DEVELOPMENT, VALIDATION AND USE OF STUDENTS’ EVALUATION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS SCALE IN COLLEGES OF
EDUCATION IN NIGERIA
By
OLOYEDE AKINNIYI, OJO
B.Ed. Educ. Technology (Ilorin), M.Ed. Educ. Evaluation (Ibadan).
A Thesis in the International Centre for Educational Evaluation, Institute of Education,
Submitted to the Institute of Education,
in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
of the
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN.
March, 2013.
ii ABSTRACT
Student‟s evaluation of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness at the tertiary level of education in Nigeria is being advocated by educators. While universities are currently evolving the modalities of evaluating lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness by students, colleges of education recorded little or no attempt in this respect. Hence, this study developed, validated and used the Students' Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale in the College of Education (SETES-CE) to measure specific and observable classroom behaviours of lecturers.
This study adopted a survey design. Purposive sampling was used to select four colleges in the south-west, Nigeria and 160 students per college selected from year 2 and 3 while stratified sampling was used to select schools and courses. A total of 640 students and 24 lecturers participated in the validation. The SETES-CE (r = 0.72) which consists of four components namely: classroom interaction (r = 0.72), evaluation (r = 0.72), personality (r = 0.72) and preparation (r = 0.72) was used by a sample of 1600 students to evaluate teaching effectiveness.
Eight research questions guided the study. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA and factor analysis.
The Average Factor Loading (AFL), Average Communality Value (ACV) and Initial Eigen Value (IEV) of each component of SETES-CE are: classroom interaction (AFL= 0.44, ACV=0.60, IEV=3.61); evaluation (AFL= 0.46, ACV=0.60, IEV=2.64); personality (AFL= 0.45, ACV=0.60, IEV=2.34) and preparation (AFL= 0.44, ACV=0.61, IEV=2.27). Students‟ ratings for SETES-CE varies accordingly for: classroom interaction (152.60 - 156.38); evaluation (52.65 - 53.32); personality (57.04 - 57.96) and preparation (32.88 - 32.93). There was a significant difference in the male and female students‟ ratings of their lecturers‟ personality (t=2.67, df:
1583, p < .05). There exists a significant mean difference in classroom interaction (F (4, 1595) = 6.
41; p < .05) and personality (F (4, 1580) = 3.03; p < .05) of the lecturers rated. For classroom interaction, age (F(12, 1587) =2.24, p<.005), course of study (F(19, 1580) =3.54, p < .05) and year of study (t=-2.82; df: 1598, p < .05) of the students significantly influenced the rating of their lecturers, while age (F (12, 1576) =1.79, p < .05 and course of study (F(19, 1569) =2.25, p <.05) significantly influenced the ratings of their lecturers‟ evaluation, whereas students‟ year of study did not. Only course of study of the students significantly influenced the way they rated their lecturers‟ personality (F (19, 1565) =1.67, p < .05), while both age and year of study did not show significant differences in lecturers‟ personality. In terms of preparation, lecturers‟ rank (F (6, 1578)
=2.87: p < .05) and years of experience (F (11, 1573) = 1.83: p < .05) significantly influenced their teaching effectiveness.
Students, especially in the colleges of education can be relied upon to evaluate their lecturers‟
teaching effectiveness. Students‟ variables like course and year of study influence their pattern of ratings. The use of SETES-CE could be considered for adoption in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers in Colleges of Education in Nigeria.
Key words: Teaching effectiveness scale, Classroom interaction, Students‟ rating of lecturers, Nigerian Colleges of Education.
Word count: 494
iii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to Almighty God, the Alpha and Omega of ALL things. To HIM be all the glory. Also to my darling wife, Pastor (Mrs) Mosunmola OJO and my Children:
Inioluwa, Adebola, Adeboye and Adebolu.
iv
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this work was carried out under my supervision by Mr. O.A.Ojo in the International Centre for Educational Evaluation, Institute of Education, University of Ibadan.
………..
Supervisor
Folajogun V. FALAYE Ph.D
Senior Research Fellow, International Centre for Educational Evaluation, Institute of Education
University of Ibadan.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I give all glory to God who has been my help from the ages past, the Alpha and Omega.
He is the one who granted me the grace to begin and end this Ph.D programme. “Better is the end of a thing than the beginning” (Ecl 7:8a), to Him alone be all the glory, honour and adoration.
I am sincerely indebted to my supervisor, a mother indeed, Dr. F. Falaye who supervised the work through much patience, perseverance, tolerance and whose encouragement has helped me in the organization of this study. She is a voracious reader, a woman of honour and integrity.
The good God will reward you abundantly. Thank you ma. I also wish to register my profound gratitude to Dr. E. Okwilagwe for her encouragement and support throughout the course of my study. Deeply appreciated are Dr J. Adeleke and Mr F. Yewande for their immense assistance in the statistical package used for data in the study.
I will always remember Prof. A. Emeke who passionately admonished and guided me in the editing of the work. My sincere recognition and appreciation goes to all members of staff of the institute of Education for their support towards the completion of this work. I would like to thank Prof T. Yoloye, Prof M. Araromi, Director of the Institute of Education, Dr I. Isuigo- Abanihe, Head of the Unit, ICEE. Dr. M. Osokoya. Sub-Dean, ICEE, Dr. I. Junaid, Dr. C. Abe, Dr M. Odinko, Dr. G. Adewale, Dr. A. Akorede, Dr. B. Adegoke, Dr. A. Onuka, Dr.F. Ibode, Dr.
A. Adegbile, you were blessing to our generation and the Almighty God will continue to lift you up in Jesus Name.
I deeply appreciate the effort of my boss in the office Dr. J. Adewuyi, Dr. A. Olaniran, Dr. J. Oyeniran, Mr Oluokun and Mr G.O. Oyewobi, also my colleagues Mr J. Akanbi, Mr O.Oyelade, Mr A.Ayoola, Mrs R.Taiwo, Mr O.Olaosedidun and other members of the School of Education, Emmanuel Alayande College of Education, Oyo for their numerous support, may the Lord bless you all in Jesus Name.
My appreciation equally goes to the Ministers, Head of Departments, Workers and the entire congregation of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, Jesus Citadel, Oyo Province 4, General Gas Akobo Ibadan, for their understanding, prayers, patience, encouragement, I cannot thank you all enough. You will never be alone in all your endeavour in Jesus Name.
