ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

A self-evaluation survey is one of the basic tools used by every higher education institution for the purpose of identifying and improving the quality of its educational services. A relevant segment of the self-evaluation procedure is the work of the HE teacher; the assessment is provided via a survey filled in by each course student’s attendants respectively. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to show the advantages and disadvantages of the students’ survey as a part of the self-evaluation process at the “Sv. Kliment Ohridski” University in Bitola, Republic of Macedonia. The research has a qualitative paradigm, i.e. the twelve survey statements within this survey are analyzed regarding the impact they have on the validity and objectivity of the results to be provided about the HE teachers’ work quality, and regarding their relevance in the multidimensional teaching construct. The research has also a quantitative paradigm, i.e. an analysis of the opinions of 100 HE teachers of this University about the effects of the students’ survey answers on their teaching, and an analysis of 200 students of this University about the efficiency of the survey they fill in. The research has a descriptive design. The methods used for processing the data and for gaining conclusions consist of analyses, syntheses and comparison. The research results indicate that besides the advantages, this students’ survey has numerous disadvantages that should be taken into account because they influence both the validity and the objectivity of the grade given to the HE teachers’ work. It consequently imposes the need for urgent revision of the survey questions.
369
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
ISSN: 1984-6444 http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/1984644430084
A self-evaluation survey is one of the basic tools used by every higher
education institution for the purpose of identifying and improving the
quality of its educational services. A relevant segment of the self-e-
valuation procedure is the work of the HE teacher; the assessment is
provided via a survey lled in by each course student’s attendants res-
pectively. erefore, the aim of this paper is to show the advantages and
disadvantages of the students’ survey as a part of the self-evaluation
process at the “Sv. Kliment Ohridski” University in Bitola, Republic
of Macedonia. e research has a qualitative paradigm, i.e. the twelve
survey statements within this survey are analyzed regarding the impact
they have on the validity and objectivity of the results to be provided
about the HE teachers’ work quality, and regarding their relevance in
the multidimensional teaching construct. e research has also a quan-
titative paradigm, i.e. an analysis of the opinions of 100 HE teachers of
this University about the eects of the students’ survey answers on their
teaching, and an analysis of 200 students of this University about the
eciency of the survey they ll in. e research has a descriptive design.
e methods used for processing the data and for gaining conclusions
consist of analyses, syntheses and comparison. e research results in-
dicate that besides the advantages, this students’ survey has numerous
disadvantages that should be taken into account because they inuence
both the validity and the objectivity of the grade given to the HE tea-
chers’ work. It consequently imposes the need for urgent revision of the
survey questions.
KEYWORDS: Students; Survey statements; HE teachers; Assessment
objectivity and validity.
Abstract
Students’ survey for assessing HE teachers’ work –
advantages and disadvantages
Violeta Janusheva*
“St. Kliment Ohridski” University
Milena Pejchinovska**
“St. Kliment Ohridski” University
Jove D. Talevski***
“St. Kliment Ohridski” University
370
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
Introduction
e higher education reform processes in the Republic of Macedonia point
out the students’ active role in gaining the necessary knowledge and competencies, as
well as the role of the modern approaches in the teaching practice. ese new appro-
aches have marginalized HE teachers’ role; instead of being treated as profound and
major source of knowledge, they have been given the role of mentoring students’ ac-
tivities. Furthermore, modern teaching indicates that HE teachers’ teaching/lecturing
should be condensed but comprehensible, clear and primarily focused on examples
from the practice. More precisely, it should be based on the principles that relate
theory to practice and on the relevance of providing students with knowledge that
will be applicable in their work and life. In addition, the modern teaching approa-
ches demand that the assessment process should be directed towards eliciting students’
knowledge. In this sense, both the society and the higher education institutions are
Pesquisa de estudantes para a avaliação do trabalho dos es professores
- vantagens e desvantagens
Uma pesquisa de autoavaliação é uma das ferramentas básicas usadas
por todas as instituições de ensino superior com o propósito de identi-
car e melhorar a qualidade dos serviços educacionais. Parte relevante
do procedimento de autoavaliação é o trabalho do professor ES; a ava-
liação é realizada através de um questionário preenchido por cada estu-
dante de cada curso, respectivamente. O objetivo deste artigo é mostrar
as vantagens e desvantagens do questionário de avaliação aplicado aos
estudantes como parte do processo de autoavaliação da Universidade
"Sv. Kliment Ohridski” em Bitola, na Macedônia. Este trabalho de pes-
quisa segue o modelo qualitativo, sendo que as doze perguntas feitas na
avaliação são analisadas sob a ótica do impacto que elas tem na validade
e objetividade dos resultados a serem fornecidos sobre a qualidade dos
professores HE, e em função da relevância na construção de um ensino
multidimensional. Também inclui um modelo quantitativo, como na
análise das opções dos 100 professores HE desta Universidade, sobre
os efeitos das respostas dos estudantes no seu ensino, e uma análise dos
200 estudantes da Universidade sobre a eciência do questionário que
responderam. A pesquisa tem um desenho descritivo. O método usa-
do para o processamento dos dados e análise dos resultados buscando
conclusões signicativas consiste em análise, síntese e comparação. Os
resultados da pesquisa indicam que além das vantagens, este questioná-
rio dos estudantes tem inúmeras desvantagens que deveriam ser levadas
em consideração, porque inuenciam ambos, a validade e a objetividade
da nota atribuída ao trabalho dos professores HE. Consequentemente,
urge a necessidade de revisão das perguntas do questionário.
Resumo
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Estudantes; Questionário; Profesores de ensino
superior; Objetividade de avaliação e validade.
371
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
interested both in developing mechanisms to measure the quality of the teaching pro-
cess and implementing various teaching-and-learning self-evaluation and evaluation
instruments1.
As any process of evaluation, HE teachers’ self-evaluation is a process in
which the set criteria are compared with the aspects of their own work applied to as-
sess and grade students’ achievements. is implies planning, realization and taking an
action in accordance with the results. e self-evaluation takes part during the whole
teaching process, it is the beginning and the end of a single developmental cycle.
e most important goal of HE teachers’ self-evaluation procedure is to
know the eectiveness of their own work, and accordingly, if a necessity arises – to
introduce modications or changes into the planning and realization of their further
activities for the sake of their teaching practice enhancement.
Depending on the period when it is conducted, the self-evaluation can be
either formative or summative. rough the personal self-evaluation, HE teachers
check their successfulness, discern the possible poor eects of their teaching practice,
analyze them, etc. en, they make the necessary changes in order to make impro-
vements and provide what is good and desirable for their high-quality teaching. In
accordance with the results obtained from the self-evaluation, HE teachers anticipate
their future steps to promote their work, and this leads to the necessary further deve-
lopment of the higher institution they teach in.
e teaching process is a complex activity. Its eciency depends on HE
teachers’ knowledge and skills to address various students’ motives, competencies and
intellectual possibilities. In this process, HE teachers transfer knowledge and skills to
students, utilizing the most suitable forms and methods that will facilitate this transfer
and provide an objective assessment of students’ achievements. Besides, every teacher
is interested both in the quality of his teaching and its eects on his students. erefo-
re, HE teachers often talk to students about various aspects of their teaching, primarily
about the eects and the quality of the various activities in the teaching process. ese
conversations represent a type of self-evaluation. ey provide HE teachers with fe-
edback about the quality of their activities in order to direct their teaching towards
students’ needs and interests.
