypothesis to understand the significant dimensions of teaching effectiveness from the eyes of the students. The survey tool, modeled after the university’s SET instrument, is composed of 30 items which is rated using a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (Poor) to 6 (Excellent). It went through content validation by three seasoned teacher education professors and exhibited high reliability with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.99. Data collection was carried out through online means, with a strong emphasis on privacy and confidentiality to ensure the integrity of the responses and participant comfort. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Promax Rotation was used for data analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure denoted sampling adequacy of 0.980, confirming the sample's viability for factor analysis. The analysis utilized a minimum loading criterion of 0.6 to include items in the factor extraction, discarding those below this threshold. Promax rotation was used after various trials, which proved to be most effective in identifying correlated latent factors and enhancing factor interpretability. Despite only one factor initially exceeding an eigenvalue of 1, three factors were ultimately retained based on their cumulative explanation of 86.8% of the variance, which provided a framework for understanding dimensions of teaching effectiveness.

This study found that there are three significant factors or dimensions that are attributed to efficient and effective pedagogical practices in higher education, as perceived by the students themselves. Figure 1 briefly outlines the latent factors derived from the empirical data, providing a visual representation of what affects the students’ perception of what effective teaching is all about.

Factors and Factor Loadings

Table 1 presents the factors extracted from the data. The first factor, 'Innovative Pedagogy and Critical Engagement,' accounted for 36.6% of the total variance, while the second, 'Resource Optimization and Learning Support', and the third, 'Ethical Conduct and Emotional Intelligence', factors accounted for 28.1% and 22.1%, respectively.

Table 1. Extracted factors of student evaluation of teachers

Factors	Cumulative Variance	Items	Loadings
Innovative Pedagogy and Critical Engagement	36.6%	Promotes critical-thinking, problem-solving skills, independent thought, and exploration Is efficient and watchful in conducting examinations Maintains definite standards of student performance Sets clear expectations for assignments and assessments Is efficient and creative conducting assessments Displays fairness and transparency in grading Uses teaching aids in the presentation and conduct of the lesson	0.772 0.765 0.737 0.691 0.691 0.672 0.604
Resource Optimization and Learning Support	64.7%	Provides adequate resources and supplementary materials to support learning Is organized in the use of classroom materials during lecture Demonstrates organization and planning with creativity Utilizes innovative engagement strategies Creates an enriching learning environment	0.773 0.736 0.682 0.655 0.627
Ethical Conduct and Emotional Intelligence	86.8%	Provides freedom to express opinions in the class Is poised, tempered, and with good emotional disposition Consistently displays professional conduct and ethical behavior	0.768 0.759 0.619

The first component, Innovative Pedagogy and Critical Engagement, consists of elements like critical thinking, problem-solving, and fairness in assessment processes. This factor suggests that students gives weight on creative, engaging, and equitable evaluation and teaching methods in their evaluation of teaching effectiveness.

Secondly, Resource Optimization and Learning Support underscores providing adequate resources and being organized in teaching. This indicates that students consider how teachers use instructional materials and the level of support that the resources they provide as they assess their competence in their role as facilitators of learning.

Lastly, the third component, Ethical Conduct and Emotional Intelligence, comprises factors related to the ethical and affective behaviors of the teacher, such as their openness to expression of opinions and maintenance of a professional demeanor. This reflects that students place importance on these aspects of the teaching practice, apart from the teacher’s skills and knowledge.

Inter-Factor Correlations

Table 2 shows the inter-factor correlation among the three identified factors or components. The factor Innovative Pedagogy and Critical Engagement is strongly correlated with both Resource Optimization and Learning Support with a coefficient of 0.823, and Ethical Conduct and Emotional Intelligence with a coefficient of 0.814. Moreover, the last two factors also has high correlation with a coefficient of 0.793. Table 2. Correlations among the identified factors

	Innovative Pedagogy and Critical Engagement	Resource Optimization and Learning Support	Ethical Conduct and Emotional Intelligence
Innovative Pedagogy and Critical Engagement	-	0.823	0.814
Resource Optimization and Learning Support		-	0.793
Ethical Conduct and Emotional Intelligence			-

This data indicates a strong relationship among factors, which implies that the areas influencing students’ perceptions of teaching effectiveness are not isolated but are perceived as interrelated dimensions of teaching effectiveness.

Innovative Pedagogy and Critical Engagement

This factor is highly appreciated by students who value teaching methods that actively involve them. Critical engagement encourages them to question, analyze, and evaluate information from different points of view, which builds intellectual independence and resilience. Basically, students prefer learning environments that make them think critically and solve problems independently. With this, it is important to set and share clear learning outcomes and assessment processes so that students know what to expect and what is expected of them. This leads to a more focused engagement with the course materials and a more efficient way to achieve these outcomes. Apart from this, clear-cut performance standards and innovative assessment methods provide benchmarks for students to measure their own progress and a student-centered learning environment for them, as these make them more accountable of their learning and promotes fairness (Ye, 2024).