I also remember the role of my parents Prince and Mrs. O. Olatunbosun and my parents- in-law Mr. and Mrs. E. Agbejimi, Sisters, and Sisters-in-law, my Uncles and Aunties. A family
vi
in need is a family indeed. The source of your joy will never run dry in Jesus Name. It‟s my great pleasure to see this widest dream come true while you live, It is my prayer that you will live more to see greater achievements in Jesus name.
In conclusion, I cannot underestimate or over emphasize the role of my beloved wife;
Pastor (Mrs.) Mosunmola Ojo for her love, patience and sacrifice towards this great achievement. You are indeed a “help meet” sent by God. I salute your courage and support.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGE
Title Page i
Abstract ii
Dedication iii
Certification iv
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Problem 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 8
1.3 Research Questions. 8
1.4 Scope of the Study 10
1.5 Significance of the Study 10
1.6 Conceptual Definition of Terms 11
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Conceptual Framework 12
2.2. Nature and Scope of Teaching Effectiveness 14
2.3. Concept of Teaching and Teaching Strategies/Techniques 21 2.4. The Trend of Teacher Education Programme in Nigeria 26
2.4.1 Characteristics of an Effective Teacher 29
2.5. The Concept of Evaluation and Educational Evaluation 32
2.6. The need for Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness 35
2.6.1. Teaching Effectiveness and Students‟ Achievement 36 2.7. Use of Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness 37 2.8. Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness and Scholastic
Development in Colleges of Education 39
2.9. Instrumental Research 43
viii
2.10 Validation of Instruments 43
2.11 Summary of the Review 49
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Type and Design 51
3.2 Population 51
3.3 Sampling Technique and Sample 51
3.4 Research Instrument 53
3.5 Procedure for the Development of the Scale 54
3.5.1 Generation of Items 54
3.5.2 Establishing the Face and Content Validity 54
3.5.3 Pilot Testing 55
3.5.4 Establishing the Subscales of SETES 55
3.5.5 Determination of SETES‟s Psychometric Properties 56
3.5.6 Use of Final Version of SETES 56
3.6 Method of Data Analysis 56
3.7 Methodological Challenges. 57
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Research Question 1 58
4.2 Research Question 2 69
4.3 Research Question 3 70
4.4 Research Question 4: 72
4.5 Research Question 5: 74
4.6 Research Question 6: 77
4.7 Research Question 7: 78
4.8 Research Question 8: 81
4.9 Discussion 87
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER STUDIES
5.1 Summary of the Findings 95
5.2 Conclusion 96
ix
5.3 Implication for Teaching 97
5.4 Recommendations 97
5.5 Suggestion for Further Studies 98
REFERENCES 99
APPENDICES 111
x
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE Table 3.1: Classification of Colleges of Education in the Southwest
Zone of Nigeria. 52
Table 3.2: List of Colleges of Education Sample. 52
Table 3.3: List of Courses of Study and Students Sample in each
College of Education. 53
Table 4.1: Tests of Assumptions of Factor Analysis 58
Table 4.2: Communalities Values 59
Table 4.3. Initial Eigen values and Percentage of Variance Explained
by Each Component 61
Table 4.4: Component Matrixa
64
Table 4.4.1: Component 1 (Classroom Interaction) 66
Table 4.4.2: Component 2 (Evaluation) 67
Table 4.4.3: Component 3 (Personality) 68
Table 4.4.4: Component 4 (Preparation) 68
Table 4.5: Reliability of Teaching Effectiveness Scale Using Cronbach
Alpha 69
Table 4.6: Reliability of Teaching Effectiveness Scale Using Standard
Error of Measurement 70
Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics of Mean and Standard Deviation of Lecturers‟ Teaching Effectiveness Components According
to their Rank 71
Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics of Mean and Standard Deviation of Lecturers‟ Teaching Effectiveness Components According to
their Schools in Colleges of Education 73
Table 4.9: One Way Analysis of Variance of Teaching Effectiveness
Components 75
Table 4.10 Scheffe Post- Hoc Analysis of Classroom Interaction and
Personality 76
Table 4.11: A T-test of Teaching Effectiveness of Lecturers According
xi
to the Students‟ Gender 77
Table 4.12: One Way Analyses of Variance of Teaching Effectiveness
Components Based on Age and Course of Study. 79 Table 4.13: Scheffe Post- Hoc Analysis of Teaching Effectiveness
Components Based on Age and Course of Study. 80 Table 4.14: T-Test Analysis of Teaching Effectiveness Components Based
on Year of Study 81
Table 4.15: One Way Analysis of Variance of Classroom Interaction
Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers‟ Rank,
Age and Years of Experience. 82
Table 4.16: One Way Analysis of Variance of Evaluation Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers‟ Rank, Age and Years
of Experience. 83
Table 4.17: One Way Analysis of Variance of Personality Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers‟ Rank, Age and
Years of Experience. 84
Table 4.18: One Way Analysis of Variance of Preparation Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers‟ Rank, Age and Years
of Experience. 85
Table 4.19: Scheffe Post- Hoc Analysis of Preparation Component of
Teaching Effectiveness Based on Rank of Lecturers. 86 Table 4.20: T-Test Analyses of Teaching Effectiveness Components
Based on Lecturers‟ Gender. 86
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Fig 2.1: Component of Teaching 24
Fig 2.2: Trademarks of a Teacher 31
Fig 4.1: Scree Plot of Teaching Effectiveness . 62
Fig 4.2: Pattern of Students‟ Ratings of Lecturers‟ Teaching Effectiveness Components According to their Ranks. 72 Fig 4.3: Pattern of Students‟ Ratings of Lecturers‟ Teaching
Effectiveness Components According to their Schools in Colleges of Education.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Problem
Education is a fundamental human right that should be accorded to all human beings solely by reason of being human. Education is considered as a weapon of change and a means of national development, and an instrument for developmental changes in the society. The importance and linkage of education to the development of any society is well known. It is in recognition of this importance that the international community and governments all over the world have made commitments for citizens to have access to education, which represents the sum total of all processes of learning in one‟s life. Okpala (2008) sees education as a process that emphasises development, acculturation and learning how to learn. It can take place informally or in a non- formal setting. Education can also take place in formal setting having the school as its agent. The process of formal education is wide in scope. For instance, an educated person is more than a person who has acquired knowledge or skills. In fact, an individual, according to Okpala (2008) is considered educated when the individual is cultured, contributes positively to the development of the society, and has learnt how to learn.