On the other hand, every higher education/HE institution is interested in
enhancing the quality of the teaching stu. ereby, in accordance with the HE Law,
it conducts a Faculty Self-Evaluation as well. us, each faculty teaching sta ’s work
is evaluated through a survey the students ll in about each HE course teacher. e
self-evaluation in the Republic of Macedonia is regulated with the current Law for
Higher Education, put into force in March 20082. According to article 77 of this Law,
every academic unit of the University must appoint a Self-Evaluation Committee
that will conduct the self-evaluation. is self-evaluation must be done in accordance
with the requirements stated both in the Statute of the University and the Statute
of the Higher Education Institution. is committee consists of six members of the
Faculty Education and Science Council (ESC), elected via secret ballot by the other
372
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
members of the respective faculty ESC, for a four-year mandate, and of two students,
with a two-year mandate, elected by the students. e self-evaluation is conducted in
accordance with the Self-Evaluation Guidance for providing and assessing the quality
of the HE institution, promulgated by the University.
e article 77 states that the self-evaluation is to be conducted periodically
every three years. e same article instructs that students assess HE teachers at the
end of the academic year. e grade of the HE teachers’ work is taken into account
when promoting HE teachers to a higher rank. e grade from the students is provi-
ded through a survey that students ll in. It is obvious that students have a vital and
inevitable role in assessing HE teachers and determining their future career.
However, bearing in mind such a sensitivity of this issue, this procedure
leads to many questions about the validity and objectivity of the grade that HE tea-
chers are given from the students. e questions listed below appear to be of utmost
importance:
– Do the statements in the survey reect all aspects of the multidimensional
teaching construct?
– Are all of the statements in the survey equally relevant and inuential
regarding the teaching?
– Are the students capable of grading the HE teachers objectively regarding
the way they teach and the way they manage all the activities during the
teaching process; let us not forget the complex nature of the assessment,
especially that one of the objectivity issue?
– Are the results from the survey valid and objective indicators for the HE
teachers’ work to an extent that they should be indisputably taken into ac-
count when their promotion into a higher rank is to be decided on?
In line with the above stated, the aim of this paper is to show that the
self-evaluation is both a relevant segment of the activities of a Higher Education
institution and a mechanism, which provides important information about the HE
teaching. is information should be strictly used only formatively. Yet, there have
been numerous factors beyond the authority of the HE teachers which keep emerging
and displaying severe impact on the validity and objectivity of the results.
e objectivity and validity issue of a prescribed survey template, used to
evaluate HE teachers’ performance, is actually a constituent of the question on the
intellectual renement of HE self-evaluation not only in Republic of Macedonia but
in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), in EU, and in the whole world, as well.
Various aspects of this type of HE institutional self-evaluation have already
been frequently discussed at respective European and global gatherings. In this regard,
striving to become highly compatible with the European and the world educational
systems, the Macedonian educational system puts all its eorts into elevating the
cultivation of the self-evaluation implementation. Furthermore, it is exceptionally im-
portant to point out that – being a candidate for accession to the European Union
373
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
since 2005, and a full member of Bologna Process since 2003, Macedonia has long
since accepted the principles of Bologna Declaration and keeps implementing them,
including the ones related to the HE quality self-evaluation. An equally signicant
fact is that – as a country often sampled in the developed countries’3 research on the
HE self-evaluation implementation, Macedonia has long been encompassed in both
the European and the global educational world, especially in regard with the dilemma
arising over the survey answers and the survey results interpretation. is type of re-
search is considered immensely relevant as it emphasizes the importance of signiers,
indices, and relevant statements, which constitute the teaching construct in general,
and accordingly reect the HE teachers’ performance for enhancing CEE and Ma-
cedonian HE systems and their compliance with the HE systems on a global level.
In addition, the universities of R. Macedonia follow the principles of the European
Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education and the European University
Association principles when preparing the instruments to be used for university and
HE teachers’ performance evaluation.
Background information
In the Macedonian reviewed literature, the question connected with stu-
dents’ survey to grade HE teachers’ teaching/lecturing has neither been researched nor
elaborated so far. In the foreign reviewed literature there is far more information. e
results from several relatively new conducted research projects, related to the advan-
tages and disadvantages of this method for assessing HE teachers’ performance, are
as listed:
Otany, Kim & Cho (2012, pp. 531-544), examine "the inuence of 13 as-
pects of the teaching" as part of the students’ evaluation of the teachers ’ work in
order "to identify the priority aspects", i.e. the aspects which are most inuential in
the evaluation. e results from their research show that not all of the 13 aspects have
equal inuence on the overall grade for the eciency of the teachers’ work. e listed
aspects they selected are considered as most inuential: "clear explanation; eective
use of the time; positive climate for learning and stimulating material for learning".
According to these authors, "the identication of the priority aspects for the teachers’
work assessment improves the quality of the evaluation".
Kelly (2012, pp. 2-7), indicates that "'teachers’ assessment by students
should be formative in nature", i.e. provide the evaluated teachers with feedback.
Otherwise, the assessment" will not achieve the desirable eect". According to her,
students’ survey "measures students’ feeling and opinion about the way the subject is
taught and not about the quality and level of the knowledge they have obtained from
the teacher". Further, she suggests ve relevant aspects of the teaching that should be
taken into consideration when students assess teachers’ work. ese aspects are: "the
course should have clear goal; the teachers should oer help and contribute to the
learning process; the time for teaching and exercising should be balanced and the
topics that have been learned should be relevant to the students’ future work". At
the end of the course, students should give overall grade to evaluate these elements.
Moreover, Kelly stresses out "the eects of the statements on the overall grade. e
374
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
grade will surely aect the teachers, because they can suspect its validity and objecti-
vity". She points out the possibility that "the survey will not be taken seriously from
students if they feel that the results from the survey are not used for improvement of
the teaching". She, also, indicates "the positive correlation between the grade teachers
have given to the students and the grade that students in return give to the teachers
for their work". In addition, she highlights the importance of "the way the results are
managed". Finally, she concludes that "the statements should be clear and meaningful,
and point out the signicant aspects of teaching".
Marsh & Roche (1997, pp. 1187-1197) bring out the signicant role of the
teaching, "which is multidimensional construct that consists of many activities". e
evaluation of teachers’ work should reect this signicant aspect, i.e. this multidimen-
sionality. Further, according to them, "the surveys dier regarding the quality of the
statements and the way the teaching construct is comprehended". e survey’s validity
and eectiveness depends on "the content and the aspects of assessment that have
been taken into account". "Inappropriate statements will not give satisfactory infor-
mation". ey highlight that in the teaching practice "many instruments for assessing
teachers’ work do rely on the logics and pragmatics, but rarely include psychometric
features", which additionally aects their validity and objectivity. Moreover, they su-
ggest that "the instrument for assessing teachers’ work should be designed the way it
can measure the separate components of the multidimensional teaching construct". It
is hard to evaluate the validity of the instrument simply because no single criterion for
eective teaching is enough.
Parpala, Ylänne & Rytkönen (2011) suggest that "there is a connection be-
tween students’ beliefs what good teaching is and the grade they give to the teachers".
Regarding the good teaching, they reveal that "the clear information and the teachers’
eorts to clarify things for students are relevant aspects of the good teaching".
Beran & Violato (2009, p. 3), indicate "the positive correlation between the
grade teachers have given to students for the subject taught and the grade that stu-
dents give to teachers". e students who are graded with high marks assess teachers
with higher grade and vice versa. Further, in their research, they examine "the degree
to which the features of the teaching and students’ engagement aect the way students
grade their teachers". According to them, "various subjects are taught in various ways".
For instance, laboratory practice, distant teaching-and-learning, practicum, etc., are
run in dierent ways, and "this has an impact/ a dierent impact on the way students
grade their teachers’ work". In addition, they indicate other features which inuence
the way students assess their teachers’ work such as duration of the course; whether
the subject is compulsory or elective; teachers’ requirements regarding the subject, etc.
ey conclude that "the students’ engagements and teachers’ teaching are multidimen-
sional constructs that consist of many activities". eir research conrms the positive
correlation between students’ regular attendance of classes and the grade they give for
their teachers’ performance. e students that regularly attend the classes are more
motivated and give higher grades to their teachers.