Resource Optimization and Learning Support

This factor highlights the importance of effectively using and maximizing educational resources. It, essentially, involves the efficient allocation of physical resources and strategic use of human resources. Specifically, it emphasizes the utilization of technology in and for education through online learning platforms, digital resources, and tools that enhance the learning experience. These also include textbooks, visual aids, and practical applications that offer diverse ways of presenting information and engaging students. Apart from this, it also points to the kind of learning support that is given to students, such as academic counseling, tutoring programs, mentorship, and accessibility services for differentiated and personalized learning (Li, 2024). Basically, comprehensive and well-organized materials warrant effective teaching and seamless transition between and amongst concepts, topics, skills, and level of proficiency. Thus, the effective resource utilization of teachers makes a dent in their overall effectiveness as facilitators of learning and managers of their class.

Ethical Conduct and Emotional Intelligence

This factor points to the interpersonal aspects of teaching. In terms of ethical conduct, this refers to the principles guiding the ways that a teacher interacts with others, which include honesty, fairness, and integrity. Teachers who display higher ethical standards are more effective in becoming role models and in inculcating the values of responsibility and respect to their students. Because of this, understanding and promoting academic honesty and integrity in Education 5.0 calls for a deeper analysis of ethical concerns in digitalized learning environments (Ekeh et al., 2024). Moreover, professional conduct, should also be considered. Taking account of the preparedness, communication skills, and ethical behavior of a teacher, it is important to note that these have an effect on students’ perceptions of their teacher’s competence and credibility. Equally, emotional intelligence involves understanding and managing emotions while tuning in to the how the students are, simultaneously. This helps in creating a more supportive and safer learning environment, and can lead to stronger connections between teachers and students. This connection can then help in making positive impact in the students’ well-being and academic success. Research also shows that students who feel free to express their ideas are more likely to participate in learning activities. This implies that openness in expression can support inclusivity in classrooms, critical thinking, and embracing diverse perspectives well. So, focusing on ethical conduct and emotional intelligence cultivates empathy, understanding, and acceptance of oneself and others in the classroom. This, then, extends beyond the four walls of the classroom contributing to compassionate, just, empathetic, and more humane society.

Implications

The factors underscore the importance of a more holistic approach to teaching, even in higher education. This approach should integrate pedagogical skills, resourcefulness, and socio-emotional competence. Effective teaching, then, does not just involve the delivery of content but also creating a positive and responsive learning environment for the learners, while modeling values through teaching practices. Teacher development programs, then, should not just focus on knowledge transfer, but should also encompass pedagogical innovation, resource management, and cultivation of emotional intelligence. These programs should include mentorship, peer and professional learning communities, and continuous professional development resources that are available to their teachers consistently. Moreover, higher education institutions should emphasize on these competencies in teacher education programs, regardless of the field of specialization, by including courses on diverse assessment strategies, educational technologies, and promotion of an empathetic, responsive, and inclusive education. Apart from these, teacher evaluation systems that recognize these interconnected competencies and educational policies promoting a more comprehensive understanding of teaching effectiveness are essential. In summary, these factors point to an evolving perception of teaching quality, where it is not just seen in pragmatic and practical means, such as success rates in terms of proficiency, but also through the personalized aspects of the teaching-learning process, which includes student engagement, well-being, and preparedness for future challenges.

Higher education students also deserve meaningful learning experiences. This can be created by incorporating pedagogical skills, resourcefulness, and socio-emotional competence in the practices of higher education teachers. By doing this, these teachers will be able to understand their students better - academically, personally, and emotionally. This more thorough and integrative approach towards development will support students to succeed professionally and personally as they acquire vital life skills and emotional resilience in their learning interactions. As education progresses and changes over time, teachers need to focus on integrating these components into their teaching practices to ensure a meaningful and inspiring experience for students.

To ensure the vigor of these findings, an instrument for Student Evaluation of Teaching has been developed. This new tool incorporated the latent factors discussed in this study and aims to make the process of conducting Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) easier and more conclusive. The development of this instrument supports further research about this construct through CFA. Additionally, it is aligned with the recommendation to further expand the study by focusing on other higher education students to achieve a better understanding of effective teaching practices across various academic disciplines. Through this, the initial findings will be confirmed and will also ensure that the insights gained in this study are also applicable across a wide range of educational settings.

Individuals agreed to the written informed consent provided in order to voluntarily participate in the study.