Education is also seen as a social responsibility of government to its people (Abdullahi, 2005), which drives the growth, development and transformation of any meaningful national development; hence appropriate attention towards the growth and development of education is imperative. As important as education is in the life of any nation, the educational system of Nigeria has been described by Obemeata (1995) as an unprofitable venture, which has failed to yield the expected dividends. The future of any nation depends on the quality of its educational system, which in turn depends on the effectiveness of the teachers. The maxim that no educational system can rise above the quality of its teachers and that no nation can rise above the level of its teaching staff underscores, according to Omoregie, 2006, the roles of the teacher and teacher educational programmes in national development
Ukeje (2000) in his own remark stated that, “education is so powerful, it can lift up or impoverish”, so it is important to make education very effective. Ukeje, however, adduced that a lot of the benefit derived from education depends on the quality of education particularly that of the teacher who is central to the educational process. It is, therefore, expected that only the
2
intellectually promising and qualified persons should be trained to engage in the teaching industry. Teaching is a versatile and valued exercise that is geared towards bringing about achievement in students‟ learning. In view of the importance of teaching, there is need for it to be effective.
Since education has become the primary tool for the overall development of society, teacher education should occupy a position of pre-eminence in the planning and organization of the modern society. Teacher education was first given a great boost in the nation after the curriculum conference of the Nigeria Educational Research and Council (NERC) in 1969. This was well expressed in the 1971, 1981 and 2004 National Policy on Education document. The 2004 document stated in section 8B No. 70(a) that: “since no education system may rise above the quality of its teachers, teacher education shall continue to be given a major emphasis in all educational planning and development”. This shows that the teacher is very important in ensuring quality in the teaching – learning process. However, the inadequacy and low professional competence of teachers in relation to effectiveness of teaching had prompted different groups and individuals to direct attention to the issue of teaching effectiveness. For instance, Banjo Commission (1960), set up to review the educational system of former Western region identified the preponderance of untrained teachers as a major factor responsible for falling standards in primary schools in the region.
Taiwo Commission (1969) also showed concern for the standard of education in the West and observed that the educational objectives in the primary school curriculum in the region are imperfectly realized due to deficient knowledge of subject matter on the part of too many teachers and misconception of the teachers‟ function. Taiwo (1980) and Ezewu (1983) also commented on poor quality of teaching personnel in Nigeria schools. Ezewu (1983) remarked that it was a problem as old as the history of western education in the country and it persists till present day. The training of competent teachers is one of the major problems confronting the effectiveness of teaching, and good academic achievement of the students can only be provided through quality and effective teaching. Therefore, this problem cannot be overlooked. Teachers need to have information about the effectiveness of all the activities in the classroom to further improve the standard of education of both the teachers and the students.
In the twentieth century, there were few students‟ evaluation before the 1920s, but students‟ evaluation programme was introduced at Harvard, the University of Washington,
3
Purdue University, the University of Texas and other Institutions in the mid 1920s. Barr (1948) noted 138 studies of teaching efficiency written between 1905 and 1948, and De wolf (1974) summarized 220 studies of students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness that were written between 1908 and 1974. The term, “Students‟ evaluation of teacher performance” was first introduced in the ERIC system in 1976; between 1976 and 1980, there were 1,050 published and unpublished studies under the heading and approximately half of those had appeared since 1980.
It was also in the year 399AD that Socrates was executed for using his teaching to “corrupt” the youth of Athens. To the society of his time, Socrates was not involved in effective teaching.
In 1991, the International Institute for Educational Learning published the first edition of Increasing Teacher Effectiveness, by Lorin Anderson in its “Fundamentals of Educational Planning” series. This booklet was used primarily by the researchers in ministries and agencies, haven developed teachers‟ questionnaires for their studies. Even in 2003, the Organisation for Economic, Operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) were looking at several booklets for insights for their World Education Indicators programme.
Evaluation of teaching effectiveness has changed over time along with the definitions of what effective teaching is, due in part to increasing state and federal attention to school – level and classroom – level accountability for student learning. Effective teaching has been defined in many ways throughout the years (Campbell, Kyriakides, Muijs and Robinson, 2003; Chang and Tsui, 1999; Crickshank and Haefele, 1990; Good, 1996; Muijs, 2006). Therefore, due to numerous definitions and perceptions of scholars on teaching effectiveness, the idea of feedback to both the students and the teachers also seems to be a problem in the educational sector; the practicing teachers stand to gain more knowledge from knowing about the perception of their students towards their activities. Other proponents of students‟ evaluation of their teachers have stressed that such a practice, while providing a source of diagnostic feedback to teachers about the effectiveness of their teaching, may also reveal the criteria used by the students in their rating of teachers (Constine, 1997); provide a measure of teaching effectiveness to be used in promoting decision and constitute a source of information for students to be used in selecting subject teachers (Wilson, 1996).
The studies of Stringer and Finlay (1993) revealed that teachers who received feedback concerning their course ratings by students showed greater gains in subsequent ratings than the
4
teachers who received no feedback. Also, studies of Cashin (2002), and Onocha (1995, 1996) provided more research support as to the benefits of students‟ feedback on instructional performance. Research also indicates that students are the most qualified sources to report on the extent to which the learning experience was productive, informative, satisfying, or worthwhile.
While opinions on these matters are not direct measures of instructor or course effectiveness, they are legitimate indicators of student satisfaction, and there is substantial research linking student satisfaction to effective teaching (Theall and Franklin, 2001). A meta-analysis of 41 research studies provides the strongest evidence for the validity of student ratings since these studies investigated the relationship between student ratings and student learning. There are consistently high correlations between students‟ ratings of the “amount learned” in the course and their overall ratings of the teacher and course Gaubatz, (2000).
However, Orji (2004), stated that the idea of using students‟ rating in evaluating their teachers is yet to be fully accepted in some circles. Also, those opposed to the practice argued that it may not be possible to make specific recommendations (based on students‟ rating) to teachers‟ perception in improving their classroom instruction because such ratings generally lack specificity and at times require the rater to make a number of inferences about the underlying constructs (James, 1998). It has further been argued that students are not competent to appropriately define what effective teaching is since other extraneous factors may hinder their objective rating of the teacher. Stringer and Irwing (1998) mentioned that extraneous factors which include the looks of a teacher or even the tone of his voice may colour the students‟
judgment and these may threaten the teacher‟s own position in case of unfavourable comments about his teaching.