375
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
Beran & Rokosh (2009), state the opinion of many professors at the Uni-
versity in Calgary. ese professors claim that "the instrument for assessing their work
is not designed appropriately and has no quality", thus, it cannot contribute to impro-
ving the teaching practice.
Hoyt & Pallett (1999) accentuate "the negative side of these surveys", espe-
cially in reference to "the results, which are used to compare teachers". According to
them, "this comparison will be valid only if standardized surveys are used".
Seldin (1993) indicates that "students have limited knowledge and they
should not assess teachers’ knowledge of the subject they teach, or the appropriateness
of the materials they use to teach in class".
From the conducted research stated above, it is obvious that the researchers’
attention is directed toward revealing the relevant and inuential aspects of the com-
plex teaching construct. Furthermore, their research is aimed toward revealing the
relevance and inuence of the surveys’ statements, which are components of how one
understands the phrase “good teaching”. is information shows the presence of many
factors that directly or indirectly contribute to the dierences in the results obtained
from the students’ survey.
Methodology of the research
e research has a qualitative paradigm (content analysis). e sample con-
sists of 12 statements in the students’ survey referring to various aspects of the HE
teachers’ teaching and work, and they are to be assessed with ve preset Likert sca-
le-ranked answers. is survey is a template provided by the university for each aca-
demic unit i.e. faculty. ese statements with preset Likert scale-ranked answers have
been analyzed regarding their inuence on the validity and objectivity of the results
obtained about the HE teachers’ work, as well as regarding their importance in the
multidimensional teaching construct.
e research has also a quantitative paradigm. e opinions and stances of
200 students of “Sv. Kliment Ohridski” University – Bitola, have been collected via a
survey, on the one hand, and on the other – the eects of the students’ teacher-evalua-
tion-survey have been analyzed. e opinions and stances of 100 HE teachers of the
same university have been collected via a survey and analyzed with reference to the
survey aspects inuencing their teaching. e quantitative method has been used to
address the qualitative analysis. e methods used for processing the obtained data
and for reaching conclusions are analyses, syntheses and comparison.
e above stated university has been selected as a sample because the au-
thors of this research paper are members of the academic sta of this university; they
have easier access to the HE teachers’ self-evaluation and students’ teacher-evalua-
tion-survey data. In addition, research bias has been bypassed by previous browsing
the web pages of the other universities in R. Macedonia: their self-evaluation and HE
teachers-performance-evaluation results published on their web pages on the Inter-
net show little, or no uctuations from our university results. Moreover, they show
376
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
reference to the same teaching construct components. ese similarities result from
fact that – when preparing the HE teachers-performance-evaluation survey question-
naires, the universities of R. Macedonia follow the principles of the European Asso-
ciation for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA4) and of the European
University Association5.
Results and discussion
e students’ survey for grading their HE teachers’ performance at the “Sv.
Kliment Ohridski” University in Bitola, in R. Macedonia, has been regularly con-
ducted since May 2002. It has been assumed that the survey – as an instrument for
gaining the necessary information about the HE teachers’ work is a relevant internal
mechanism which will contribute to the quality of the higher education. is survey
consists of 12 statements that refer to HE teachers’ work, and they are to be assessed
with ve preset Likert scale-ranked answers. What follows is the qualitative analysis
of these statements. e results are compared with the results from the previous re-
search on this topic, as well as with the results of the surveyed HE teachers’ opinions
and stances.
e beginning of the survey consists of Introductory Statements section,
that students should ll in with general data, such as to which academic unit they
belong, which year they attend, the surveyed course they have attended, their respec-
tive achievements/grades, etc. One of these introductory statements is of particular
interest for this research. It refers to how many times the student has sat for the exam
(once, twice or more times). Although this question is not a part of the 12 statements,
the implications which arise with the students’ answers – further down in the survey,
are rather signicant for the results of the survey. It certainly leads to the assumption
that the survey’s designers have supposed the number of times the students have taken
the exam might have some inuence on the survey results. Whether the students pas-
sed the exam in the rst exam session or they had to sit for the same exam many times
before passing the exam does not depend on their HE teachers. It depends only on
the students’ knowledge of the subject matter. However, the practice has shown that
students most often blame their HE teachers for failing the exam, regardless of the
fact that there are no reasonable grounds for such perception on behalf of any of the
students. In this respect, there is a high-level probability that students who needed
more attempts to pass the exam will grade their HE teachers with lower grades. is
interpretation is in accordance with the surveyed HE teachers’ opinions, which already
shows experiences with this kind of students’ attitude. is is also in accordance with
Kelly’s (2012) and Beran & Violato’s (2009) research, and an indicator that a single
factor which is beyond HE teachers’ authority can greatly aect the survey’s results.
377
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
Statement 1: The HE teacher is appropriately prepared,
explains clearly and understandably, and evokes interest for
the subject taught
From this statement, it is obvious that it has three components: a) teacher’s
preparedness to teach; b) teacher’s clarity and comprehensibility; and c) the interest
the HE teacher evokes with his teaching. ere is no doubt, that clear and understan-
dable teaching, and the interest that the teacher evokes with the students attendants
of the course are important, relevant, and inuential aspects of the eective teaching
construct. However, teacher’s preparedness should not be a part of this statement in
a survey the aim of which is to grade HE teacher’s work because there are strong
arguments that indicate that every HE teacher is/must be well prepared. According
to our analysis we provide the following arguments respectively for each of the three
components (a; b; c) included in the rst statement:
The HE teacher is appropriately prepared
All of the HE teachers who teach in HE institutions have completed
appropriate academic studies and obtained the three cycle degrees. Within each of
the three cycles of their education, their competences and preparedness have been
conrmed by many distinguished professors, both by their signatures and the positive
grades they have given to the degree candidate in the respective subject area. Finally,
the HE teachers have already defended their PhD thesis before a Board of ve experts
in the eld, and have been awarded the academic title of a doctor. erefore, they
have met the necessary knowledge requirements to be employed and to work in a HE
institution. Accordingly, the (a) component in the rst statement is completely an
inappropriate, irrelevant and misleading aspect in a survey for grading HE teacher’s
performance. is opinion is also shared and conrmed by all of the surveyed HE
teachers who have been selected as sample of the research.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning some additional information in su-
pport of the stance that the “a)” component of the statement is inappropriate and can
aect the survey’s results. For instance, let us analyze the question about the criterion
that students can competently use to provide a valid answer as to whether the HE
teachers are well-prepared or not. It is clear that students’ basic criterion can be only
their prior knowledge of the subject taught. Yet, the quality and expansiveness of stu-
dents’ previous knowledge has nothing to do with the course teacher’s preparedness.
In support of this claim, let us assume that a student has excellent previous knowledge
of the Modern Macedonian Language subject and that he understands everything
the HE teacher teaches. For example, he knows to determine the nouns, he knows
to determine the grammatical categories of the nouns, etc. When the HE teacher
is teaching about the Nouns, for example, such a student will most probably relate
his own ability to comprehend the lecture to the HE teacher’s well-preparedness i.e.
knowledge. us, in accordance with this perception, he will circle the higher alterna-
tive from the Likert scale.
378
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
On the other hand, a student may have modest or insucient previous
knowledge of the grammatical categories, in this example – the Nouns. In such case,
when the HE teacher is teaching about the Nouns, such a student will most probably
be attentively listening to the teacher’s lecture, taking notes down but experiencing
diculties to understand the HE teacher, or to relate his/her prior knowledge to the
new material presented by the HE teacher. In the end, this type of a student will either
circle the higher alternative oered with the Likert scale – believing in the simile “the
more incomprehensible the lecture – the more knowledgeable the HE teacher”, or the
lowest – believing his comprehending problems to be a result from HE teacher’s lack
of knowledge i.e. preparedness. In both cases, it is all about individuals’ subjective per-
ception, which should not be a part of a survey designed to provide valid and objective
indicators about HE teachers’ preparedness.
e research conducted by Otany et al., (2012), and all of the examined HE
teachers’ attitudes, conrm our nding that refers to the correlation between students’
previous knowledge and students’ grade given for the HE teachers’ work.
