International Journal of Educational Management

Perceived differences in teaching performance from viewpoints of lecturers and

students
Jane Lu Hsu Hsin-Yi Chiu

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Jane Lu Hsu Hsin-Yi Chiu, (2009),"Perceived differences in teaching performance from viewpoints of
lecturers and students", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 23 Iss 7 pp. 564 - 573
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540910990807
Downloaded on: 23 November 2014, At: 05:46 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 13 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1114 times since 2009*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Professor Miantao Sun, Jocelyn L.N. Wong, (2014),"Career advancement or teacher development?
Teachers perceptions of writing publications in China", International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol. 28 Iss 3 pp. 306-318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2013-0006
Yin Cheong Cheng, (1996),"Total teacher effectiveness: new conception and improvement", International
Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 10 Iss 6 pp. 7-17 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513549610151659
George O. Odhiambo, (2005),"Teacher appraisal: the experiences of Kenyan secondary school teachers",
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43 Iss 4 pp. 402-416

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 394654 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

IJEM
23,7

564

Perceived differences
in teaching performance
from viewpoints of lecturers
and students
Jane Lu Hsu

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

Department of Marketing, National Chung Hsing University,

Taichung, Taiwan, and

Hsin-Yi Chiu
National Chung Hsing University, Jhongli City, Taiwan
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine evaluations of teaching from viewpoints of
lecturers and students to reveal perceived differences in teaching performance.
Design/methodology/approach A survey is administered to lecturers and students in a
large-scale university in Taiwan. Valid samples include ten lecturers and 250 students. Upon obtaining
consensuses from lecturers, 25 students in each course are randomly selected to fill out questionnaires.
Lecturers are requested to fill out questionnaires designed for instructors only. Factor, cluster, and
multivariate analyses of variance are applied in analyzing the survey data. Five dimensions of
evaluations of teaching are extracted from students viewpoints, including content of materials,
learning condition, interaction, attitudes, and responsiveness. These five factors are used in the
clustering procedure to segment courses into superior- and inferior-quality.
Findings Results indicate surveyed students in the clusters of superior- and inferior-quality
courses have statistical differences in seriousness of evaluations of teaching performance and how
they believe the suggestions will be taken into consideration in modifications of teaching styles.
However, lecturers of superior- and inferior-quality courses are not statistically different in their
viewpoints in how they value evaluations of teaching performance.
Research limitations/implications Survey data in this paper are obtained from a single
university. Students are able to distinguish courses of different quality in various dimensions, but
lecturers seem to believe that they have done well in teaching and will not know differences in teaching
performance perceived by students as of superior-or inferior-quality.
Practical implications For efficient utilization of student evaluations of teaching in educational
institutions, gaps in perceived differences in teaching performance from lecturers and students need to
be identified and filled.
Originality/value End-of-term student evaluations of teaching are used in educational institutions
for assessing how well instructors do in helping students to learn theoretical and practical aspects of
knowledge. Findings in this paper can be used to form a baseline for educational institutions to
improve applicability of student evaluations of teaching.
Keywords Teaching, Teachers, Students, Performance appraisal
Paper type Research paper
International Journal of Educational
Management
Vol. 23 No. 7, 2009
pp. 564-573
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-354X
DOI 10.1108/09513540910990807

This paper is partially supported by National Science Council (NSC 94-2416-H-005-005) in