Also, gender, teaching experience, age, rank, year of study and course of study may contribute to the students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Tatro (1995) identified gender differences in college students‟ rating of their lecturers. Specifically, female lecturers were found to have received higher ratings than their male counterparts. On the part of students, it was found that female students gave higher rating than their male counterpart as regards the teaching effectiveness of their lecturers. Similarly, male students rated male instructors higher than female instructors, while female students rated female instructors higher than the males (Lueck, 1993).
Bare and Hill (1992), found significant difference in students‟ ratings as a result of type of courses offered.
5
The use and acceptance of students‟ evaluation of teaching (SET) is widespread in higher education. Wright (2004) suggested that the instructor who provides an “entertainment”
experience in class will likely receive a more favourable evaluation. In another perspective, students may be confused about the purpose and value of ratings, often completing forms as quickly as possible.
These criticisms notwithstanding, the usefulness of students‟ evaluation of teachers‟
activities seem to have stimulated considerable research particularly in the United State of America and Canada where the use of students‟ rating in evaluating teachers‟ effectiveness is common and widely endorsed by both students and teachers (Marsh & Roche, 1992; Masters, 1998). It had also been argued that teaching is considered effective only if students‟ performance improves after a period of instruction in a manner consistent with the goal of instruction (Stringer & Irwing, 1998). Therefore, it appears that effective teaching is measured by change in students‟ knowledge exhibited in their academic performance (Orji, (2004).
The establishment of Colleges of Education in Nigeria dates back to 1959 when the Federal Government of Nigeria set up a nine-man commission headed by Sir Eric Ashby. The body was charged with the task of recommending a pattern of education, which would be in keeping with the country‟s aspiration over the first two decades of independence. The emergence of the Advanced Teachers/Colleges of Education in Nigeria came as a direct result of Ashby‟s Commission report. The Commission‟s recommendation for Teacher‟s Grade One college was modified and gave rise to the new programme leading to the award of Nigeria Certificate in Education (N.C.E.). Today there are over sixty-five such colleges owned either by the federal, or the state governments or by private bodies. These colleges offer three years programme leading to the award of NCE. To maintain uniform standards, a body, the National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE) was set up to coordinate, moderate, accredit, and oversee the curriculum and quality control of the Colleges of Education nationwide (Folorunso, 2008).
The development of a society can always be traced to the development in its ivory tower.
Higher institutions, of which Colleges of Education is one, were expected to be increasingly accountable for their traditional roles of research and teaching in their respective communities, while at the same time responsive to the society‟s changing priorities and pressures. They are expected to be proficient at creating new knowledge and communicating same to development, and most especially the quality of teaching received by the students. According to Section 5,
6
No.32 of the Federal Government of Nigeria, National Policy on Education 4th Edition (2004), the objectives of higher education as referred to in this document cover the post secondary section of the national education system which is given in Universities, Polytechnics and Colleges of Technology, Colleges of Education and Advanced Teachers Training Colleges. It states that higher education should aim at:
(a) the acquisition, development and inculcation of the proper value-orientation for the survival of the individual society;
(b) the development of the intellectual capacities of individuals to understand and appreciate their environments;
(c) the acquisition of both physical and intellectual skills which will enable individual to develop into useful members of the communities;
(d) the acquisition of an objective view of the local and external environments.
Also, No. 33 of the same section 5, states that higher education institutions should pursue those goals through:
(i) Teaching;
(ii) Research;
(iii) The dissemination of existing and new information;
(iv) The pursuit of service to the community;
(v) Being a storehouse of knowledge.
Although, there are so many ways of ensuring teaching effectiveness, but the use of students‟ evaluation may be more appropriate as an acceptable and veritable tool because it will provide feedback that is valid, reliable, and relatively free of bias. Moreso, for quite some time now, there are strong suggestions in higher institutions that the professional abilities of teachers as those who impart knowledge to students be constantly evaluated for the purpose of achieving better teaching effectiveness (Kaufman, 2002). The more important aspect of such suggestions is that students ought to play a greater role in such evaluations. The rationale for this is very clear;
being major stakeholders in the teaching and learning process, students should be able to determine whether or not teaching is effective. More significantly, on the basis of the students‟
feedback the teacher is, in turn, able to make adjustments to improve his teaching where the need
7
arises. Therefore, teaching effectiveness in the Nigerian Colleges of Education is a significant measure that will influence learning outcomes.
Findings from research indicate that much has been done in the area of teacher education in general and improvement on teaching in particular. Such research works include those that focused on:
students‟ attitudes during teaching practice (Flander,1961; Belt, 1967; Cope, 1969; and Ward, 1970)
students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness (Marsh,1987; Ogunniyi, 2004 and Overall
& Marsh, 1980);
the development of measuring scale (Falaye, 2008; Marie and Jean-Francois,1990;
Martha, George and Marsh , 2004 and Randy,1998),
school effectiveness (Ojo, 2004)
training package for co-operating teachers (Adeniran,1987).
Research indicates that instructors benefit most from formative evaluation (evaluation to improve teaching). This type of evaluation enables the instructor to monitor the progress of teaching and learning process. When the instructor understands the feedback provided during the lesson and when assistance and resources for making improvements are available, it boosts the effectiveness of teaching. Murray (1994) states that “research on students‟ evaluation of teaching generally concludes that students‟ rating tends to be reliable, valid, relatively unbiased and useful”. In order to justify his assertion, he concluded that evaluations are generally consistent across raters, rating forms, courses and time, periods for a given semester, and they also correlate moderately highly to evaluations made of the same instructor by independent observers.
Furthermore, they correlate significantly with various objective indicators of students‟
performance, such as performance on standardized examinations. Finally, they correlate very low due to the effect of extraneous factors such as class size and security of grading (Murray, 1994).