Moreover, this nding is conrmed with the modier “appropriately” given
in the a) component of the statement – “e HE teacher is appropriately prepared”.
According to the Monolingual Dictionary of the Macedonian language (2011, p. 497),
the meaning of the adjective “appropriate” is presented as follows: which ts to so-
mething; which is suitable; gives opportunities; and fulls conditions for something.
The HE teacher explains clearly and understandably
According to all of the surveyed HE teachers, the second component of
the rst statement, which refers to whether the teacher explains clearly and unders-
tandably, is a highly signicant aspect of the teaching. is is in accordance with the
research of Otany et al., (2012); Kelly (2012); and Parpala et al., (2011), who also
consider the clear teachers’ explanation a signicant aspect of the teaching. Howe-
ver, this statement largely depends on students’ knowledge and this also might aect/
distort the survey’s results. It is obvious that students who have profound previous
knowledge are more in a position to evaluate whether HE teachers’ explanations are
clear and comprehensible. is goes with their previous knowledge and the degree
to which HE teachers’ explanations match their pre-knowledge. Nevertheless, every
student, regardless of his previous knowledge of the topic taught, can evaluate whether
HE teachers do put enough eort into explaining certain concepts. Moreover, every
student can assess whether HE teachers’ explanations related to the topic taught are
good enough in general or not. All of the surveyed HE teachers agree that students’
previous knowledge has an impact on the evaluation of HE teachers’ clear and unders-
tandable explanations. Moreover, they also consider this type of students to be capable
on adequately responsive sample to evaluate them.
ough the b) component of the rst statement displays one of the most
signicant aspects of eective teaching, the dierent levels of previous knowledge
of the surveyed students aect/distort the survey results. erefore, this fact has to
be taken into consideration and this component of the design of the rst statement
reconsidered.
379
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
The HE Teacher evokes interest for the subject taught
e third component of the rst statement is also a very important segment
of the teaching performance. is is conrmed by all of the surveyed HE teachers.
However, this statement, once again, depends on the previous students’ knowledge
and aects the validity of survey’s results. Let us assume that the student is keen on
learning languages. He will take into account his previous knowledge and – depending
on the quality of that knowledge, he/she will assess whether the teacher has motivated
him. If a student has insucient or modest previous knowledge about the topic, then
the HE teacher’s lecture on the Nouns category, for example, may be boring for a
student with profound pre-knowledge. In this case, the latter type of students can get
an impression that the HE teacher does not succeed to evoke his motivation and will
circle the lowest alternative from the scale, even if the HE teacher teaches very well.
On the other hand, if the students have excellent or satisfactory previous
knowledge, the HE teacher can run through the Nouns category and then move onto
more abstract concepts and serious aspects of this word group. In this case, the HE
teacher will spur the interest of the profound students, but the students lacking the
respective background knowledge might feel neglected by the He teacher. us, they
can start feeling dislike of the subject being taught by the HE teacher rather than
interest in it.
If we add the number of the HE teacher’s course students attendants with
or without profound pre-knowledge, who will eventually be lling in the survey, then
the correlation between the number of the surveyed students attendants with previous
profound knowledge and the survey’s results, on the one side, and the number of the
surveyed students attendants with previous insucient knowledge and the survey’s re-
sults, on the other side, is obvious. If the group consists of more students with modest
or insucient previous knowledge, the survey will show one result. On the contrary, if
the group consists of more students with satisfactory previous knowledge, the survey
will show another result. e correlation between the level of previous knowledge of
the students and the survey’s results – on the one side, and between the number of
surveyed students of the above stated two types and the survey’s results – on the other
side, is undoubtedly conrmed with the research by Otany et al., (2012) and with the
surveyed HE teachers’ stances.
Statement 2: When teaching, the HE teacher is focused and
able to hold students’ attention until the end of the class
is statement also consists of two components: a) and b). e rst – a), re-
fers to HE teacher’s concentration on the teaching, and the second – b), to the interest
he has spurred throughout the lecturing. In this regard, our analysis of each of the two
components – a), and b), included in the second statement, is given below:
380
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
The HE teacher is focused on the teaching
is part of the statement 2, i.e. its a) component, which refers to HE
teachers’ concentration on the teaching, is without doubt connected with the a) com-
ponent of the statement. 1.
More precisely, every teacher is well-prepared and dedicated to his work.
After all, teaching is what he has chosen to be his vocation and career. erefore, just
like with the HE teacher’s preparedness, there are no grounds for HE teacher’s dedi-
cation i.e. focus on the teaching to be an element of the grading system of what good
teaching is. is is in accordance with all of the examined HE teachers’ opinions.
The HE teacher is able to hold the students’ attention until the end of
the class
is second part – b), refers only to HE teachers’ lecturing, and accordin-
gly is inappropriate. It diminishes HE teachers’ role in all sorts of in-class activities:
exercises, drills, checking homework assignments, project activities and all other ac-
tivities that comprise the teaching practice and performance. e b) component of
the statement 2 depends on various factors which are beyond HE teachers’ authority,
but which might aect the survey’s results. Various subjects are taught with dierent
number of "contact hours" per week in class and dierent number of practice in-class
hours. For example, three hours are scheduled and designed for teaching and one or
two for exercises or other type of practice activities. In the teaching practice, most of-
ten, this number of classes designed for teaching is not separated from those designed
for practice activities. ey represent one integral unit and it is almost impossible for
HE teachers to teach without applying practical examples and activities.
In this sense, this b) component of the second statement is aected by a
highly relevant factor, i.e. the exact point of time when the teaching and the practi-
cal examples will occur, mingle, or be switched. is again does not depend on HE
teachers’ ability to hold students’ attention, but on the ow of the lecture. In addition,
each man’s concentration and motivation as well as students’ naturally uctuate throu-
ghout the day. Accordingly, students with only one subject scheduled for attendance
on a specic day, are more concentrated and motivated then students who have two or
more subjects scheduled to attend the same day. is is common in the teaching prac-
tice. For example, one group of students have to attend only one course class scheduled
at 10 30 am. Another group of students have another course class scheduled at 8 30
am and a second one scheduled at 10 30 to attend. is will largely aect the students’
perception of whether the HE teacher is able to hold their attention until the end of
the class. It is more probable that the students who have to attend only one course that
day will be more interested in the teaching. ey will have the perception that the HE
teacher manages to hold their attention until the end of the class. e other group of
students who have to attend two courses that day may not have the same perception.
e latter will be already tired, their concentration decreased, and therefore, their per-
ception will be that the HE teacher has not managed to hold their attention.
381
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
Let us assume that a HE teacher has to consecutively teach two courses
a day, and the courses to be taught are of the 3+2 design (3 hours of lecturing + 2
practice). If we count only the teaching hours, then the HE teacher has to teach 6
hours per day, and with the practice hours added, the gure of consecutive hours per
day reaches 10!
Taking into account all the psychological aspects of the period when the
class takes place and the complexity aspect of the schedule design, it is questionable
whether HE teachers can objectively manage to hold students’ attention throughout
the whole class. e HE teachers are only humans and they can also become exhaus-
ted. us, the time when the class takes place is an immensely signicant factor which
aects the survey’s results. is is in correlation with the research by Otany et al.,
(2012), Beran & Violato (2009) and the stances of the surveyed HE teachers.
Statement 3: The HE teacher encourages the students to be
active and work independently, and encourages them to
pose questions
Taking into account the formative nature of these activities, the help that
HE teachers oer to students in order to facilitate and improve their learning is very
important. It is worth pointing out that this statement is among the most signicant
components of HE teachers’ teaching. is has also been conrmed in the research by
Kelly (2012), Beran & Violato (2009), and the opinions of the surveyed HE teachers.