Taiwan.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

Introduction
End-of-term student evaluations of teaching are used in educational institutions for
assessing how well instructors do in helping students to learn theoretical and practical
aspects of knowledge. Universities have the training facilities to teach students
important know-how skills and up-to-date information (Tippins, 2003). Teachers
efficacy and teaching performance are often in the center of attention in educational
institutions (Tsigilis et al., 2007). For the purpose of assessing teaching performance
and quality, student evaluations of teaching are commonly applied as a measure of
teaching effectiveness (Liaw and Goh, 2003). Factors affecting students evaluations of
teaching are taken into consideration to measure lecturers performance as well as
facilitating improvement of course quality.
Wachtel (1998) stated that students evaluations of teaching were believed to be
valid, reliable, and essential in improving teaching effectiveness. However, Liaw and
Goh (2003) argued that even if students evaluations of teaching were valid, the
measures could not be reliable. Class sizes had influences on student evaluations of
teaching that classes of smaller number of enrolled students tended to give higher
ratings on evaluations of teaching. Basow and Montgomery (2005) pointed out that the
validity of student ratings of college teaching needed to be of great concern. Bosshardt
and Watts (2001) stated that using students teaching evaluations alone would not be
comprehensive in obtaining measurement of teaching performance. The relationship
between instructors assessments of their own teaching and students evaluations of
teaching could reveal whether a gap existed between instructors view points and
students understandings. Emery et al. (2003) also emphasized that student evaluations
of teaching should not be utilized alone to measure teaching effectiveness due to the
fact that students tended to evaluate satisfaction rather than achievement in the
learning process.
Sojka et al. (2002) mentioned that although there was a debate on the issue of
reliability and validity of student evaluations of teaching, an essential component of
the measure, student perception, should not be neglected. They examined differences in
student and faculty perceptions of student evaluations of teaching and found that
students in general did not agree that student evaluations of teaching would be
influential in a way to lead instructors to modify teaching styles. On the contrary,
faculty members tended to believe that students would rank easy and entertaining
instructors with relatively high scores (Sojka et al., 2002). Student evaluations of
teaching could be used for teaching performance measurement, and further to form
guidelines for course and teaching quality improvement (Liaw and Goh, 2003). Seiler
et al. (1999) suggested that student evaluations of teaching should include various
dimensions to reflect attributes related to instructors, students, and the courses.
Mintu-Wimsatt et al. (2006) stated that student evaluations of teaching needed to be
used with caution to avoid making misleading inferences.
Is there a gap in perceptions of teaching performance from instructors and students?
What are the factors that students believe to be important in teaching performance but
are less emphasized by instructors? Would teachers rate themselves as students rate
them? Hence, the objectives of this study are to evaluate differences in perceptions of
teaching performance from viewpoints of instructors and of students. Since both
instructors and students participated in the survey administered in this study, gaps in
perceptions of teaching performance could be examined and why some instructors

Differences
in teaching
performance
565

IJEM
23,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

566

teaching was evaluated of better performance was revealed. Tsigilis et al. (2007)
stated that instructors with strong efficacy beliefs had greater commitment to
teaching. The contribution of the findings in this study is to shed light on factors that
students believe to be of importance but instructors are less concerned about or
unaware of and could be enhanced to improve teaching performance. Suggestions
for end-of-term student evaluations of teaching are provided based on the findings in
this study.
Methodology
Questionnaire design
In this study, questionnaires were designed and modified based on findings in the
literature, discussions with specialists, and suggestions obtained from respondents
participated in the trial survey. Two versions of the questionnaires were used in the
survey, one for lecturers and the other for students taking courses of surveyed
lecturers. Each version of the questionnaires contained two sections. A total of
20 equivalent questions were included in the first section of both versions of the
questionnaires for the purpose of comparisons of lecturers self-evaluations and
students evaluations of teaching (in the Appendix). The second section in the
questionnaires asked how instructors and students perceive the evaluations and
whether teaching was believed to be modified based on the results and suggestions
from student evaluations of teaching. Six-point Likert scales, from one (least agreed) to
six (most agreed), were used in both versions of the questionnaires in the first and
second sections.
Surveys
The trial and formal surveys were administered in a large-scale university in Taiwan.
Several professors and students participated in the trial survey to ensure the
statements in both versions of the questionnaires were easy to understand.
Suggestions were taken into consideration and several statements were modified.
Few professors were further consulted to check the overall quality of the revised
questionnaires to increase the content validity of the questionnaires.
In the formal survey, ten professors were notified in advance to obtain consensuses
of having survey administered in their classes. Upon receiving agreements from these
professors, surveys were conducted in classrooms with approximated 25 randomly
selected students in each course filled in the questionnaires of students version for
teaching evaluations and further had professors surveyed using instructors version of
the questionnaire for self-assessments. Students and professors of ten courses from
three different colleges, management, agriculture, and liberal arts, participated in the
survey. These courses were offered in different departments, including marketing,
applied (agricultural) economics, finance, Chinese language, and history. All of the
courses that the surveys were administered were taught in classrooms by instructors
instead of using the interactive or internet-based learning to ensure that the
evaluations of teaching were not affected by teaching delivery methods as mentioned
in Mintu-Wimsatt et al. (2006). Surveyors gave a brief explanation of the study prior to
the survey and provided assistance if respondents needed help. With a total of
276 surveyed respondents, 260 questionnaires were valid, including ten lecturers and
250 students, approximately 25 students in each course.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

