Component 4: Preparation Items
4.3 Research Question 3
What is the pattern of students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness of the different rank of lecturers?
73
Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics of Mean and Standard Deviation of Lecturers’
Teaching Effectiveness Components According to their Rank Classroom Interaction Evaluation Personality Preparation
Rank of Lecturer Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D
Assistant Lecturer 155.98 7.56 52.99 3.57 57.65 3.77 32.87 2.81 Lecturer III 154.53 11.94 53.45 3.92 57.23 3.65 32.83 2.65
Lecturer II 155.41 7.48 53.32 3.75 57.31 3.77 32.54 2.93
Lecturer I 156.26 7.42 53.33 3.98 57.92 4.04 33.29 2.83
Senior Lecturer 156.33 10.64 53.17 3.99 57.31 3.89 32.85 2.72 Principal Lecturer 154.81 14.03 52.94 3.78 57.71 3.88 32.20 2.76 Chief Lecturer 156.15 13.19 52.60 3.98 57.26 3.69 32.82 2.76
The patterns of students‟ mean ratings of their lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness components based on the ranks of the lecturers are captured in Table 4.7 and illustrated by Fig 4.2. The pattern with regard to classroom interaction of students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness of different rank of lecturers shows that students‟ ratings of Senior Lecturer is the highest (Mean= 156.33), followed by the rating of lecturers in the rank of Lecturer 1 (Mean=156.26), while Lecturer III received the lowest ratings (Mean = 154.53). The evaluation component of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness indicates that lecturers in the rank of Lecturer III received the highest mean ratings from their students (Mean = 53.45), and this is closely followed by lecturers in the ranks of Lecturer 1 (Mean = 53.33) and lecturer II (Mean =53.32).
Chief Lecturers received the lowest mean ratings from their students based on evaluation component of teaching effectiveness (Mean= 52.60).
With regards to personality component of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness, the result shows that Lecturer 1 received the highest mean ratings from their students (Mean=57.92), this is followed by principal lecturer (Mean= 57.71) and assistant lecturer (Mean = 57.65) sequentially . Lecturers in the rank of Lecturer III received the lowest mean ratings with regard to the personality component of teaching effectiveness (Mean= 57.23). The pattern of lecturers‟
teaching effectiveness with regards to preparation shows that students‟ ratings of Lecturer 1 is the highest (Mean= 33.29), followed by the ratings of the lecturers in the rank of Assistant Lecturer (Mean=32.87), while Principal Lecturer received the lowest ratings (Mean = 32.20).
74
Fig 4.2: Pattern of Students’ Ratings of Lecturers’ Teaching Effectiveness Components According to their Ranks
Research Question 4:
(4) What is the pattern of teaching effectiveness of lecturers in Colleges of Education as assessed by the students of different schools?
Table 4.8: Mean and Standard Deviation of Lecturers’ Teaching Effectiveness Components According to their Schools in Colleges of Education
Classroom Interaction Evaluation Personality Preparation Schools in colleges
of Education
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D
Arts & Social science 152.60 18.83 52.65 4.57 57.41 3.78 32.88 2.86
Education 155.28 7.60 53.13 3.40 57.19 4.08 32.70 2.73
Languages 156.22 7.10 53.32 3.83 57.68 3.68 32.74 2.79
Science 156.38 7.04 53.27 3.72 57.96 3.74 32.66 2.77
Vocational & Tech. Educ. 155.28 7.56 53.31 3.75 57.04 3.71 32.93 2.76
75
The patterns of teaching effectiveness of lecturers in Colleges of Education as assessed by the students from the five schools are captured in Table 4.8 and illustrated on fig 4.3. The pattern with regard to lecturers‟ classroom interaction shown reveals that students from the School of Science rated the selected lecturers higher than the students from other schools (Mean= 156.38) and this is followed by students‟ ratings from the School of Languages (Mean=156.22), while the students from the school of education and their counterparts from the School of Vocational and Technical Education had the same ratings in terms of classroom interaction (Mean = 155.28). In the case of evaluation component of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness, the results indicate that students from the School of Languages show the highest rating of the lecturers (Mean=53.32) and this is closely followed by students from the School of Vocational and Technical Education (Mean=53.31). Students from the School of Arts and Social Science gave the lowest ratings with reference to the evaluation component of the lecturers‟
teaching effectiveness (Mean= 52.65).