Regardless of students’ previous knowledge, every student can tell whether the HE
teacher poses questions related to the topic being taught and whether the HE teacher
encourages them to work independently and pose corresponding questions of their
own. Accordingly, each one of them can eventually give an overall evaluation of the
HE teacher’s work in that respect. If the student is honest and if the HE teacher really
practices these activities in class, it is most certain that the student will circle the hi-
ghest alternative within the scale. Admittedly, the balanced teaching is of great impor-
tance, i.e. the amount of the academic students’ learning time should be well-planned
and balancing both HE teachers’ teaching and practice activities. Our conclusions in
this vein are in accordance with those obtained in the research by Kelly (2012), Otany
et al. (2012), and the surveyed HE teachers’ stances.
Statement 4: The HE teacher gives lectures regularly
According to the HE Law and the Labour Relations Law, HE teachers
have a denite number of working hours, though it is fair to admit that every HE ins-
titution allows some exibility, without violating the Law. If the HE teacher is absent
from work because of exclusively private reasons, he is obliged to inform the dean of
the institution and to request a legitimate leave, or provide appropriate documents
as reasons for the same before taking a leave. When it is the latter, it is for the dean
to approve the HE teacher’s request. If the teacher intends to attend a conference,
seminar, workshop, etc, he must submit a written request with enclosed elaboration
of the necessity to attend the specic academic event, i.e. justication for his absence
from work. Moreover, he has either to inform the dean that he/she has completed the
382
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
scheduled lecturing classes in advance, or to provide the dean with a new schedule
with specied dates for catch-up classes i.e. for the classes that will be missed at the
time of the approved leave. If the HE teacher does not come to work for more than
three days without any announcement, the risk of HE teacher’s employment being
terminated is at its extreme.
e HE teaching profession, though specic regarding the working hours,
is a profession like any other profession. us, this statement on the consecutive regu-
larity of the classes is not a relevant aspect of HE teachers’ teaching. Even more, all of
the surveyed HE teachers agree with this nding. It is a fact that HE teachers have a
weekly schedule for their lectures as well as for the other obligations they are assigned
with by the institution. Some of these assignments are faculty meetings, Education
and Science Councils, participation in various commissions, committees, and boards,
conducting research and writing scientic papers, giving consulting hours, preparing
and conducting exams for the students, keeping records of and making reports on
their achievements, etc.
On the other hand, HE teachers have the legally approved so-called aca-
demic freedom to change the already established weekly schedule in accordance with
some of their needs, either of a scientist – researcher and lecturer, or of a human.
Certainly, this freedom does not mean interrupting or aecting the teaching process.
In line with the above said, the consecutive regularity of teaching, which is
not an index of HE teachers’ quality performance i.e. teaching, might have a serious
impact on the survey’s results. A student who is negligent or does not attend the clas-
ses regularly unlike other highly responsible students, might, for example, not know
about the schedule changes. If this occurs several times during the academic year, this
type of students might get a wrong impression that the teacher’s classes lack consecu-
tive regularity. In addition, our nding of a rm connection between students’ regular
attendance of classes and the survey’s results about consecutive regularity of teacher’s
classes is conrmed in the research by Beran & Violato (2009) and the surveyed HE
teachers’ stances.
Statement 5: The HE teacher is open and available for
consultations and cooperation
e consulting hours for students are a very relevant segment of the tea-
ching practice and indirectly connected to eectiveness teaching. It is assumed that
during these conversations the teacher explains, claries, poses questions, gives and
gains feedback, encourages, etc. us, during the consultation hour, the HE teacher
spends an eective time in various activities with the student. is nding of ours is
supported with the surveyed HE teachers’ opinions.
However, depending on the type of these consulting hours and on student’s
personal perception, this statement might also aect the survey’s results validity. It is
normal for HE teachers to spend time with their students in consultative conversa-
tions because such types of talks are part of their activities. e observation, browsing,
383
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
and analysis of all university units’ web sites have shown that every teacher has pro-
vided a consulting-hours schedule. ere are HE teachers who have even provided
an announcement on the faculty web page that they are available 24/7. Both of these
approaches have strengths and weaknesses.
All students have various needs and the type of the consultation is dierent
for every student. us, a question arises as to whether the HE teacher can manage
and balance these various students’ needs and whether the consulting meetings are
eective at all. Let us assume that several students want to consult the HE teacher,
without previous announcement. In this case, the consulting meeting leads to inef-
fective time use both for the teacher and the unannounced students. e HE teacher
needs to explain that he has no time because of other activities or an already scheduled
meeting at that specic time. Students who have come to the faculty unannounced for
a consulting hour only to ask the HE teacher for a certain type of consultation and to
hear that the HE teacher has no time for them at all will certainly feel deceived. On
the other side, if these unannounced students need dierent types of consultation, it
will be impossible for the HE teacher to meet their needs. It has already been clearly
noted in the reviewed literature there may be a group feedback only if the demands of
all students in the group are the same. e consulting implies HE teacher’s attention
for the student who needs help in the learning process. ereby, consulting meeting
will prove eective only if the student announces his visit to the HE teacher’s oce
i.e. gives the HE teacher sucient information and time necessary for a design of a
well-balanced and eective consultation.
When speaking about the time, both the HE teachers’ time and the students’
time should be respected. In the teaching practice, various situations occur. Althou-
gh one of the requirements to be received for consultations is preparation with clear
questions on the topic, rarely does a student come to the consulting hour prepared at
all. Appearing before the HE teacher with various meaningful and logical questions
connected to the topic that he has been taught is a feedback from the student of great
importance for the HE teacher. In return, the student is also satised with the time
teacher spends with him in high quality clarication. is is an opinion expressed and
shared by all of the surveyed HE teachers. No matter how emphatic HE teachers may
be with a student’s choice to come to consultation when he has time, the consultation
are rarely what they should be because the student either comes to complain that the
course is very dicult for him, or to ask about the content of the forthcoming nal
exam, or to express his worries that if he gets lower grades, he will lose his scholarship,
etc. is is not an eective consulting at all. If the HE teacher decides that the stu-
dent’s complaints stated above are not the cornerstone of the consulting, he risks to
be graded lower by these students. What students forget is that they need to be very
self-critical and aware of the relevance of the questions they pose to the HE teacher
at a consulting meeting and whether they have gained the deserved answer in return.
If there is no self-criticism, the student might give the HE teacher lower grade than
deserved, and this will lead to lower/distorted survey’s results. Our nding has found
conrmation in all of the surveyed HE teachers’ answers.
384
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
Statement 6: The HE teacher’s personal culture and attitude
are appropriate
is statement implies HE teacher’s personal culture and attitude to stu-
dents during his work day. It is of great relevance for the teacher to have personal
culture and respectable attitude, but this is not a component of eective teaching.
is is in accordance with all of the examined HE teachers’ opinions. e teacher’s
personal culture and his behaviour are features of his character as a person. In the
teaching process, there should be mutual respect. e teacher is not allowed to oend
or humiliate the student. His correct attitude is of great importance. us, it is dicult
to dene this correctness because among other things, it depends on students’ expec-
tations and perception of what personal culture represents is. is can also aect the
surveys’ results.
Let us assume that the teacher reacts to students’ dgeting, speaking and
whispering when he is teaching, reproaching the student and stressing out the impor-
tance of the lecture as well as his own eorts to present it. In addition, let us assume
that the tone of the reproach is academic, i.e. the HE teacher chooses words without
oense and disrespect. is situation might be perceived from some students die-
rently and they can circle the lower alternative, just to punish the teacher. is can also
aect the survey’s results regarding this statement.
