1. Dr. S. Hassan & Mr. W. Wium CPUT

2.  Prompted by the poor performance of students in an “at risk subject” in an Applied Science Faculty.  Lecturer performance could contribute to poor student performance.  Performance of a Chemistry lecturer was evaluated: by his students and through peer observation of teaching.

3.  Are students’ evaluations of lecturer performance a valid measure of teaching quality?  How do students and peers assess teaching quality and against what parameters?

4.  Bernstein’s concept of framing which is used to discuss the control that lecturers have over the pedagogical situation.

5.  Strong or weak framing is dependent on whether the locus of control lies with the transmitter (teacher) or the acquirer (student) (Bernstein, 1995).

6. Strong frame: teacher- centered Weak frame: student centered

7.  Increasingly being used for purposes of improving teaching, tenure, promotion and quality assurance initiatives.

8.  Lack of reliability is well published, (Simmons, 1996;Emery, Kramer and Tian, 2003).  Content analysis of items within evaluation Instruments showed that 79% of the items were flawed, ambiguous, unclear or did not identify with teaching performance (Tagomori’s 1993)

9.  Students are being asked questions that they might not have considered and are expected to answer them accurately.  “Students’ subjective opinions can so be varied that the overall results are untrustworthy”(Simmons 1996:17).

10.  In spite of limitations, it is still perceived to be an unsurpassed indicator of teaching effectiveness Ramsden (1991).  Relatively valid against a repertoire of indicators of effective teaching (Marsh 2007).  Giving students a voice in making a judgement about the quality of teaching augurs well for weak framing.

11. Student evaluation of lecturer performance. Self-administered questionnaires QUANTITATIVE Peer observation of teaching (POT). Observation QUALITATIVE

12.  Purposive: first year chemistry students.  22 students.  100% response rate.

13. Categoryitem% in agreement Methods of teaching Use of range of T & L methods. Use of technology to enhance T& L 95 100 Resources Develops course materials. Prepares study guides. Quality of materials developed is high. 90 41 86 Cognitive developm ent Encourages critical thinking. Gets students to apply knowledge. 91 100 Assessme nt Ensures that assessment is a valuable learning experience. Assesses students’ work fairly. 100 79

14.  WHAT DID YOU BENEFIT MOST FROM THIS LECTURER?  “He brings everything that is beneficial to the lecture”.  “He is teaching me chemistry and he is good at it”.  “Lecturer is always presenting work well and is easy to understand”.

15.  Overall, students evaluated their lecturer positively, indicating that he was an “effective lecturer”.

16. Category of items item% in agreeme nt Active learning * Encourages responsibility for own learning. *Challenges independent thinking. *Encourages students to answer questions. * Encourages interaction among students. Encourages participation in tutorials. Encourages students to ask questions. Initiates relevant discussions. Opportunities for problem- solving. 95 86 91 86 95 100 82 64

17. Category of item item% in agreement Accommoda tion of student diversity Uses language that is understandable. Acknowledges cultural differences among students. Provides support for students from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. Fair in dealing with students. 95 68 86

18.  Lecturer employed predominantly teacher- centered, passive approaches to teaching, and the facilitation of active learning was minimal.  Interaction among students was minimal.  Stifled questions from students to get through lesson.  Few opportunities for self-directed learning.  Framing was strong.

19.  The perception of what constitutes “quality teaching” is viewed differently by peers and students.  Students not sophisticated enough to know about student-centeredness.  Evaluated their teacher positively yet they were failing.

20. Students perceive behaviourist approaches to teaching as being effective because of their assumptions and previous experience of teaching being teacher-centered. They may not have been exposed to constructivist approaches of teaching. Not in an optimum position to identify indicators of quality teaching. Students’ feedback on teaching is not necessarily accurate or useful.

21.  Different perspectives are needed to form a holistic view of what constitutes good teaching.  Student evaluation of teaching might not always be valid, but cannot do away with their evaluations.  Improve students’ perceptions and evaluation of teaching quality.

22. Hallmarks of accomplished teaching should be taken cognizance of in designing student evaluation instruments.