Personality component of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness shows that students from the School of Science gave the highest mean rating (Mean=57.96) of the lecturers. This is followed by students from the School of Languages (Mean= 57.68) and school of arts and social science (Mean = 57.41). Students from the School of Vocational and Technical Education gave the lowest mean ratings with regard to the personality component of the lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness (Mean= 57.04). The pattern of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness with regard to preparation shows that vocational and technical education students‟ mean rating is the highest (Mean= 32.93), which is followed by students from the School of Arts and Social Sciences (Mean=32.88), while students from the School of Science gave the lowest rating with regard to preparation (Mean = 32.66).
76
Fig 4.3: Pattern of Students’ Ratings of Lecturers’ Teaching Effectiveness Components According to their Schools in Colleges of Education
Research Question 5
Is there any difference in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers by students from school of?
- Art and Social Sciences;
- Education;
- Languages;
- Science;
- Vocational and Technical Education.
77
Table 4.9: One Way Analysis of Variance of Teaching Effectiveness Components
Variable Source of Variation SS df MS F
Classroom Interaction
Between Group Within Group Total
2922.441 181690.156 184612.597
4 1595 1599
730.610
113.912 * 6.414
Evaluation
Between Groups Within Groups Total
99.119 23693.865 23792.984
4 1584 1588
24.780
14.958 1.657
Personality
Between Groups Within Groups Total
175.010 22834.104 23009.114
4 1580 1584
43.753
14.452 * 3.027
Preparation Between Groups Within Groups Total
16.899 12215.255 12232.154
4 1580 1584
4.225
7.731 .546
* Significant at P ≤ 0.05
Table 4.9 shows that there exists a significant mean difference in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers by students from the five schools in the Colleges of Education, in terms of classroom interaction (F (4, 1595) = 6. 414; p =.000). Also, the Table shows that there exists a significant mean difference in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers by students from the five schools in the Colleges of Education in terms of personality (F
(4,1580) = 3.027; p =.017). However, there is no significant mean difference in teaching effectiveness of lecturers from different schools in the Colleges of Education with regard to evaluation and preparation components.
78
Table 4.10 Scheffe Post- Hoc Analysis of Classroom Interaction and Personality Dependent
Variable
(I) School (J) School Mean Difference Sig.
Classroom Interaction
Art & Social Science
Education
Languages
Science
Education Languages Science
Voc.& Tech. Educ Languages Science
Voc. & Tech. Educ Science
Voc. & Tech. Educ.
Voc. & Tech. Educ.
. -2.6813 -3.6156 -3.7594 -2.6719 -.9344 -1.0781 0.0094 -.1438 .9437 1.0875
.039 * .001 * .001 * .040 * .874 .803 1.000 1.000 .870 .798
Personality
Art & Social Science
Education
Languages
Science
Education Languages Science
Voc.& Tech Educ.
Languages Sciences
Voc. & Tech. Educ.
Science
Voc. & Tech. Educ.
Voc. & Tech. Educ.
.2225 -.2650 -.5431 .3756 -.4873 -.7656 .1531 -.2781 .6406 .9187
.970 .944 .527 .822 .621 .166 .992 .931 .338 .054
* Significant at P ≤ 0.05
79
Scheffe post-hoc analysis in Table 4.10 shows that the significant mean difference in teaching effectiveness of lecturers with regard to classroom interaction is due to the differences between rating by students from school of arts and social science, and schools of education, (p=.039) languages, (p=.001) science (p=.001) and vocational and technical education (p= .040).
There were no significant mean differences in lecturers‟ personality when pair-wise comparison was carried out among the various schools in Colleges of Education.