1. Funding details. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

2. Disclosure statement. The authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.

3. Declaration of Generative AI in Scientific Writing. During the preparation of this work, the authors used Connect Papers to identify related literature for review. The authors also used Jenni AI for preliminary outlining of topics, specifically intended for the introductory part of this study. After using this tool/service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the publication's content.

Ahmad, T. (2018). Teaching evaluation and student response rate. PSU Research Review, 2(3), 206-211. https://doi.org/10.1108/PRR-03-2018-0008
Bhagat, A., Vyas, R., & Singh, T. (2015). Students awareness of learning styles and their perceptions to a mixed method approach for learning. International Journal of Applied & Basic Medical Research, 5(4), 58-58. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-516x.162281
Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2016). Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146-170. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716670260
Carpenter, S. K., Witherby, A. E., & Tauber, S. K. (2020). On students’ (mis)judgments of learning and teaching effectiveness. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211368120300024
Chávez, K., & Mitchell, K. M. W. (2019). Exploring bias in student evaluations: Gender, race, and ethnicity. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(2), 270-274. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096519001744
Chen, Y. (2023). Does students’ evaluation of teaching improve teaching quality? Improvement versus the reversal effect. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(8), 1195-1207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2177252
Clayson, D. (2020). Student perception of instructors: The effect of age, gender, and political leaning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1679715
Clayson, D. (2021). The student evaluation of teaching and likability: What the evaluations actually measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1909702
Darwin, S. (2020a). From the local fringe to market centre: Analysing the transforming social function of student ratings in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 456-469. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1740183
Darwin, S. (2020b). The changing topography of student evaluation in higher education: Mapping the contemporary terrain. Higher Education, 79(5), 935-952. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1712690
Ekeh, G., Okpara, G. C., & Ezeanolue, A. (2024). Strategies for enhancing academic honesty as an ethical concern in E-learning in tertiary institutions: A philosophical perspective. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), 11(2), 163-174.
Heffernan, T. (2021). Sexism, racism, prejudice, and bias: A literature review and synthesis of research surrounding student evaluations of courses and teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1888075
Jepsen, D., Varhegyi, M., & Teo, S. (2015). The association between learning styles and perception of teaching quality. Education + Training, 57(5), 575-587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2014-0005
Jones, S. J. (2012). Reading between the lines of online course evaluations: Identifiable actions that improve student perceptions of teaching effectiveness and course value. Online Learning Journal, 16(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.24059/OLJ.V16I1.227
Kinash, S., Naidu, V., Knight, D., Judd, M.-M., Nair, C. S., Booth, S., Fleming, J., Santhanam, E., Tucker, B., & Tulloch, M. (2015). Student feedback: a learning and teaching performance indicator. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(4), 410-428. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-10-2013-0042
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001
Kornell, N., & Hausman, H. (2016). Do the best teachers get the best ratings? Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00570
Kreitzer, R. J., & Sweet-Cushman, J. (2021). Evaluating student evaluations of teaching: A review of measurement and equity bias in SETs and recommendations for ethical reform. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20(1), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09400-w
Lakeman, R., Coutts, R., Hutchinson, M., Massey, D., Nasrawi, D., Fielden, J., & Lee, M. (2022a). Stress, distress, disorder and coping: The impact of anonymous student evaluation of teaching on the health of higher education teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1489-1500. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2060936
Lakeman, R., Coutts, R., Hutchinson, M., Massey, D., Nasrawi, D., Fielden, J., & Lee, M. (2022b). Playing the SET game: How teachers view the impact of student evaluation on the experience of teaching and learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2126430
Lawrence, B., Ntelioglou, B. Y., & Milford, T. M. (2020). It is complicated: Learning and teaching is not about “learning styles”. Frontiers for Young Minds, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/frym.2020.00110
Lee, H. H., Kim, G. M. L., & Chan, L. L. (2013). Good teaching: What matters to university students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(1), 98-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.860008
Marcham, C. L., Ade, A. M., Clark, P. J., & Marion, J. W. (2020). Bias and trends in student evaluations in online higher education settings. https://dx.doi.org/10.22488/OKSTATE.20.100213
Merkt, M. (2017). The importance of academic teaching competence for the career development of university teachers: A comment from higher education pedagogy. DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals), 34(4), Doc48-Doc48. https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001125
Mehrparvar, A., Keshmiri, F., & Jambarsang, S. (2023). Effective components of teachers' professionalism in viewpoints of various stakeholders. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 12(1), 24-24. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_1565_21
Mittal, S., Gera, R., & Batra, D. Kumar (2015). Evaluating the validity of student evaluation of teaching effectiveness (SET) in India. Education & Training, 57(6), 623-638.