Theall and Franklin (2001) agreed that students are the most powerful instruments in rating teachers‟ performance in schools because of their roles in learning. Therefore, the development of a reliable and valid scale to measure teaching effectiveness in Nigeria Colleges of Education is germane to tracking lecturers, most especially, the newly appointed lecturers who have little or no experience in the teaching and learning process in order to improve learning outcomes. It is quite pertinent to observe that in all the research efforts highlighted so far, not
8
much attention has been given to students in Colleges of Education especially in Nigeria. This is in-spite of the fact that these institutions are fast forming a formidable sector of the nation‟s educational system.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The need to entrench quality assurance in teaching and learning at all levels of Education particularly at the higher institutions of learning in Nigeria is an imperative. There is a growing clamour to involve students in the assessment of their teachers‟ teaching effectiveness as findings reveal that students‟ ratings are reliable, valid and relatively unbiased. Moreover, it is regarded as a means of ensuring quality. Based on the strength of students‟ assessment of their teachers‟ teaching effectiveness, higher institutions, especially the universities are currently exploring this approach as a means of building quality assurance into teaching and learning.
However, at the Colleges of Education level, there is little or no visible attempt being made.
Based on this, the researcher developed, validated and used the Students' Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale in Colleges of Education (SETES-CE) to measure specific and observable classroom behaviours that are indicative of teaching effectiveness in Colleges of Education.
1.7 Research Questions.
(1). (i) How many reliable and interpretable components of SETES-CE are there among the variables?
(ii) If reliable components are identified, how can they be meaningfully interpreted?
(2) What are the psychometric properties in terms of reliability of:
(i) the identified sub scale of Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale (SETES-CE)?
(ii) the entire Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale (SETES- CE)?
(3) What is the pattern of students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness of the different rank of lecturers?
9
(4) What is the pattern of teaching effectiveness of lecturers in Colleges of Education as assessed by the students of different schools?
(5) Is there any difference in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers by students from the different schools?
(6) Is there any difference in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness by male and female students?
(7) Do students‟
(i) course of study;
(ii) age and (iii) year of study.
influence their evaluation of teaching effectiveness?
(8) Would students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness vary across lecturers‟
(i) rank;
(ii) age;
(iii) year of experience;
(iv) gender?
1.8 Scope of the Study
The present study was interested in finding out the students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness in Colleges of Education in Nigeria. The study was restricted to Colleges of Education from the Southwest zone in Nigeria.
1.9 Significance of the Study
This study provides additional empirical basis for assessing teaching effectiveness in higher institutions and most especially in Colleges of Education. It can help lecturers to establish the nature of the relationship between them and their students and how students perceive the teaching of their lecturers. The results of this study reveal the inadequacies of the lecturers and the need for them to improve on the quality of their instructions. It can assist the students, lecturers, management of the colleges, government and the public at large to understand their contributions towards enhancing teaching effectiveness. Moreover, this study can assist the stakeholders involved in the management of the colleges to identify the factors influencing teaching effectiveness from the students‟ perspective. This effort could catalyze students‟
10
assessment of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness in Colleges of Education. Furthermore, the validated instrument can be adopted or adapted for use in Colleges of Education and in other higher institutions in Nigeria. Finally, it has expanded the literature base on teaching effectiveness.
11 1.10 Conceptual Definition of Terms
Construct Validity: This is the degree to which the teaching effectiveness of a lecturer can be accounted for by the explanatory trait identified by students in their evaluation.
Factors: This is the unobserved variables that are assumed to underline distinct group of traits/behaviour identified in effective lecturers by students.
Students’ Evaluation: This refers to the process of gathering data through students‟ rating of their lecturers to judge the effectiveness of their teaching.
Teaching Effectiveness: This is all the activities of the teacher that enable him/her to combine his/her professionalism in terms of knowledge, skills and competencies acquired, in order to implement sound educational programmes as well as adhere to prescribed procedures and routines in the classroom.
Reliability: This is the degree of consistency between two sets of scores or observations obtained with Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale.
Validation: This refers to the process of investigating the extent to which Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale measures what it is designed to measure.
Abbreviations
SETES-CE: Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale.
NCCE: National Commission for Colleges of Education.
NCE: Nigeria Certificate in Education.
SET: Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching.
CoE: College of Education
FCE: Federal College of Education.
NERDC: Nigeria Educational Research and Development Council
12
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review of this study was organized on the basis of previous theoretical and empirical findings of other researchers on teaching effectiveness and evaluation of educational programmes. These will be under the following headings:
(1) Conceptual Framework
(2) Nature and scope of teaching effectiveness;
(3) Concept of teaching and teaching strategies;
(4) The trend of teacher education programme in Nigeria;
(5) The concept of evaluation and educational evaluation;
(6) Needs for evaluating teaching effectiveness;
(7) Students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness and scholastic development in Colleges of Education;
(8) Use of students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness.
(9) Validation of Instrument.
2.1 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework used in the study is related to the works of Wallen and Fraenkel (2001), Rae and Parker (1997),Dillman, Tortora, and Bowker (1998), Dillman and Bowker (2001), and their contribution to survey development. Wallen and Franwkel‟s process includes the definition of problem, identification of the target population, determination of mode of data collection, preparation of the instrument, collection of data, and analysis. Also important to their process is the identification of large categories of issues (or constructs), which can be used to suggest more specific issues within each subscale, which can then be used for generation of the items. Rae and Parker‟s (1997) stages of the survey research process, which emphasises the importance of the piloting or pretesting of the scale. Marie and Jean-Francois (1990) developed an instrument to measure professionalism. The first step was to form a focus group to generate items, after the administration of the instrument, descriptive statistics were calculated and all data were evaluated to determine whether each item had suffered variance to proceed with further analyses. Scores of negatively worded items were reversed, so that higher scores reflected more positive attitude.
13
Another framework for this study is the research carried out by Marsh, (1987), the procedures for scale development was based on seven steps which include defining of the construct to be measured, designing of the scale, generation of item pool, page layout, administration of the scale, checking of the data and analysis of the data. Schwab (1980) also worked on scale development. In his own study, only three stages were identified namely developmental stage, scale construction and reliability assessment..
In addition to the views and steps undertaken by the scholars above, Marsh (1987) based his findings on students‟ evaluation studies on the construct validation approach. The perspectives that underlie this approach are as follows;
As teaching effectiveness is multifaceted, the design of instruments to measure students‟
evaluation and the design of research to study the validation should reflect this multidimensionality.
There is no single criterion of effective teaching, hence, a construct approach to the validation of students ratings is required in which the rating are shown to be related to variety of other indicators of effective teaching. No single study, no single criterion, and no single paradigm can demonstrate or refute the validity of students‟ evaluation.