Research Question 6
Is there any significant mean difference in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers by male and female students?
Table 4.11: A t-test of Teaching Effectiveness of Lecturers by Students’ Gender
Dependent
Variable Gender N Mean SD t df
Classroom Interaction
Male female
800 800
155.2563 155.0413
10.0624
11.3921 .400
1598
Evaluation
Male Female
796 793
53.0854 53.1942
3.1678
3.7865 -.560 1587
Personality
Male Female
793 792
57.7100 57.2008
3.7985
3.8214 * 2.665 1583
Preparation
Male Female
793 792
32.8298 32.7298
2.8114 2.7468
.716 1583
* Significant at P ≤ 0.05
A look at Table 4.11 shows that there is a significant difference in the way male and female students rated their lecturers‟ personality (t=2.665, df: 1583, p=.008). This means that there is a significant difference in the ratings of male and female students in terms of their lecturers‟ personality. The difference observed is not as a result of error. Male students‟ ratings of the personality of their lecturers are significantly higher than their female colleagues. The teaching effectiveness of lecturers with regards to classroom interaction, evaluation, and
80
preparation do not vary significantly according to students‟ gender. This implies that students‟
ratings of their lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness with regard to classroom interaction, evaluation and preparation are not a function of their gender.
Research Question 7 Do students‟
(i) course of study;
(ii) age and (iii) year of study.
influence their evaluation of teaching effectiveness?
81
Table 4.12: One Way Analyses of Variance of Teaching Effectiveness Components Based on Age and Course of Study.
Dependent Variable
Independent Variable
Source of Variation
SS Df MS F
Classroom Interaction
Age
Between Group Within Group
Total
3076.796 181535.802
184612.798
12 1587
1599
256.400
114.381 *2.241
Classroom Interaction
Course of Study
Between Group Within Group
Total
7541.447 177071.150
184612.597
19 1580
1599
396.918
112.070 *3.542
Evaluation Age
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
319.771 23473.213
23792.984
12 1576
1588
26.648
14.854 1.789
Evaluation Course of Study
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
629.765 23163.219
23792.984
19 1569
1588
33.146
14.763 *2.245
Personality Age
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
238.291 22770.823
23009.114
12 1572
1584
19.858
14.485 1.371
Personality Course of Study
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
457.773 22551.341
23009.114
19 1565
1584
24.093
14.410 *1.672
Preparation Age
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
79.062 12153.092
12232.154
12 1580
1584
6.588
7.731 .852
Prparation Course of Study
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
109.818 12122.330
12232.148
19 1565
1584
5.780
7.746 .746
* Significant at P ≤ 0.05
Table 4.12 indicates how students‟ age and course of study influence the evaluation of their lecturers‟ classroom interaction component of teaching effectiveness. Findings reveal that there exists a significant mean difference in age (F(12, 1587) =2.241, p=.008 and course of study (F(19, 1580) =3.542, p=.000) . This implies that the way students view their lecturers‟ classroom interaction is a function of their age and course of study. Similarly, the evaluation components
82
show that there exists a significant mean difference in age (F(12,1576) =1.789, p=.045 and course of study (F(19, 1569) =2.245, p=.002) of the students rating their lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness . Also, course of study significantly influences the way students rate their lecturers‟ personality (F(19, 1565) =1.672, p=.034). However, students‟ ages do not significantly influence the way they rate their lecturers‟ personality. Similarly, student‟s courses of study and age have no significant influence on students‟ ratings of their lecturers‟ preparation.
Table 4.13: Scheffe Post- Hoc Analysis of Classroom interaction of Teaching Effectiveness Components based on Course of Study
Dependent Variable
Course of Study(I)
Course of Study (J)
Mean Difference
Standard Error
Sig.