Statement 7: The HE teacher assesses student’s
performance objectively
e assessment of students’ achievements is directly connected with the te-
aching, because the teacher has to assess those whom he teaches. e objectivity of the
assessment is an imperative for every teacher and every higher education institution.
e last stage of the teaching is the grading. e survey’s result might change depen-
ding on students’ perception of what a good assessment consists of. Dierent HE
teachers assess students’ achievements in dierent ways because students’ activities are
dierent. e Law anticipates that students’ achievements should be graded by taking
into account all students’ activities. is means that students can achieve 100 points
most. e grade is formed according to a scale from 51 to 100 points. Various factors
which are not directly connected with the teaching aect the survey’s results:
Test design (Preparation of the test)
In order for the assessment to be objective, the HE teacher has to prepare
an objective test to evaluate students’ achievements. e test should comprise of va-
rious questions that are measurable and objective, i.e. they should have only one cor-
rect answer which will show students’ knowledge. ere are dierent types of objective
questions. Regarding the assessment, they should be assessed in the same way, i.e. the
number of requirements in the task determines the number of the points. However,
this test can have only certain degree of validity, because it is not standardized. Ac-
cordingly, it is not strictly objective, and this means that the test does not consider
the psychometric characteristics. Furthermore, the test prepared in this way measures
385
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
only the knowledge that refers to "the three levels of the Bloom’s taxonomy, and ne-
glects the assessment of the higher thinking processes, such as analysis, synthesis and
evaluation" (TALEVSKI; JANUSHEVA, 2015). us, it is very hard to design a test
for assessing students’ achievements that will comprise all of the Bloom’s taxonomy
levels. e preparation of the test, among others, depends on the teacher’s capability
and skills, his knowledge about the suggestions present in the experts’ literature on
test preparation, etc. It depends on features that are not directly connected with the
eective teaching. Yet, these features also aect the objectivity and validity of students’
grade. In addition, this will aect the survey’s results, too. is conclusion is conrmed
with all of the surveyed HE teachers’ opinions.
Criteria
In order for the assessment to be objective, every teacher must introduce
the students with the assessment criteria. Introducing students with the assessment
criteria does not reduce the inuence that this factor, though not directly connected
with the teaching, will have on the survey’s results.
Let us assume that the student achieves 70 points and according to the sca-
le, this equals the grade 7. e teaching practice shows various cases where the student
is not satised and claims that he has needed one point only to be graded with 8. e
HE teacher who does not diverge from the prescribed scale is, thereby, perceived not
as objective, but as bad or cruel. us, there is a big probability that such HE teacher
will be graded lower by the unsatised student. e HE teacher who does diverge
from the preset scale is perceived as great, and most probably will be graded higher.
We nd conrmation of our nding in the research by Kelly (2012), and Beran &
Violato (2009), and a positive correlation between the grade that the teacher has given
to the student and the grade he gets from the student in return. is has also been
conrmed by the stances of the surveyed HE teachers.
On the other side, the teacher who decides to diverge from the scale for one
student only should do the same for all students because every student deserves equal
treatment. us, he needs to make a correction of the points for all of the students
who need only one point to get a higher grade. is will put in question the grade 5 of
students who have gained, for example, 49 or 50 points. According to this divergence
from the preset scale, these students have also passed the exam. However, not all stu-
dents are equally treated regarding the points which guarantee them a higher grade.
ere is no rule of how the HE teacher should approach this issue. Nevertheless, the
teacher will make the decision according to student’s overall activities and the general
picture he/she has created about the student. is shows that another factor that is not
directly connected with the teaching aects the survey’s results.
The activities that the HE teacher requires from the student
Some of the HE teachers assess students’ achievement summative on the
grounds of the results from the two-midterm exams, without conducting an oral part
of the exam. Some HE teachers assess more activities, such as oral answers, project
386
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
activities, homework assignments, etc. Depending on the number of the activities the
teacher has asked the student to do in order to form the summative grade, the sur-
vey’s results might change. e teacher who asks for fewer activities is graded higher
than the teacher who demands more activities. is is in accordance with the research
of Beran & Violato (2009) as well as with all of the surveyed HE teachers’ answers.
Furthermore, if the teacher taught the student the previous year, there is a possibility
for the student to circle the lower alternative on the scale. is is because the teacher
did not assess him as he wanted. ere is also a possibility for the student to circle the
higher alternative especially if he knows that the teacher will teach him again in the
next semester or academic year. is is in accordance with the research of Beran and
Violato (2009) and Kelly (2012) regarding the positive correlation between the grade
the teacher gives to the student and the grade the students give to the teacher.
Statement 8: There is an appropriate basic and additional
literature for the course taught
is statement does not depend on HE teachers’ competences and it is not
informative about the teaching quality. is nding is conrmed by all of the surveyed
HE teachers. ere is appropriate basic and additional literature for many course tau-
ght this information is listed both in the teaching curricula and in the posts on the
faculties’ web sites. On the one hand, students react if the handbook is over 200 pages.
On the other hand, there should be a balance between the material that can be ma-
naged for one semester and the oered literature. Moreover, with the Government’s
project many foreign authors’ books on various elds have been translated and it is a
fact that there is appropriate and modern literature.
However, there are courses taught such as Modern Macedonian Language,
which are based on older but immensely relevant and signicant literature, for exam-
ple, the Macedonian Grammar by B. Koneski (the rst edition of this book is from
1967). is fact can be abused by saying that the teacher uses old literature and, thus,
aect the survey’s results. On the Internet one can nd many scientic papers that ela-
borate a good number of problems in the modern Macedonian language. If the teacher
directs the students toward all those sources, he/she risks to be graded lower. For many
courses taught at the university there is no literature in the Macedonian language,
though there are books in Serbian, but unfortunately, the younger generations are not
familiar with this language. As a result, the HE teacher has to translate, or make some
shorter version of his lectures, maybe even dictate, which will certainly reect badly
on the survey’s results. Further, there is literature in English language, but oering it
as additional literature puts the teacher in risk to be graded lower.
Statement 9: Level of difficulty of the assessed course:
highest, high, moderate, low and lowest
is statement asks the students to assess how dicult the course is. In the
teaching practice, students speak about dicult, moderate or easy courses, but this de-
gree depends on many factors, such as the nature of the material, the students’ previous
knowledge, their interest, the grade they have got from the teacher, the number of
387
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
the course attendants within a group, etc. All these factors have an additional impact
on the survey’s results. is statement is not vital for the teaching quality assessment
because how dicult a course is in fact a personal student’s perception. is nding is
conrmed by all of the surveyed HE teachers answers.
Statement 10: The HE teachers’ requirements (exams, mid-
terms, seminar papers, and project activities) are very strict,
strict, moderate, or loose
is statement is tightly connected with the statement which refers to the
assessment’s objectivity. As already mentioned, the number of requirements set by the
HE teacher aects the survey’s results.
Statement 11: The specified course lectures, in scope and
quality, were a solid base for passing the exam: yes, partly,
no
is statement refers only to HE teachers’ oral presentation in class, and
not to all of the activities he has included in the class. HE teachers’ teaching is always
a base for passing the exam in a sense that the content he presents is always related to
the requirements he sets for the students. In addition, one can pose the question: Why
would a teacher teach about a concept if he does not plan to include it in the exam?
erefore, this statement, though relevant as a principle that the teacher will respect
when assessing what he has taught about, is not of corresponding inuence on the
teaching quality assessment. is is conrmed by all the surveyed HE teachers’ stances.
e statement can only be accepted as students’ evaluation of the relevance
of the content that the teacher has taught for the questions posed in the exam. is is
directly connected with the assessment and the teaching practice, which shows that,
unfortunately, there are HE teachers who ask question that have not been taught
throughout the semester. is statement can also aect the survey results and it is
connected with students’ regular attendance of classes. If the student attends the clas-
ses regularly, he will take down notes about concepts that are not mentioned in the
textbook, but are of great importance. e student who does not attend the classes re-
gularly will not know about this and he/she might get an ungrounded impression that
the material taught does not contain the exam questions. is nding is in accordance
with all of the surveyed HE teachers’ opinions.