Different dimensions or factors of students‟ evaluation will correlate more highly with different indicators of effective teaching. The construct validity of interpretation based upon the rating factor requires that each factor be significantly correlated with criteria to which it is most logically and theoretically related and less correlated with other variables. In general, students‟ ratings should not be summarized by response to a single item or an un-weighted average response to many items.
An external influence in order to constitute a bias to students‟ rating must be substantially related to the rating and relatively unrelated to other indicators of effective teaching.
(Marsh, 1987, p.253)
14 2.2. Nature and Scope of Teaching Effectiveness
Teaching is a multidimensional process comprising a number of separable dimensions or instructor attributes, which sometimes are difficult to evaluate in a quantitative way (Arreola, 1995; Centra, 1993; Boex, 2000). An instructor‟s overall teaching effectiveness, which is, an aspect of teaching, is influenced by a combination of teacher characteristics such as gender, year of experience, age etc. However Abrami (1989) recognized that the nature of effective teaching could vary across instructors, courses, students and settings. He, therefore, recommends the use of global evaluation tools which will be generally acceptable by various education stakeholders for summative judgements of teaching effectiveness.
Students who are assigned to one ineffective teacher after another have significantly lower achievement (that is, gains in achievement) than those who are assigned to a sequence of several highly effective teachers (Sanders and Rivers, 1996). Thus, the impact of teacher effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) seems to be additive and cumulative. However, Orji, (2004) stated that effective teaching is a reflection of the degree to which the teacher is able to demonstrate effectively his teaching strategy which results in students‟ understanding of the instructional content. In the twentieth century, there were few studies of students‟ evaluation before the 1920, but students‟ evaluation programme was introduced at Harvard, the University of Washington, Purdue University, and the University of Texas and other Institutions in the mid- 1920s. Barr, (1948) noted 138 studies of teaching efficiency written between 1905 and 1948, and De-wolf (1974) summarized 220 studies of students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness that were written between 1908 and 1974. The term, „students‟ evaluations of teacher performance‟
was first introduced in the ERIC system in 1976; between 1976 and 1984, there were 1,550 published and unpublished studies under the heading and approximately half of those have appeared since 1980.
Studies by Husband (1996) show that students as consumers of instruction, are not only best qualified to judge the product being offered but will do so accurately under appropriate conditions. Other proponents of students‟ evaluation of their lecturers have stressed that such a practice, while providing a source of diagnosis of lecturers‟ teaching, may also among other things reveal the criteria used by students in their ratings of teachers (Constine, 1997); provide a measure of teaching effectiveness to be used in promoting decision and constitute a source of information for students to be used in selecting subjects and teachers (Wilson, 1996). The studies
15
on students‟ rating by Stringer and Finlay (1993) revealed that teachers who received feedback concerning their course ratings by students show greater gains in subsequent feedback. Also, Cashin(2002), and Onocha(1995,1996) provided more research support as to the benefits of students‟ feedback on instructional performance.
Effective teaching is the achievement of the goals which the teacher sets for him/herself or which have been set for him/her by others (e.g. Ministries of education, legislators, college management, and other government officials). As a consequence, those who study and attempt to improve teacher effectiveness must take cognizance of the goals imposed on teachers or the goals that teachers establish for themselves, or both. A corollary of this is that effective lecturer must possess the knowledge and skills needed to attain the goals. In Medley‟s (1982) terms, the possession of knowledge and skills falls under the heading of “teacher competence”. In contrast, the use of knowledge and skills in the classrooms is referred to as „teacher performance”. Thus, those who investigate and attempt to understand teacher effectiveness must be able to link teacher competence and teacher performance with the accomplishment of teacher goals.
Students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness seems to be a 20th century concept; and research on it had been most intensive in the 1970s (Doyle, 1983). It was in 1927 that M.A.
Remmers (the father of students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness) initiated the first systematic research in the field. Between 1927 to date, the thousands of research reports in this area have produced important insights into evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Onocha (1997) suggested that evaluation constitutes a source of information for:
(i) diagnostic feedback to teachers about the effectiveness of their teaching;
(ii) measuring teaching effectiveness to be used in administrative decision making;
(iii) students who select courses and teachers;
(iv) measuring quality of the course to be used in course improvement and curriculum development; and
(v) describing further research on teaching.
In spite of these, student evaluation of teaching effectiveness is riddled with conceptual and methodological issues (Onocha, 1995; 1997). For instance, how to define (operationally) and promote teaching effectiveness is still a problem for educators and researchers. There is also the problem of instrumentation (nature of instrument, reliability and validity). However, research activities (Marsh, 1987; Watkins, 1994; Onocha, 1995; have suggested solutions to the problems;
16
these include: the use of multiple indicators of effective teaching which suggests a construct validation approach and the application of long term stability and generalizability theory.
Evaluation of teaching effectiveness at higher level of education has used information from (i) self reports (ii) colleagues (iii) experts / trained raters and students (Cody, 2000). Self- rating has been discovered to suffer from inflation and exaggeration in comparison with other approaches (Campbell and Lee, 1988). These are considered to have potential adverse effect on the value of self-rating on the part of colleague and expert raters. It was initially proposed as a means of overcoming the limitation of self-rating. However, they have their own problems.
Practically, raters are not likely to be as familiar with lecturers‟ teaching as students;
consequently, sampling bias could occur (Scriven, 1987). Besides, the appraisal is based on limited observation of teaching performance and this cannot assure the representativeness of lecturers‟ performance over the length of a course. To overcome these problems associated with validity, students‟ evaluation of lecturers was proposed (Stringer and Finlay, 1993). Students‟
evaluation of lecturers are utilized by an increasing number of institutions especially in the developed world in that they provide accurate index of instructional quality.
One of the major reasons why researches on students‟ evaluation appear controversial in educational circles is that such students‟ characteristics as gender influence which could be significant are often neglected, thereby raising validity question (Rogger, 1983). However, a number of works have recorded the influence of students‟ gender on their ratings of lecturers.
For instance, Krah and Bowlby (1997) investigated the possible influence of gender on students‟
evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers in the University of Alberta. They made use of 1,453 undergraduates. Findings indicated that students‟ gender influences their pattern of rating.