Classroom Interaction
Econs /History
Political Science/
Social Studies
* 9.38750 1.67385 .037
Pol Science/
Social studies
Pry. Educ/English
Eng. Lang./ Pol science
Eng.Lang./Yoruba Yor/French Bio/Chem Int. sc /Bio
*-9.42500
*-9.33750
*-9.32500 *-9.31250 *-9.82500 *-9.27500
1.67385 1.67385 1.67385 1.67385 1.67385 1.67385
.035
.041
.041 .042 .017 .045
* Significant at P ≤ 0.05
83
Table 4.14: Scheffe Post – Hoc Analysis of Classroom Interaction Component of Teaching Effectiveness based on Age.
students age N
Subset for alpha = 0.05 1
16 104 151.8365
23 148 153.1959
24 36 153.6944
21 244 154.8402
22 168 155.3274
20 272 155.4191
19 232 155.8448
18 232 155.9483
17 140 156.6000
30 8 156.7500
15 8 158.5000
26 4 162.7500
25 4 164.5000
Sig. .524
Table 4.12 shows that the students‟ course of study and age significantly influenced the way they evaluated their lecturers‟ classroom interactions. Scheffe post-hoc analysis indicated the direction of variation in the way students offering different courses evaluated their lecturers‟
classroom interaction. Table 4.13 shows the pair-wise comparison of Economics/History and Political Science/Social Studies shows that there is significant difference (p=.037), other course combinations that show significant mean differences include Political Science/Social studies and Primary Education/English (p= .035), English Lang./Political science (p= .041), English Language/Yoruba (p= .041), Yoruba/French (p= .042), Biology/Chemistry p=.017), as well as Integrated Science/Biology (p=.045). Table 4.14 shows scheffe post – hoc analysis that indicated the direction of variation in the classroom interaction of teaching effectiveness base on age the students.
84
Table 4.15: t-Test Analysis of Teaching Effectiveness Components Based on Year of Study
Dépendent Variable
Independent Variable
N Mean SD t Df
Classroom Interaction
Year two Year three
800 800
154.39 156.90
13.17 7.51
-2.817* 1598
Evaluation Year two Year three
789 800
53.11 53.17
4.06
3.68 -.275 1587
Personality Year two Year three
785 800
57.41 57.51
3.85
3.78 -.522 1583
Preparation Year two Year three
785 800
32.92 32.65
2.76 2.79
1.933 1583
* Significant at P ≤ 0.05
Table 4.15 shows that there is a significant mean difference in the rating of lecturers‟
classroom interaction according to students‟ year of study.(t=-2.817; df: 1598, p =.005). The Table shows that the mean of year three students‟ rating of lecturers‟ classroom interaction (M=156.90), evaluation (M=53.17) and personality (M=57.51) are significantly higher than year two students‟
rating, Only preparation component of teaching effectiveness shows that the mean students‟ rating of year two students is higher than that of year three students. Therefore, students‟ level significantly influences students‟ ratings of their lecturers‟ classroom interaction, evaluation, personality.
Research Question 8
Would students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness vary significantly across lecturers?‟
(i) rank (ii) age
(iii) year of experience (iv) gender?
85
Table 4.16: One Way Analysis of Variance of Classroom Interaction Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers’ Rank, Age and Years of Experience.
Dependent Variable
Independent Variable
Source of Variation
SS df MS F
Classroom Interaction
Rank of Lecturer
Between Group Within Group
Total
830.154 183782.443
184612.598 6 1593
1599
138.359
115.369 1.199
Classroom Interaction
Age of Lecturer
Between Group Within Group
Total
2568.753 182043.845
184612.598 13 1586
1599
197.596
114.782 1.721
Classroom Interaction
Year of Experience
Between Group Within Group
Total
2247.546 182365.052
184612.598 11 1588
1589
204.322
114.839 1.779
* Significant at P ≤ 0.05
One way analysis of variance in Table 4.16 shows that students‟ evaluation of their lecturers‟
classroom interaction does not vary significantly across the lecturers‟ ranks, age and years of experience. This implies that the students‟ ratings of classroom interaction do not vary across rank, age and years of experience of their lecturers.
