The Implications of Online Faculty Evaluation by Students to PUP Branches and Campuses Faculty: Basis for Policy Review and Implementation

Jerielyn  V. Reyes,; Arapia  C. Ariraya,; Reynaldo  A. Guerzon,

The Implications of Online Faculty Evaluation by Students to PUP Branches and Campuses Faculty: Basis for Policy Review and Implementation

Jerielyn V. Reyes | Arapia C. Ariraya | Reynaldo A. Guerzon

Abstract:

Any faculty evaluation by students is a good yardstick to measure how effective faculty in delivering classroom duties. The results from this exercise are expected to provide indexes that will guide policy makers and implementers if it is about time to revisit and reassess prevailing practices related to teaching performance. Thus, this study aims to determine the perception of the PUP faculty from branches and campuses about the student’s online evaluation and investigate the implication of results to their performance as teachers in higher education institution. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to interpret data. The researchers utilized primary data through self-administered survey questionnaire and secondary data as well. Findings revealed that in general, the faculty find the criteria in four areas of evaluation namely: commitment, knowledge of the subject, teaching for independent learning and management of learning, acceptable. They agree with the rating scale and its equivalent description. The perceived delivery of faculty duties in four areas showed improvement. The faculty recognized that their personal and social development had improved. When respondents were grouped according to highest educational attainment, significant difference was observed on commitment area. Majority of the faculty felt that students do not fully understand the content of the evaluation instrument, and worst, they use it as an opportunity to get even with the professors they dislike. It is therefore recommended to simplify the statements in the instrument to make it more student-comprehensible. To further improve the performance of the faculty, deans and chairpersons may identify administrative concerns of their faculty and address areas that need training, retooling, mentoring, and other forms of intervention as they may see appropriate.

References:

Alsharif, N. Z., & Qi, Y. (2014). A three-year study of the impact of instructor attitude, enthusiasm, and teaching style on student learning in a medicinal chemistry course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(7).
Alvero, A. M., Mangiapanello, K., & Valad, J. (2019). The effects of incentives, instructor motivation and feedback strategies on faculty evaluation response rates in large and small class sizes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(4), 501-515.
Buskist, W., Keeley, J., & Irons, J. (2006). Evaluating and improving your teaching. Observer, 19(4), 27-30.
Buskist, W., & Keeley, J. (2015). Becoming an excellent teacher.
Carrell, S. E., & West, J. E. (2010). Does professor quality matter? Evidence from random assignment of students to professors. Journal of Political Economy, 118(3), 409-432.
Chianese, G. (2015). Developing and assessing teaching effectiveness. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 692-695.
Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S., & Major, L. E. (2014). What makes great teaching? review of the underpinning research.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). One piece of the whole: Teacher evaluation as part of a comprehensive system for teaching and learning. American Educator, 38(1), 4.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory.
Iliya, A., & Ifeoma, L. G. (2015). Assessment of Teacher Motivation Approaches in the Less Developed Countries. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(22), 10-17.
Kelly, M. (2012). Student evaluations of teaching effectiveness: Considerations for Ontario universities. Toronto: Council of Ontario Universities.
Keeley, J. W., Ismail, E., & Buskist, W. (2016). Excellent teachers’ perspectives on excellent teaching. Teaching of Psyc
Mart, C. T. (2013). A passionate teacher: Teacher commitment and dedication to student learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 2(1), 437-442.
Merillat, L., & Scheibmeir, M. (2016). Developing a quality improvement process to optimize faculty success. Online Learning, 20(3), 159-172.
Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field. Teaching and teacher education, 21(2), 125-142.
O’Kell, R. (2017, February 22). The problem with annual performance evaluations. University Affairs. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/problem-annual-performance-evaluations/
Santoro, D. A. (2011). Good teaching in difficult times: Demoralization in the pursuit of good work. American Journal of Education, 118(1), 1-23.
Stark, P. B., & Freishtat, R. (2014). Sept 26. An Evaluation of Course Evaluations.
Skedsmo, G., & Huber, S. G. (2018). Teacher evaluation: the need for valid measures and increased teacher involvement. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30(1), 1-5.
Stroebe, W. (2016). Why good teaching evaluations may reward bad teaching: On grade inflation and other unintended consequences of student evaluations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 800-816.
Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3628-51.
Yew, T. M., Jen, L. S., Dawood, F. K., & Hoay, K. C. (2018). Designing an instrument for providing better student feedback on teaching effectiveness. MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 14-22.
Stroebe, W. (2016). Why good teaching evaluations may reward bad teaching: On grade inflation and other unintended consequences of student evaluations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 800-816.