In the same vein, Chang (1997) undertook a study which examined the effect of gender on students‟ rating of teacher performance in a Taiwanese College. A total of 9,843 students were asked to rate their lecturers. Instruments used were evaluation forms containing 13 questions that focused on four dimensions of teacher performance such as preparation/planning, material/
content, method/skill and assignment/examination. Results indicated that male students rated male lecturers higher than the female counterparts.
Another study carried out by Boggs and Wiseman (1995) examines the role of gender in university students‟ evaluation of lecturers. Data from two hundred and twenty students were analysed using appropriate statistics. Results showed the possible presence of subtle gender
17
biases in the overall students‟ evaluation. In a similar manner, Tatro (1995) identified gender differences in college students‟ rating of their lecturers. Specifically, female lecturers were found to have received higher ratings than their male counterparts. On the part of students, it was found that female students gave higher rating than their male colleagues who appear to be conservative with their marks.
Amin (1994) compared the evaluation of 1,064 male and female undergraduates in the University of Yaoundé (Cameroon). Their lecturers‟ effectiveness was the focus of evaluation.
Similar findings were recorded by Lueck (1993) when he discovered that male students rated male instructors higher than female instructors while female students rated female instructors higher than the males. Could this be the case of gender coloration among student raters? In essence, there was significant interaction between gender and students‟ rating of their lecturers.
Another study by Feldman (1993) investigated College students‟ evaluation of their male and female teachers. Results revealed that gender interaction within the study was significant. Similar findings were recorded by the Vanoo Stendorp (1999) study which revealed that females were rated higher than the males by female raters while the male students rated male lecturers higher than the female lecturers.
Swaffiels (1996) investigated the possible effect of gender on students‟ evaluation of University professors. Findings indicated that the male professors received higher ratings than their female colleagues. Reasons that were adduced for this trend was that the male professors could have stepped out of their traditional and stereo-typical role to become sensitive to students‟
need, indicating a shift in classroom behaviour. In the same vein, Boggs (1995) opines that evidences abound to show that students‟ evaluation of their lecturers‟ effectiveness is subject to a number of biases, including gender. She however attributed the cause to communication problem and went ahead to provide insight into the process through which communication contributes to gender bias in students‟ rating. Martins and Smith (1990) corroborated this opinion when they conducted a study which examined the impact of gender on students‟ perception of teachers‟
ability to teach.
Students‟ prior experience in teaching has been found to influence student evaluation (Dunkins, 1990; Bare and Hill, 1992; Needle, 1991; Johnson, 1992; Jonas, 1994; Anderson and Friedberg, 1995). In a study conducted by Central (2000), one thousand one hundred and seventy
18
four (1,174) student teachers were examined in relation to their past teaching experience which was classified into various groups of 0-9 years, 10-15years and over 15 years. The students were asked to rate the teaching effectiveness of their lecturers at Indiana University. Analysis of variance was carried out on the data with result indicating that students with different quantum of teaching experience rated teaching effectiveness differently.
Dunkin‟s (1990) findings buttressed the above study. He conducted a study in which graduate students with varying teaching experience were required to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of 55 lecturers. Relationship between perceived competence on teaching tasks, and some professional background variables were sought. Results showed that teaching experience had indirect effects on students‟ evaluation. In other words, teaching experience affected students‟ evaluation. Findings from similar study conducted by Anderson and Freidberg (1995) supported the preceding findings.
Another study by Needels ((1991) examined the video tape of a first grade teacher in action. Students with teaching experience and others with none were required to assess the teaching competence of first grade teacher based on the following parameters: classroom management, teacher-student interaction and use of student knowledge. Findings indicated few differences between the ratings of students with teaching experience. Experienced teachers better understood the interconnection of classroom events.
In his own study, Jonas (1994) studied the effects of pre-service teachers‟ experience on students‟ evaluation. Four pre-service teachers with varying experiences were required to evaluate the lessons of their lecturers. The lessons were videotaped so that the teachers‟ reactions to the question could be critically assessed according to a 10 point scale. Results showed significant differences in evaluation due to prior teaching experiences. These findings corroborated earlier views. Bare and Hill (1992) conducted a study which investigated the role of teaching experience on students‟ assessment. The study which spanned for 3 years specifically sought to find out from student perspective how their past teaching experiences had affected their ratings of lecturers. Results showed that students testified that the experimental exposure had helped in their various ratings of teaching effectiveness especially in their manner of perception.
Research work carried out by Stringer and Irwing (1998) appears to confirm students‟
courses as very influential on students‟ rating/perception of teaching effectiveness. They made use of a total of 1,708 fulltime undergraduate students undertaking degrees in Health and social
19
science courses at the University of Ulster. Results indicated that perceived teaching quality was found to be related to course which explained about 42% of the trend in results. Another study by Freedman (1994) investigated the effect of course on students‟ evaluation of instructional effectiveness. Result of the experimental study which involved 305 college students showed that the students‟ ratings depended on different courses which they were undertaking.
Researchers over the years have shown that students in different departments, schools and faculties perceive teaching and learning in different ways (Bassow, 1995). Kaufman (2002) specifically carried out a study whose main concern was finding the extent to which different groups of students undertaking different courses differed in their ratings and perception of teaching effectiveness of their lecturers. He made use of 925 students spread across faculties and departments in a University in Connecticut. The findings revealed that their different faculties/courses influenced their ratings and perception of lecturers. The author posited some reason of which arose from several source including diverse experience, exposure and different nature of courses. For instance according to Orji (2004), the qualities of a good lecturer as perceived by faculty of education students were different from those of faculty of law and engineering/science. In the same vein, Veldman and Peck (1998) found that students‟ rating of teachers varied as a function of the subject areas.
Marsh and Bailey (1993) experimented with 123 instructors who were rated by over 3000 students undergoing degree programmes in different courses. Findings showed that ratings of the students were found to have been influenced by different courses. In other words, significant differences in students‟ ratings as a result of type of courses were recorded. Similar findings were reported by Zahn and Schramm (1992) whose study looked at 10,270 students‟ evaluation of their teachers in skill and non skill oriented courses. Results indicated that teachers of non skill oriented courses received higher ratings than other courses.
In another study conducted at College of Applied Science and Technology, Money (1992) investigated the perception of 138 students spanned across faculties of nursing and technology.