86
Table 4.17: One Way Analysis of Variance of Evaluation Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers’ Rank, Age and Years of Experience.
Dependent Variable
Independent Variable
Source of Variation
SS df MS F
Evaluation Rank of Lecturer
Between Groups Within Groups Total
111.166 23681.818 23792.984
6 1582 1588
18.328
14.970 1.238
Evaluation
Age of Lecturer
Between Groups Within Groups Total
211..934 23581.050 23792.984
13 1575 1588
16.303
14.972 1.089
Evaluation Year of Experience
Between Groups Within Groups Total
203.681 23589.303 23792.84
11 1577 1588
18.516
14.958 1.238
* Significant at P ≤ 0.05
Table 4.17 shows with respect to evaluation that students‟ mean ratings do not vary significantly across lecturers‟ ranks, age and years of experience. That is, the mean ratings of lecturers‟ evaluation by their students do not vary across rank, age and years of experience.
87
Table 4.18: One Way Analysis of Variance of Personality Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers’ Rank, Age and Years of Experience.
Dependent Variable
Independent Variable
Source
of Variation SS Df MS F Sig.
Personality Rank of Lecturer
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
97.879 22911.235
23009.114 6 1578
1584
16.313
14.519 1.124 .346
Personality Age of Lecturer
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
144.816 22864.928
23009.114
13 1571 1584
11.091
14.554 .762 .701
Personality Year of Experience
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
80.801 22928.313
23009.114
11 1573
1584
7.346 14.576
.504 .902
* Significant at P ≤ 0.05
Using analysis of variance, Table 4.18 shows that students‟ evaluation of lecturers‟
personality does not vary significantly across lecturers‟ ranks, age and years of experience. This implies that the students‟ mean ratings of lecturers‟ personality do not vary across rank, age and years of experience.
88
Table 4.19: One Way Analysis of Variance of Preparation Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers’ Rank, Age and Years of Experience.
Dependent Variable
Independent Variable
Source of
Variation SS Df MS F
Preparation Rank of Lecturer
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
131.966 12100.188
12232.154 6 1578
1584
21.994
7.668 2.868*
Preparation Age of Lecturer
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
112.365 12119.789
12232.154
13 1571
1584
8.643
7.715 1.120
Preparation Year of Experience
Between Groups Within Groups
Total
154.840 12077.314
12232.154
11 1573
1584
14.076
7.678 1.833*
* Significant at P ≤ 0.05
Students‟ evaluation of lecturers‟ preparation component varies significantly according to rank of lecturers (F(6, 1578) =2.868: p = .009) and their years of experience (F (11, 1573) = 1.833:
p=.044). However, lecturers‟ preparation component does not vary significantly across their age.
The inference that can be drawn here is that rank of lecturers and their years of experience significantly influence the way they prepare for their classes.
Scheffe Post Hoc analysis was further carried out to show the direction of variation. The result is presented in Table 4.20.
89
Table 4.20: Scheffe Post- Hoc Analysis of Preparation Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Rank of Lecturers.
Dependent Variable
Rank of Lecturer (I)
Rank of Lecturer (J)
Mean Difference Preparation Lecturer 1 Asst. Lecturer 0.42
Lecturer III 0.45
Lecturer II 0.75
Senior Lecturer 0.44 Principal Lecturer 1.10*
Chief Lecturer 0.46
* Significant at P ≤ 0.05
Table 4.20 shows that there is significant variation between Lecturer I and Principal Lecturer.
Also appendix 7 revealed the scheffe post – hoc analysis of four components of teaching effectiveness based on the rank of lecturers.
Table 4.20: t-Test Analyses of Teaching Effectiveness Components Based on Lecturers’
Gender.
Dépendent Variable
Independent Variable
N Mean SD t Df Sig.