Statement 12: The content and structure of the exams
questions provide objective assessment of the material tau-
ght: yes, partly, no
is statement is also connected with the statement 7 mentioned above
and it shows that many factors related to the exam questions lead toward dierences
in the survey’s results.
388
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
Results from the students’ survey
Regarding the students’ opinion about the eects of this type of self-e-
valuation, the results from the survey show the following: All of the sampled students
have participated in the surveys which assess HE teachers’ teaching quality. None of
the students is familiar with the results of the conducted survey. More importantly, in
their further education, none of the students has noticed any eects from the conduc-
ted survey regarding the aspect they have not agreed with, or have agreed completely
or partially. e most important thing is that none of the students takes this survey
as a serious instrument by which the teaching process will be improved. us, a very
relevant conclusion is drawn, which is conrmed in Kelly’s research (2012), and that
is: if the students do not perceive the eects of the survey, they will never again have a
serious approach towards it in the future.
Conclusion
e self-evaluation is without any doubt the most signicant mechanism
used by the HE institutions in order to provide information about their quality and
eectiveness. A relevant segment of the self-evaluation is the evaluation of the HE te-
achers’ work. e HE teachers’ work at the University “St. Kliment Ohridski” – Bitola,
Republic of Macedonia, and worldwide is assessed with a survey lled in by the stu-
dents. Although this survey oers information about the HE teachers’ performance
quality, and has its advantages, it also has disadvantages and there is a need of a much
serious approach to its design.
As it can be seen from the research, various factors which are beyond HE
teachers’ authority aect the survey results and their objectivity and validity. e re-
search results have identied several aspects advantageous and valid for the teaching
quality assessment such as HE teachers’ clear and understandable explanation, ability
to evoke interest with their teaching, ability to spur students’ activity and independent
work, and to encourage students to pose questions.
It is of great importance to design an appropriate survey which will stress
those statements that genuinely relate to eective teaching and reect the multidi-
mensionality of the teaching process instead of the statements which are relevant part
of the HE teachers’ work, but not truly referential and not in HE teachers’ authority.
In this sense, the stances about the relevant aspects of the teaching cons-
truct, in context of the Macedonian HE, obtained from all of the surveyed HE tea-
chers and experts in this eld should be taken rather seriously. ey should represent
the base for further research in order to detect more/other referential aspects. e
statements that will represent these aspects should be formulated in a way which will
enhance the survey results validity and objectivity. On the other hand, it is very im-
portant to give a meaningful formulation to the survey statements because the formu-
lation itself can contribute to the clarity of the survey results. e research shows that
various factors can aect the grade given to the HE teachers by their students: their
previous knowledge, their perception of what good teaching consists of, the number
389
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
of students attendants within a course group, the assignments HE teachers give to
students, etc. ese ndings indicate that the largeness and the structure of the sample
should also be considered. For instance, when selecting a sample, it is important to
make a distinction between students who depend on the grade they get from the HE
teacher, and students who regularly attend their classes if more valid and objective
results are aimed at.
is type of self-evaluation is conducted at the end of the education process,
i.e. at the end of the academic year. is makes the formative and corrective nature
of the survey meaningless, because what has been important for the group that has
assessed the teacher might not be important for the next group the teacher will teach
in the following semester.
e ways in which the results are managed are also very signicant. An
average grade is often calculated for each respective statement, and then, an average
grade is calculated from the accumulated grades. is way of calculating the grade has
the weaknesses of the numerical grading. Moreover, what need to be addressed are the
alerting results from the students’ survey regarding the eects of the survey on HE
teachers’ work. It is natural for the students to expect to see some changes they have
stood for throughout the survey. eir grade is, in fact, a feedback for the HE teachers.
erefore, if the HE teachers do not take into consideration their opinions, there will
be no eect in doing the survey. ese problematic aspects should reect only those
which are in HE teachers’ authority.
Accordingly, although the students’ survey for grading the HE teachers’
work is an important and relevant tool for obtaining signicant results, still, many
aspects should be taken into consideration for the survey to be created in a way which
will produce more valid and objective results.
References
BERAN, T.; VIOLATO, C. Student Ratings of Teaching Eectiveness: Student Engagement
and Course Characteristics. Canadian Journal of Higher Education. V. 39, no. 1, pp. 1-13,
2009. Available at <http://bit.ly/2riM5Xo>. Accessed: 16 March 2017.
BERAN, T. N.; ROKOSH, L. J. e Consequential Validity of Student Ratings: What do Ins-
tructors Really ink? e Alberta Journal of Educational Research. V. 55, no. 4, pp. 497-511,
2009. Available at <http://bit.ly/2safPtH>. Accessed: 16 March 2016.
HOYT, P. D.; PALLETT, H. W. Appraising Teaching Eectiveness: Beyond Student Ratin-
gs. Idea Center. Idea paper, no. 36, 1999. Available at <http://bit.ly/2sPrzQn>. Accessed: 16
March 2017.
KELLY, M. Student Evaluations of Teaching Eectiveness: Considerations for Ontario Uni-
versities. COU Academic Colleagues Discussion Paper. 2012. Available at <http://bit.ly/2s-
PMqTz>. Accessed: 15 March 2017.
MARSH, W. H.; ROCHE, A. L. Making Students' Evaluations of Teaching Eectiveness
Eective. e Critical Issues of Validity, Bias, and Utility. American Psychologist. V. 52, no. 11,
pp. 1187-1197, 1997. Available at <http://bit.ly/2sakJ9X>. Accessed: 16 March 2017.
390
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
OTANY, K.; JOON K. B.; CHO, J. I. Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) in Higher Edu-
cation: How to Use SET More Eectively and Eciently in Public Aairs Education. Journal
of Public Aairs Education. V. 18, no. 3, pp. 531-544, 2012. Available at <http://bit.ly/2t8hW-
vs>. Accessed: 15 March 2017.
PARPALA, A.; LINDBLOM-YLÄNNE, S.; RYTKÖNEN, H. Students’ conceptions of good
teaching in three dierent disciplines. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. V. 36 , i.
5, 2011. Available at <http://bit.ly/2rO7gUO>. Accessed: 16 March 2017.
SELDIN, P. How Colleges Evaluate Professors, 1983 vs. 1993. POD Network Conference
Materials. Paper 110, 1993. Available at: <http://bit.ly/2saliR4> 16 March 2016
TALEVSKI, D. J.; JANUSHEVA, V. Aspekti na ocenuvanjeto [Aspects of assessment]. 1st.ed.
Bitola: “Sv. Kliment Ohridski” University, Faculty of Education, 2015.
Tolkoven rechnik na makedonskiot jazik. [Monolingual dictionary of the Macedonian lan-
guage]. Skopje: Institut za makedonski jazik “K. Misirkov”, 2011.
Zakon za visokoto obrazovanie. Konsolidiran tekst. „Sluzhben vesnik na Republika Make-
donija “ [e Law for higher education. Consolidated text. Ocial Journal of the Republic of
Macedonia]. Available at <https://bit.ly/2qX809w>. Accessed: 15 March 2017.
