Problems and Guidelines to Improve the Teaching Effectiveness Evaluation Process using Students as Evaluators: Suranaree University of Technology

Abstract

          This research is an exploratory study which aims to enhance the effectiveness of the teaching evaluation process. It is an important instrument to express the quality of teaching and learning process that reflect from the learner's perspective. Currently, decreasing of the number of students who is evaluators affect to confidence of data which used to indicate teaching quality of teachers. This research aim: 1) To investigate participate situation of SUT students and teachers in the teaching effectiveness evaluation process, 2) To investigate the level of opinion of SUT students and teachers regarding problems of usage the teaching effectiveness evaluation system, and 3) To study the guideline and ranking these guidelines according to the effect on improving the quality of the teaching effectiveness evaluation process. The 1,293 samples were obtained via the proportional stratified sampling method. The research instrument was employed the questionnaire. The data were analyzed through the descriptive statistics including; numbers, percentages, means and standard deviations. The inference statistics were analyzed as follows; the Chi-square was used to test of homogeneity of proportion. The one-sample t-test compare with threshold value was used to test of mean differences. Guidelines ranking was aggregated through the Borda count method, and the Kendall-Tau correlation (t) was used to indicate the significant level of ranking association. The research findings summarized as follows:

1. Participation in teaching evaluation activity: SUT teachers obtained information about the teaching evaluation activity via communication channels as follows: (1) A notice document to announce the opening of the teaching evaluation activity, (2) Advertising of the activity on the internet and websites, and (3) The SUT e-mail system. SUT students known about the teaching evaluation activity through: (1) Advertising on the internet and websites, and (2) Short Messaging Service (SMS) from the Center of Educational Service.
2. The situation and problems in the teaching evaluation process: SUT teachers and students indicated that the midterm week was the most appropriate time to start the teaching evaluation process, and the final of the teaching evaluation process was the first day of the new semester. To identify problems in the teaching evaluation process: SUT teachers and students identified 5 items were considered as high level problems, including: (1) Lacking of incentives such as rewards/rules, etc. that stimulate students to participate in teaching evaluate the process, (2) Perceiving information about teaching evaluation activity, however forgetful to fill the evaluation questionnaire, (3) A great number of instructors per a course affect to complete in evaluation of all instructors, (4) A greater number of registered courses affect to complete in evaluation of all courses, and (5) A lot of items in a questionnaire affect to time wasting to answer the questionnaire. There are 5 items were moderated level problems, including: (6) The initial day of activity was too late affect to the teacher could not improve their teaching in proper time, (7) Feeling bored and waste of time to evaluate, because there is not an enhancement of the teaching quality afterward evaluated, (8) The questionnaire items were ambiguous and difficult to make understanding, (9) studying time of some courses did not correspond with the teaching evaluation activity period, and (10) Have no a free time to complete an evaluation, because abundantly of learning schedule.
3. Guidelines to support the efficiency of the teaching evaluation process and aggregating of guidelines and ranking based on the importance of each issue, as follows: (1) Providing incentives to support the teaching evaluation activity such as rewards/extra-credits, etc., (2) Emphasizing to advertise the teaching evaluation activity by setting up advertising boards in every building and hiring the part-time student to promote the activity, (3) Determining as the university policies, such as Hiding the course-grading or restricting the course registration in the next semester, etc. For any student who did not evaluate teaching process. (4) Utilizing teaching evaluation results to promote teacher to the new better position, providing new salary rates, considering to extend hiring contracts, etc. (5) Preparing the specific computer laboratory for student to evaluate teaching, and (6) Repealing teaching burden and providing a set of training courses for teacher who got the low level of the teaching effectiveness evaluation score, until their teaching quality were satisfaction improved. These aggregate rankings obtained a high rate of concordance (t= 0.714), with the statistically significant at level 0.05.