Classroom Interaction
Male Female
800 800
155.06 155.23
10.86 10.64
-.316 1598 .752
Evaluation Male Female
794 795
53.13 53.15
3.98
3.76 -.116 1587 .908 Personality Male
Female
792 793
57.42 57.49
3.73
3.89 -.340 1583 .734 Preparation Male
Female
792 793
32.86 32.70
2.73 2.82
1.200 1583 .230
In terms of gender of lecturers, Table 4.20 shows that there exist no significant variations in the way their students rated teaching effectiveness on the four components. This implies that students‟ ratings of their lecturers on the four identified components of teaching effectiveness do not vary across their lecturers‟ gender.
90 4.9 Discussion
Discussion in this study is done with reference to the four identified sub-scales of teaching effectiveness, and these are: Classroom Interaction, Evaluation, Personality And Preparation.
Classroom Interaction
The underlying factors within the SETES-CE indicated that more than half of the items in the teaching effectiveness scale loaded highly on classroom interaction component. This implies that classroom interaction is at the core of teaching effectiveness. The psychometric property of classroom interaction scale using Cronbach alpha for the determination of internal consistency gives a value of 0.7178, which is an indication that it is reliable. This could be based on the fact that if the reliability coefficient is squared to obtain the proportion of variance between two variables or between obtained score and true score as the case may be, the internal consistency would yield about 50% of shared variance.
This research found out that Lecturer 1 received the highest mean ratings with reference to classroom interaction and they are followed closely by Assistant Lecturers, while Principal Lecturer recorded the least mean rating on classroom interaction. Lecturer 1 being fourth of the 7- scale ranks in Colleges of Education most likely would not be encumbered by delegated works and must have mastered the dynamics of teaching, thus making their classes highly interactive. Also, Assistant Lecturers are most likely to put in a lot of zeal, being relatively new on the job, hence, relate more with the students and may not yet be saddled with more responsibilities. They may also want to show that they are competent in the work they are employed to carry out. On the other hand, the low rating of Principal Lecturer could be that they have no reason to convince anyone of their competencies anymore and again they may be involved in one programme or the other within or outside the college. In addition, they may be more overburdened with administrative work that may occupy most of their time and hence might not have enough time to prepare and teach their students.
The pattern of teaching effectiveness of lecturers in Colleges of Education as assessed by the students from different schools revealed that School of Science students gave the highest mean rating with regard to classroom interaction followed by the School of Languages. School of Education as well as School of Vocational and Technical Education have the same rating
91
while the students from the School of Arts and Social Sciences gave the least rating value.
Science is being conceived presently from the practical orientation perspective in which there should be active interaction of students with their peers, resources and materials as well as their lecturers who are supposed to act more as facilitators than lecturers. This implies that students from School of Science in the Colleges of Education are already introduced to various forms of classroom interaction, which made them able to identify the factors responsible for classroom interaction and as such were able to rate their lecturers accordingly. This is in contrast to what happens in the School of Languages, where students are involved in extensive communication rather than hands – on activities. To those students, their lecturer‟s teaching was more or less interactive.
School of Arts and Social Sciences gave the lowest rating to their lecturers. This could be explained from the viewpoint that arts students are trained to be more critical and probably what constitutes an effective interaction for science students may not constitute an effective interaction for them. This study was contrary to the findings of Money (1992). Out of 138 students spanned across faculties, results revealed that no significant difference was found in the ratings by students from different faculties while Kaufman (2002) supported the result of this study. His findings revealed that the faculties/schools of the students influenced their ratings and perceptions of lecturers.
Also, there was a significant mean difference in students‟ ratings from the various schools in Colleges of Education, and this is collaborated in the literature (Bassow, 1995;
Kaufman, 2002; Marsh and Bailey, 1993). Information that could be gleaned based on further analysis is that mean ratings of classroom interaction for lecturers by the students in arts and social sciences is significantly higher when compared to students from education, languages and sciences and this is responsible mainly for the significant difference obtained.