Mohammed, T., & Pandhiani, S. M. (2017). Analysis of factors affecting student evaluation of teaching effectiveness in Saudi higher education: The case of Jubail University College. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(5), 464-475.
On students’ (mis)judgments of learning and teaching effectiveness. (2020, June 1). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211368120300024
Quansah, F. (2022). Item and rater variabilities in students’ evaluation of teaching in a university in Ghana: Application of many-facet Rasch model. Heliyon, 8(12), e12548. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12548
Quansah, F., Cobbinah, A., Asamoah-Gyimah, K., & Hagan, J. (2024). Validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1329734
Ridwan, H., Sutresna, I. B., & Haryeti, P. (2019). Teaching styles of the teachers and learning styles of the students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1318(1), 012028-012028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1318/1/012028
Rosowsky, D. (2022, March 2). The role of research at universities: Why it matters. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrosowsky/2022/03/02/the-role-of-research-at-universities-why-it-matters/?sh=420d835d6bd5
Schumacher, G., Grigsby B., & Vesey, W. (2015). Determining effective teaching behaviors through the hiring process. International journal of Educational Management, 29(1), 139-155. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0071
Shevlin, M., Banyard, P., Davies, M., & Griffiths, M. (2000). The validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: Love me, love my lectures? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 397-405. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713611436
Simendinger, E., El-Kassar, A., González-Pérez, M. A., Crawford, J., Thomason, S. J., Reynet, P., Kjellander, B., & Edwards, J. (2017). Teaching effectiveness attributes in business schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(6), 780-800. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-05-2016-0108
Sims, S., & Fletcher-Wood, H. (2020). Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher professional development: A critical review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1772841
Smithson, J., Birks, M., Harrison, G., Nair, C., & Hitchins, M. (2015). Benchmarking for the effective use of student evaluation data. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 20-29. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-12-2013-0049
Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Anderson, B., Barnett, B. M., Centeno, A., Naismith, L., Prideaux, D., Spencer, J., Tullo, E., Viggiano, T., Ward, H., & Dolmans, D. (2016). A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: A 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40. Medical teacher, 38(8), 769–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.1181851
Stroebe, W. (2023). If student evaluations of teaching are invalid, why are they still being used? Comments on Uttl (2023). Review of Educational Research. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42087-023-00385-z
Stronge, James & Ward, Thomas & Grant, Leslie. (2011). What Makes Good Teachers Good? A Cross-Case Analysis of the Connection Between Teacher Effectiveness and Student Achievement. Journal of Teacher Education. 62. 339-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111404241
Tampang, B., & Wonggo, D. (2018). Teacher professionalism in technical and vocational education. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 306, 012017-012017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/306/1/012017
Uprety, M. (2018). Student’s attitude towards academic quality of higher education institutes of Indore: A comparative study. International Journal of Management Studies, V(3(1)), 01-01. https://doi.org/10.18843/ijms/v5i3(1)/01
Uttl, B. (2021). Lessons learned from research on student evaluation of teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75150-0_15
Uttl, B. (2023). Student evaluation of teaching (SET): Why the emperor has no clothes and what we should do about it. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42087-023-00361-7
Vanacore, A., & Pellegrino, M. S. (2019). How reliable are students’ evaluations of teaching (SETs)? A study to test student’s reproducibility and repeatability. Social Indicators Research. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-02055-y
Van der Merwe, D. (2015). The usefulness of student evaluations for enhancing the effectiveness of teaching of financial accounting students at a South African university. Accounting in Africa, 107-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3563(2012)000012A009
Warren, D. (2020). “Social responsibility” and the curriculum in higher education: The influence of teachers’ values – A case study. Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2055-364120200000021017
Wolbring, T., & Treischl, E. (2015). Selection bias in students’ evaluation of teaching. Research in Higher Education, 57(1), 51-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9378-7
Ye, L. (2024). Innovative pedagogical strategies in second language acquisition. In SHS Web of Conferences, 183, 03013. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202418303013
Ye, Y., & Singh, K. (2016). The effect of working condition on math teacher effectiveness: Value-added scores and student satisfaction in teaching. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 16(3), 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-016-9207-6
Yu, Q. (2022). Factors influencing online learning satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.852360

The authors declare potential competing interests as follows: As the authors belong to the same institution as the locale of the study, this association might have minimal influence on the discussion of the results. However, the authors are confident that it did not influence the results nor the significance of these results to the academic community.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Evaluating Higher Education Teaching Dimensions through Student Feedback: An Exploratory Factor Analysis

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Literature Review

Factors affecting students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness

Research Questions

Participants

Methodology

Findings and Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1