Grades
1 In R. Macedonia, a new Law on Higher Education was passed in 2000, requiring that the universities
follow the principles of the Bologna Declaration, and introduce the European Credit Transfer and Accu-
mulation System in their studies and curricula. e HE reforms introduced with that law were intensied
in 2003 when R. Macedonia became a full member of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and
the Bologna Process by signing the Bologna Declaration and committing to cooperation towards reaching
the shared objectives:
– to adopt a converged system of easily recognizable and comparable study degrees;
– to adopt the rst two of the three study cycles of Bachelor, Masters, and Doctorates, laid down
in the EHEA Qualications Framework, out of which the former (the Bachelor’s degree) – compliant with
the EU Qualications Framework and Job Market;
– to introduce a joint credit system, i.e. the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) for the
purpose of promoting mobility of students and sta;
– to enhance the quality ensuring cooperation with EHEA in order to develop compliant me-
thodologies and criteria;
– to enhance the European dimension of HE, especially with reference to the HE curricula, the
inter-institutional cooperation and the integrated HE programmes of studying, training, and research.
Regarding the HE Law passed in 2000, a good number of changes have been proposed and amendments
ratied since 2008, but none of those diverges from the course of the commitment to the Bologna Process.
As Bologna Declaration is focused on high quality HE and on compliant criteria and methodologies, the
universities have started emphasizing this dimension, and made self-evaluation guidance for each respective
constituent unit of each HE academic institution. One of the instruments used by the HE institution to
evaluate its teachers’ performance is the students’ survey analyzed in this research paper.
2 e Law for higher education, consolidated text. Ocial journal of the Republic of Macedonia, no.
35/2008, 103/2008, 26/2009, 83/2009,99/2009, 115/2010, 17/2011, 51/2011, 123/2012, 15/2013, 24/2013,
391
Students’ survey for assessing he teachers’ work – advantages and
disadvantages
educação | Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018
41/2014, 116/2014,130/2014, 10/2015, 20/2015, 98/2015, 145/2015, 154/2015, 30/2016 и 127/16. Availa-
ble at <https://bit.ly/2qX809w>. Accessed: 15 March 2017.
3 e European Higher Education Area and the Bologna Process:e Bologna Process is a voluntary
higher education reform process, which commenced in 1998/99, with the aim of making higher education
systems compliant, and enhancing their international visibility. EUA plays an active role in the Bologna
Process representing views of the universities, and participates in practically all its events and activities.
Many of EUA projects are dedicated to the development of European policies and practice in the context
of Bologna. EUA has also contributed to explaining and promoting the Bologna Reforms around the globe.
While the reforms are relatively well-known by now, they still provide a basis for global dialogue with
international partner organisations.” http://www.eua.be/policy-representation/higher-education-policies/
the-european-higher-education-area-and-the-bologna-process (last access on 4 May, 2018).
4 On the demand of the European Ministers engaged in the Bologna Process, in 2003, ENQA set up the
standards necessary for the HE, and made a corresponding Guidance, which were approved of and accepted
in 2005. ENQA "promotes European co-operation in the eld of quality assurance in higher education and
disseminates information and expertise among its members and towards stakeholders in order to develop
and share good practice and to foster the European dimension of quality assurance". See www.enqa.eu.
5 EUA "… supports its members in developing internal quality systems aiming to promote institutional
quality cultures" … " by the belief that the main responsibility for quality assurance lies within higher edu-
cation institutions". See www.eua.be.
* Associate professor at the Faculty of Education, Bitola, “St. Kliment Ohridski” University, Republic of
Macedonia.
** Assistant professor at the Faculty of Education, Bitola, “St. Kliment Ohridski” University, Republic of
Macedonia.
*** Full professor at the Faculty of Education, Bitola, “St. Kliment Ohridski” University, Republic of Mace-
donia.
Correspondência
Violeta Janusheva – Ul."Vasko Karangeleski" bb, 7000 Bitola, Republic of Macedonia.
E-mail: violetajanuseva@gmail.com – milena_pejcinovska@yahoo.com – jovetalevski@yahoo.com
Recebido em 22 de novembro de 2018
Aprovado em 22 de maio de 2018
392
Violeta Janusheva – Milena Pejchinovska – Jove D. Talevski
Santa Maria | v. 43 | n. 3 | p. 369-392 | jul./set. 2018 | educação
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Characteristics of university courses and student engagement were examined in relation to student ratings of instruction. The Universal Student Ratings of Instruction instrument was administered to students at the end of every course at a major Canadian university over a three-year period. Using a two-step analytic procedure, a latent variable path model was created. The model showed a moderate fit to the data (Comparative Fit Index = .88), converged in _0 iterations, with a standardized residual mean error of .03, χ2 (_49) = _988.59, p < .05. The model indicated that course characteristics such as status and description are not directly related to student ratings. Rather, they are mediated by student engagement, which is measured by student attendance and expected grade. It was concluded that, although the model is statistically adequate, many other factors determine how students rate their instructors.
Article
Full-text available
This article reviews research indicating that, under ap-propriate conditions, students' evaluations of teaching (SETs) are (a) multidimensional; (b) reliable and stable; (c) primarily a function of the instructor who teaches a course rather than the course that is taught; (d) relatively valid against a variety of indicators of effective teaching; (e) relatively unaffected by a variety of variables hypoth-esized as potential biases (e.g., grading leniency, class size, workload, prior subject interest); and (f) useful in improving teaching effectiveness when SETS are coupled with appropriate consultation. The authors recommend rejecting a narrow criterion-related approach to validity and adopting a broad construct-validation approach, recognizing that effective teaching and SETs that reflect teaching effectiveness are multidimensional; no single criterion of effective teaching is sufficient; and tentative interpretations of relations with validity criteria and po-tential biases should be evaluated critically in different contexts, in relation to multiple criteria of effective teach-ing, theory, and existing knowledge. H eated debate concerning the merits and the short-comings of students' evaluations of teaching (SETs) continues to flourish, despite intensive ongoing research and international growth in their use as one indicator of teaching quality (Centra, 1993; Feldman, 1997; Marsh & Roche, 1994; Watkins, 1994). In this article, we emphasize the importance of recognizing the multidimensionality of teaching and SETs in understand-ing research evidence in relation to the validity, perceived bias, and usefulness of SETs. This perspective is im-portant for administrators, program developers, and po-tential users in making informed decisions regarding the appropriate use of SETs and for future SET research.
Article
This study investigates instructors' perceptions about strengths and weaknesses of a student ratings instrument employed in their university. The sample consisted of 357 instructors in a major Canadian university where each term students are required to complete an evaluation at the end of every course. Qualitative analyses of their written responses indicate that most instructors held negative views about the ratings instrument, administration procedures, and use of results. They also reported concerns about biasing factors and the negative effect that ratings have on instructors. Few instructors provided positive comments about the validity of the ratings, the utility of ratings for the user groups, accountability, student representation, and cost efficient administration procedures. Moreover, only 25% considered ratings useful for improving teaching effectiveness.
Article
Evaluating faculty effectiveness is important in institutions of higher education. Although evaluation is inherently threatening to most faculty members, the vast majority take their assignments seriously and want to conduct them as effectively as possible. Assessing faculty performance is a complex and time-consuming process. If it is done poorly or insensitively, it can have an adverse effect on institutional quality. Whether or not individual institutions elect to commit the resources required for valid evaluations depends on the degree to which they agree with these propositions: (1) all members of the institution should be accountable for their activities and performance; (2) the conduct and use of credible evaluation programs have an important influence on the welfare and future excellence of the individual, the department, and the institution; and (3) when improvement efforts are supported by institutional policy and guided by comprehensive and valid appraisals of current functioning, the well-being of the individual and the institution are affected positively. (Contains 18 references.) (SLD)
Vasko Karangeleski" bb, 7000 Bitola
  • Correspondência Violeta Janusheva -Ul
Correspondência Violeta Janusheva -Ul."Vasko Karangeleski" bb, 7000 Bitola, Republic of Macedonia.
Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness: Considerations for Ontario Universities. COU Academic Colleagues Discussion Paper
  • M Kelly
KELLY, M. Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness: Considerations for Ontario Universities. COU Academic Colleagues Discussion Paper. 2012. Available at <http://bit.ly/2s-PMqTz>. Accessed: 15 March 2017.