Author

  • N. Dorasamy

    • Durban University of Technology, South Africa
    • South Africa

  • R. Balkaran

    • Durban University of Technology, South Africa
    • South Africa

Abstract

Evaluation of the quality of programmes by students is considered an important assessment instrument in determining programme effectiveness within higher education institutions. Student ratings of lecturers are only a partial assessment of programmes, since other evaluations beyond students’ perceptions are also considered important within higher education institutions. Student ratings are not only important in determining how students perceive their programmes within a highly competitive higher education landscape in South Africa, but also highlight the strengths and weaknesses of programmes which can be used as an impetus for programme enhancement, especially in view of the increasing number of students entering higher education, while government spending is steadily diminishing. The purpose of this study is to assess student ratings of teaching competencies that can be used for programme evaluation. A quantitative approach was used to analyse the various elements within specific domains in the lecturer evaluation instrument used by the Faculty of Management Sciences at the Durban University of Technology (DUT). The data reported are suggestive of the usefulness of identifying student ratings of important teaching competencies, which is considered as important in a growing student centred orientation within higher education institutions. The article offers constructive analysis of student ratings of various teaching competencies across departments in the faculty, while highlighting strategies to ensure enhanced validity of student ratings. Student ratings of lecturers provide valuable information for faculty to use in programme assessment and consequent programme enhancement. Further, student ratings of lecturers encourages a student’s voice through confidential participation, thereby ensuring that the student experience is fore grounded at the learning and teaching interface.

Keywords

References

  • Baetan, M., Kyndt, E., Struyren, K. & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Facts encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review , 5(3), 243 – 260.
  • Baldwin, T. & Blattner, N. (2003). Guarding against potential bias in student evaluations’. What every faculty member needs to know. College Teaching , 51(1), 27 – 32.
  • Beran, T., Violato, C., Kline, D. & Frederes, J. (2009). What do students consider useful about student ratings? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 34(5), 519 – 527.
  • Bosshardt, W. & Watts, M. (2001). Comparing student and instructor evaluations of teaching. Journal of Economic Education , 32 (1), 3 – 17.
  • Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T. & Broadbent, M. (2003). Quality in higher education monitoring. Quality Assurance in Education , 11(1), 5 – 14.
  • Durban University of Technology. (2009). Quality Assurance Policy. South Africa: Durban University of Technology.
  • Emery, C. R., Kramer, T. R. & Tian, R. G. (2003). Student ratings in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education , 11(1), 37 – 46.
  • Feldman, K. A. (1988). Effective college teaching from students’ and faculty view: Matched or mismatched priorities? Research in Higher Education , 28, 291-344.
  • Feldman, K. A. (1983). Seniority and experience of college educators as related to evaluations they receive from students. Research in Higher Education , 18, 113-124.
  • Fourie, M., Strydom, A. H. & Stetar, J. (1999). Reconsidering quality assurance in higher education: Perspectives on programme assessment and accreditation. Bloemfontein: CHET Board.
  • Harrison, P. D., Douglas, D. K. & Bursdal, C. A. (2004). The relative merits of different types of overall evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Research in Higher Education , 45(3), 311-323.
  • Hill, Y., Lomas, L. & Mac Gregor, J. (2003). Student’s perception of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education , 11(1), 15-20.
  • Kember, D. & Wong, A. (2000). Implications for evaluation from a study of students’ perception of good and poor teaching. Higher Education , 40, 69 – 97.
  • Kulik, J. A. (2001). Student ratings: Validity, utility and controversy . New Direction for Institutional Research , 109, 9 – 25.
  • Nasser, F. & Hagtvet, K. H. (2006). Multi level analysis of effects of students and instructors / course characteristics on student’s ratings. Research in Higher Education , 47(5), 569 – 589.
  • McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist , 52 (11), 1218 – 1225. Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Bobalca, C. & Anton, O. (2010). An analysis of customer satisfaction in a higher education context. International Journal of Public Sector Management , 23(2), 124 – 140.
  • Penny, A. R. (2003). Changing the agenda for research into students’ views about university teaching: Four shortcomings of SRT research. Teaching in Higher Education , 8(3), 399 – 411.
  • Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. New York: Routledge.
  • Stumpf, S. A. (1979). Assessing academic program and department effectiveness using student evaluation data. Journal of Research in Higher Education , 11(4), 353 – 363.
  • Tigelaar, D. E. H., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P. & van-der-Vlenten, C. P. M. (2004). The development of a framework for teaching competencies in higher education. Higher Education , 48(2), 253 – 268.
  • Weimer, M. (1997). Exploring the implications: from research to practice. In R.P. Perry and J.C. Smart (Eds), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice. New York: Agathan Press.
  • White, N. R. (2007). The customer is always right: Student discourse about higher education in Australia. Higher Education , 54(4), 593 – 604.
  • Wongssurawat, W. (2011). What’s a comment worth? How better to understand student evaluations of teaching. Quality Assurance in Education , 19(1), 67 – 83.

Downloads

No downloads have been recorded for this article yet. Figures appear here once readers begin downloading the full text.

How to Cite

Dorasamy, N., & Balkaran, R. (2013). Role of Student Ratings of Lecturers in Enhancing teaching at Higher Education Institutions: A case study of the Durban University of Technology. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 5(5), 268-281. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v5i5.403

Share this article

License

Copyright (c) 2013 N. Dorasamy, R. Balkaran (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team  edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.

This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.

Keywords

Section

Research Paper

Published in

Vol. 5 No. 5 (2013) Trade Advantage, Tourism Demand & Human Capital View issue contents

Published

2013-05-30

Submissions

Have research to publish? Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies welcomes submissions.

Make a Submission