Course and Instructor Characteristics Distinguishing Highest and Lowest Student Ratings of Instructors

Abstract

Problem Statement: One way to delineate the main characteristics of effective teaching within the higher education system is to gather college students' opinions of an effective instructor. Research based on students' perceptions of efficient teaching revealed a series of teaching behaviors setting the distinction between good and poor teaching. However, studies also indicate differences across culture, and in Turkey, there has been little research on the topic. Purpose of Study:The goal of this study was to determine instructor and course characteristics and teaching dimensions that discriminate between instructors who received the highest and the lowest student ratings within a Turkish college setting, by incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods.Method: A total of 23,814 students across different departments in the university rated 630 instructors on a scale developed to assess students' perceptions of instructors' performance. In addition, students were asked to respond to an open-ended question to provide their own impressions of each instructor. Then, students' ratings were analyzed by means of discriminative functional analysis, and written statements provided by students were analyzed via content-analysis techniques by using a combination of manual and computer-assisted methods (NVivo 9). Findings and Results:According to the quantitative analyses, although course and instructor characteristics were weak in discriminating the * Corresponding author: Assoc. Prof. Dr., Pamukkale University, Department of Educational Sciences, PDR.ABD e-mail: sozgungor@pau.edu.tr ** Prof. Dr., Pamukkale University, Department of Educational Sciences, PDR.ABD e-mail: eduru@pau.edu.tr 118 Sevgi Özgüngör & Erdinc Durugroups, all teaching dimensions (relationships with students, effective teaching, exams and evaluation, contribution to generic skills, class interaction, and organization and planning) were very useful in discriminating the instructors who received the best and the poorest ratings. Also, qualitative analysis revealed 4 themes consistently distinguishing the two groups: lecturing, relationship with the students, knowledge and expertise, and exams and evaluation. Conclusions and Recommendations:This study replicates the existing literature on student perceptions of effective teaching, with a culturally different, large sample. It also adds support to the notion that there are teaching behaviors, such as lecturing skills, fair evaluations, respect and interest toward students, and demonstrating expertise, that help draw the distinction between good and poor teaching in the eyes of students and that could therefore assist the improvements efforts of teacher education.

Student Evaluations of Teaching, Course and Student Characteristics at Andrews University

“…These findings were similar to Feldman (2007) who found that students tended to rate more highly instructors who were well organized and prepared and sensitive and respectful to all students. Other researchers (Coffman, 1954;Özgüngör & Duru, 2015) reported that students tended to value the preparation and organization dimension, which is similar to what this study found. The high rating for instructors who were prepared and organized suggested that preparation and organization was considered an important aspect of effective teaching by the students.…”

“…Other researchers found that good teaching and generic skills were the dimensions that affected the SET overall rating the most (Grace et al, 2012). Özgüngör and Duru, (2015) reported similar findings and included class interactions, course organization and planning, and relationships with the students as other predictors for the SET overall rating. Other dimensions that were highly correlated with SET overall rating were clear communication of the main points of lectures, evaluations of the student work, and enthusiasm (Diette & Kester, 2015).…”

“…Catano and Harvey (2011) reported that students valued instructors who provide effective feedback and communicate effectively with students. Similarly, Özgüngör and Duru (2015) also reported that students tended to consider communication as an important aspect of teaching. Diette and Kester (2015) found that the overall rating was highly correlated with clear communication.…”

“…Coffman (1954) found that teacher preparation and organization was the only influential dimension that affected SET overall rating. Özgüngör & Duru (2015) also found that teacher preparation and organization was an influential dimension in addition to good teaching and generic skills. His findings were partially consistent with other research in which generic skills and good teaching were found as influential dimensions (Grace et al, 2012).…”

“…The literature review indicated that there is a relationship between the SET overall rating and the SET dimensions (Diette & Kester, 2015;Feldman, 2007;Grace, et al, 2012;Özgüngör & Duru, 2015;Nasser-Abu, 2017). These studies indicate that there are relationships between SET overall rating and one or more of the following dimensions:…”