The study identified 7 factors contributing to teaching effectiveness. Based on the factors, a questionnaire was constructed, requiring students to rank and rate their lecturers. Results revealed that no significant difference was found in the ranking and rating of students from different faculties. The reasons for this result as suggested by the author might have been due to similarity in the nature of the two disciplines, which are science based. Lending credence to this
20
findings, Hale, Harried and Waugh (1996) tested the efficacy of the Students‟ Rating of Teaching Effectiveness (SRTE) instrument, which they administered on college students who were asked to rate the teaching effectiveness of their teachers. The SRTE was a 22 item instrument based on students‟ perspective. Findings showed no significant difference in the rating, as students‟ differentiation among teaching components appeared obscure.
On the contrary, Batten (1993) reported related study which was aimed at identifying students‟ best teachers. Students comprised equal representatives from humanities, science and mathematics. They rated their various course lecturers in order to identify the best lecturers.
Ratings indicated differences across the selected disciplines/subject areas. Best lecturers in science and mathematics received lower scores than the best ones in the field of humanities.
This implies that the ratings varied according to the subject area.
Morell and Souviney (1990) assessed the teaching effectiveness of lecturers at the University of California, using students‟ evaluation as the assessment tool. The study used data from students‟ evaluations conducted for over 3 years in different courses/subject areas. The overall result showed that students tended to rate humanities and fine art courses lecturers with higher scores than science mathematics or engineering lecturers. The findings have further confirmed students‟ courses as a very significant influencing factor on students‟ evaluation.
Apart from students‟ courses, the year of study on student‟s level in any particular course may influence students‟ evaluation of teaching. Although, paucity of literature exists on the effect of students‟ year of study on students‟ rating of teaching effectiveness, few studies have however been documented. For instance, Stringer and Irwing (1998) conducted a study which sought to find out the effect of year of study on students‟ evaluation of lecturers. A total of 1708 students comprising first year, second year, third year and fourth year students who were undertaking undergraduate degree courses in health science served as sample for the study. It was revealed that students‟ rating varied across students‟ year of study. The final year students were found to be more objective in rating than other categories of students. A similar study was carried out by Stanton (1994) in which 40 classes (comprising different years of study) were used. Each class was given a diagnostic rating scale to facilitate the assessment of their lectures‟
effectiveness in teaching. Findings revealed that the ratings varied across the different levels of students.
21
James (1998) constructed and validated an instrument called Students‟ Observation of Teachers and Teaching Techniques (STOTT), using 925 high school students who were in different classes. The students were required to rate their lecturers, using STOTT instrument.
Results showed that their ratings varied according to the class or level. Also, Goldberg and Callanhan (1991) experimented with over 4,000 Business students who were required to assess 60 lecturers. The raters were categorized into different classes/years of study. Findings revealed that students‟ rating of business studies lecturers were influenced by course level/class.
A study by Farah and Highly (1995) used different levels of undergraduate and graduate students to assess teaching effectiveness. Results indicated differences in ratings due to year of study. On the other hand, Schuman (1993) executed a study which evaluated an instrument used for rating teachers in the pediatrics unit of University of Wisconsin. Medical school measurement of overall teaching effectiveness was done by medical students in different classes/levels, reflecting different instructional settings. Results indicated no significant difference in rating as all responses indicated comparable scores on measures of teaching effectiveness.
2.3. Concept of Teaching and Teaching Strategies/Techniques
Teaching is a polymorphous concept. At one level, it means the work which everybody does so long as they spend part of their lives in influencing the thoughts, feelings and behaviour of others (Morrison and Melntyre, 1973). At another level, it is the organized work people engage in for a living. In this regard, teaching is seen as a profession. At another level still, teaching has been used to refer to the body of doctrines perpetuated by a distinguished figure in society, for example, the teaching of Jesus. Yet at another level, teaching is used in connection with institutionalized efforts made by one person to help another to learn. It is this last concept of teaching that the rest of this review will focus on.
Van Dalen and Brittell (1959) defined teaching as the guidance of pupils through planned activities so that they may acquire the possible richest learning from their experiences, adding that learning is the result of experience and requires the active participation of the child.
The definition of teaching implies that the teacher does not give the learner education, for learning is a process that comes from within the pupil. But to put the pupil in this situation, the
22
teacher has the onerous task of arousing the interest of the pupil so that he (the pupil) becomes ready to participate actively in the teaching-learning process. The teacher could achieve this by establishing attainable goals, by giving pupils both stimulus and opportunity to ask questions and obtain information, by analyzing their problems and proposing solutions, by practicing skills, by making judgments and by evaluating progress. The pupils must learn by themselves but the teacher comes in to point out obstacles which the pupils may be experiencing, answering their questions, helping to analyse difficulties, and providing encouragement in the activity being undertaken.
Clark and Starr (1967) on their part see teaching as an attempt to help someone acquire or change some skill, attitude, knowledge, idea or appreciation. In other words, the teacher‟s task is that of creating or influencing desirable changes in behaviour, or in tendencies towards behaviour, in his pupils. The implications of this definition is that teaching is a helping relationship which involves the teacher (usually a more mature and more experienced person) helping the student (a less mature and less experienced person), to acquire knowledge, skills or value, and hence, learn. Thus, it is helping the learner to learn to do or to be.
In another vein, Olaitan and Agusiobo (1991) hold that teaching is an attempt to bring about desirable changes in human abilities and behaviours. This means that teaching is to cause the learners to make certain desirable changes in their behaviour patterns which involve classroom chatting between teacher and pupils within certain defined activities. Teaching then implies and involves not only a change in behaviour but a means of sharing and communicating that result in the growth and development of a pupil in terms of knowledge, skill and attitude. It is apparently against the background of the foregoing that Nweke (1990) posits that teaching implies helping people to gain the knowledge and attitude which make them responsible citizens, earn a living and lead a meaningful and rewarding life. Odor (1990) throws further light on the concept of teaching by submitting that teaching is the process of guiding, stimulating, motivating and evaluating the learner in an organized educational institution through a well planned and selected educational programme of instruction towards the achievement of the desired goals, including the all-round development of the learner. Here, the teacher is seen as a person of many parts: a guide, stimulator or motivator, and evaluator, among others.
The idea suggested by Ezewu (1983) stated that teaching can be likened to selling. No trader can boast that he/she has sold so much goods when nobody bought anything from him/her.
