Students’ Evaluation of Tertiary Educational Goals: The Impact of Lecturer and Student Characteristics

This study is concerned with how tertiary students evaluate educational goals within their degree programs. Crooks' (1988) classification of educational practices in terms of short-term and medium-term consequences is used. This study assesses the viability of his classificatory system within a university student sample. The current study extends previous research by considering both lecturer characteristics (e.g., lecturer supportiveness, teaching quality, approachability of lecturing staff and availability of lecturing staff) and student characteristics (e.g., age and student's year level) which may predict how educational practices are evaluated. Evaluation data are provided by 164 volunteer students (31.5% males and 68.5% females). The principal component analysis was able to establish a list of short-term and medium-term goals appropriate for a university student sample. Lecturer supportiveness predicts short-term goals while teaching quality and student's year level predicted medium-term goals. I. Introduction. Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness (SETE) has been used in Australian universities for some time now as part of the quality assurance process. Student evaluation data are used by individual departments in making personnel decisions, in the allocation of teaching resources, as well as in decisions about whether or not to offer a subject. Student ratings influence faculty decisions regarding promotion and tenure of lecturing staff, as well as in the award of teaching merit grants. Students also use evaluation data in selection of degree courses and specific subjects. Such use of student rating data has been termed summative evaluation, in contrast to the use of teaching effectiveness ratings by individual instructors for the purpose of improving teaching, otherwise referred to as formative evaluation (Theall & Franklin, 2001). Ratings of teaching effectiveness are typically made on a teacher rating form (TRF), with considerable similarity in the types of questions asked across tertiary institutions in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. These questions generally ask about the lecturer's knowledge of the subject area, the clarity of the lecturer's explanations, willingness to answer questions, fairness in grading assessment, and punctuality. Instructors can also choose to include in their subject evaluations, items from an additional list of questions. These questions evaluate features specific to the discipline e.g. laboratory sessions, field trips; the use of technology such as computer-generated slide shows, the Internet, and electronic mail to communicate with students; and in the case of cross-campus teaching, questions might evaluate the learning experience via video-lecturing. Evaluations of teaching effectiveness are important because they 1