Data analyses
Survey data were analyzed using the factor analysis to extract dimensions of teaching
performance evaluations. Factor analysis is a multivariate approach used to examine
interrelationships among variables. In empirical studies, factor analysis could be used
to create summated scales on an objective basis (Hair et al., 1998).
In the data analysis, respondents in this study were segmented into various groups
using the cluster analysis. The purpose of the cluster analysis is to classify individuals
into classes or groups, so the individuals in the same class or group are similar to one
another and the individuals in different classes or groups are dissimilar (Hair et al.,
1992; Johnson, 1998). The K-means method, a non-hieratical clustering procedure
suitable for large datasets, was applied in this study.

Differences
in teaching
performance
567

Results
Data obtained from students were utilized in the factor analysis due to the fact that
relatively large amount of student observations were included in the dataset.
Furthermore, student evaluations of teaching were considered as a baseline in this
study to compare differences in perceived teaching performance from lecturers and
students. Based on the results of the scree plot and eigenvalues, five factors were
selected to describe student evaluations of teaching. Variables with factor loadings
greater than 0.5 on two dimensions were removed, and the factor analysis was re-run to
reveal dimensions of student evaluations of teaching.
Five dimensions extracted from the statements of student evaluations of teaching
were content of materials, learning condition, interaction, attitudes, and responsiveness
(Table I). The first dimension, content of materials, explained how surveyed students
perceived teaching materials. This dimension explained the most variance in the
Factor 1
Content of
materials
Attractiveness
Helps in learning
Rich materials
Understandable
Participation
Adjust accordingly
Learning condition
Concentration
Ask questions
Encourage questions
Personal opinions
Interact with students
Enthusiasm
Vigorous attitudes
Serious attitudes
Help in classes
Help outside classes
Cronbachs alpha
Cumulative variances (%)

Factor 2
Learning
condition

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Interaction

Attitudes

Responsiveness

0.82
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.74
0.74
0.70
0.68
0.86
0.71
0.71
0.66
0.84
0.77
0.74
0.91
57

0.88
65

0.91
72

0.91
77

0.85
0.78
0.89
82

Table I.
Dimensions of student
evaluations of teaching
performance

IJEM
23,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

568

Table II.
Comparisons of
lecturersself-assessments
and student evaluations
of teaching