On the basis of gender, there was no significant difference in students‟ rating of their lecturers with regard to classroom interaction. Lecturers‟ classroom interaction was rated about the same way, irrespective of gender dichotomy. This finding is contrary to those of Boggs and Wiseman, (1995); and Chang, (1997). Chang, (1997)‟s study which examined the effect of gender on students‟ rating, revealed that male students rated male lecturers higher than their female counterparts. Similarly, Boggs and Wiseman (1995) found out that there was presence of subtle gender biases in the overall students‟ evaluation.
92
Furthermore, in this study, significant mean differences were observed for classroom interaction with regards to students‟ age and course of study. In the related study conducted by Martins and Smith (1990), results indicated that higher ratings occurred among the middle aged, although there was no significant main effect on students‟ evaluation due to the students‟ age.
Further analysis showed that there was a significant mean difference especially when Economics/History students are compared to Political science/Social studies students while, no significant mean difference was observed when compared to Primary Education/English Language students. Political Science/Social Studies students‟ view of their lecturers‟ classroom interaction is significantly lower than that of other students from the following course combinations: English Language/Political science, English language/Yoruba, Yoruba/French;
Biology/Chemistry; and Integrated science/Biology.
This result shows that there is variation in students‟ ratings across different course combinations. This result is supported by the work of Freedman (1994) who investigated the effect of course on students‟ evaluation. This result showed that the students‟ rating depended on different courses offered by the students. Lecturers‟ classroom interaction shows significant mean difference based on students‟ year of study, however, students‟ year of study does not significantly influence ratings of their lecturer‟s evaluation, personality and preparation component of teaching effectiveness. This finding is supported by Farah and Highly (1995).
Different levels of undergraduate and graduate students were used to assess teaching effectiveness; results indicated differences in ratings due to year of study. On the other hand, Schuman (1993) submitted in his study that there was no significant difference in rating as all responses indicated comparable scores on measure of teaching effectiveness.
Students‟ evaluation of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness does not vary across lecturers‟
gender, rank, age and year of experience in terms of the four components of teaching effectiveness. This implies that the mean ratings of lecturers‟ classroom interaction by their students are independent of lecturer‟s rank, age and year of experience.
93 Evaluation
Thirteen items loaded on component 2 which is tagged evaluation. In the study carried out by Chang (1997), using a sample of 9,843 undergraduate students, four factors were extracted, namely preparation/planning, material/content, method/skills and assignment/
examination. Examination/assignment obtained by Chang (1997) could also be likened to evaluation extracted in this study as both components centre on establishing the outcome of a teaching-learning system, even though evaluation completely subsumes examination/assignment.
The psychometric property of evaluation scale using Cronbach alpha for the determination of internal consistency gives a value of 0.7187 which is an indication that it is reliable. This is based on the fact that it accounts for over 50 % of shared variance between the obtained score and the true score.
In this study, the students‟ pattern of evaluation component of teaching effectiveness based on the rank of lecturers shows that Lecturers III are rated highest by the students, while Chief Lecturers are rated least by the students. Lecturers II, I and Senior Lecturers are rated higher than Assistant Lecturers and Principal Lecturer. Two reasons may likely explain this pattern. First, there seems to be an inverse relationship between rank of lecturers and the scores they award students in their courses. That is, with increase in lecturer‟s rank, students tend to be awarded lower scores in courses taken by the lecturers. Dunkins (1990) supported these findings.
He observed in his findings that teaching experience had indirect effect on students‟ evaluation.
In other words, the rank of the lecturers affected students‟ evaluation.
Similar study conducted by Anderson and Freidberg (1995) supported the preceding findings. This may be explained from the viewpoint that as a lecturer increases in rank, he/she becomes stricter with awarding marks or becomes more creative or conservative in evaluation mode and the consequence is that scores obtained on courses taken do not reflect the yearnings or aspirations of the students and since this affects the grade they come out with, it tends to affect negatively the way they rate such lecturer. Secondly, there is a tendency that the higher the lecturers‟ rank, which comes with increase in administrative work, the lower the time available to effectively evaluate the students, and the consequence is that the students view the lecturers as not doing well enough in assessments/evaluation procedures. On this basis, it appears the students‟ ratings are objective.