results of the factor analysis, indicating that content of materials would be the most
important factor for students to evaluate teaching performance in classes. The second
dimension was learning condition, which explained that students would prefer having
the instructors to pay attention to students learning situations and further adjust
teaching in a way to improve learning effectiveness. The third dimension indicated the
importance of interaction between instructors and students in classrooms. The fourth
dimension described attitudes toward teaching, and the last dimension was related to
responsiveness of instructors to assist students in classrooms and other time like office
hours as well. Total variance explained by these five factors was 81.61 percent.
Cornbach alpha coefficients were all above the cut-off value of 0.7, indicating
acceptable reliability of the statements for student evaluations of teaching.
Dimensions of student evaluations of teaching were used to factorize the
self-assessments of lecturers in teaching performance to generate equivalent
dimensions of evaluations of teaching for comparisons. This way, student
evaluations of teaching would form a baseline and factors from students and from
lecturers viewpoints could be used in comparison to reveal differences in perceptions
of teaching performance. Based on the results of this study, lecturers had higher
self-assessments in teaching performance than the evaluations of students (Table II).
Surveyed professors tended to believe that overall they had done well in teaching. On
the contrary, students seemed to rate evaluations of teaching relatively low in the
dimensions of learning condition and interaction. This result revealed that a
statistically significant gap existed in perceptions of teaching performance from
viewpoints of lecturers and students.
Five factors of student evaluations of teaching were used in the clustering procedure
to segment courses into superior- and inferior-quality for the purpose of comparing the
perceived differences between lecturers self-assessments and student evaluations of
teaching (Table III). The result of MANOVA test revealed that lecturers
self-assessments in superior- and inferior-quality in five factors were not statistically
different. Hence, further comparisons of differences in two clusters for each factor
would not be necessary although one factor seemed to be statistically different in the
viewpoints of lecturers of superior- and inferior-quality courses at 10 percent
significance level. In contrast, student evaluations of teaching of superior- and
inferior-quality courses were significantly different at 1 percent significant level.
Therefore, students could distinguish courses of superior-quality from inferior-quality
in these five dimensions but lecturers seemed to be unable to differentiate the disparity.
Viewpoints of lecturers and students in two clusters were compared to examine
perceived differences in students and instructors modifications in teaching based on
suggestions obtained in the evaluations. Results indicated that instructors showed no

Lecturers self-assessments
Student evaluations of teaching
t-test
p-value

Factor 1
Content of
materials

Factor 2
Learning
condition

4.93
4.59
2.30
0.0431

5.00
4.34
4.53
0.0010

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Interaction Attitudes Responsiveness

5.10
4.39
3.17
0.0104

5.43
5.09
2.05
0.0683

5.35
4.95
1.64
0.1333

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Content of materials Learning condition Interaction Attitudes Responsiveness
Lecturers self-assessments
Cluster 1
Inferior-quality
4.88
5.25
5.13
5.5
Cluster 2
Superior-quality
4.94
4.94
5.09
5.42
t-test
2 0.30
1.93
0.10
0.32
p-value
0.7915
0.0950
0.9225
0.7775
Wilks l 0.5348, F 0.70, p-value 0.6551
Student evaluations of teaching
Cluster 1
Inferior-quality
3.78
3.47
3.39
4.38
Cluster 2
Superior-quality
5.00
4.78
4.90
5.46
t-test
2 11.81
2 13.17
215.15
2 11.71
p-value
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
Wilks l 0.3724, F 82.23, p-value 0.0001

Differences
in teaching
performance

5.25
5.38
20.16
0.8988

4.20
5.34
212.72
0.0001

569

Table III.
Differences in factor
means of two clusters
from lecturers
self-assessments and
student evaluations of
teaching

statistical differences in two clusters in perceptions of how student evaluations of

teaching were used in adjusting teaching styles accordingly (Table IV). However, of
superior-quality courses, students were likely to evaluate teaching performance
seriously. Students in courses of superior-quality would be more likely to believe
suggestions provided in evaluations of teaching were taken into consideration by
instructors. On the contrary, students in courses of inferior-quality would not evaluate
teaching performance seriously, and would believe that suggestions provided in
evaluations not be considered in modifications of teaching styles. Results suggested that
students responded differently to courses of superior- or inferior-quality in the student
evaluations of teaching. The implications are that instructors may not be aware of

Cluster 1
Inferiorquality

Cluster 2
Superiorquality

Instructors self-assessments
I value student evaluations of teaching
5.50
5.13
I modify my teaching following results and
suggestions in the student evaluations of teaching
5.50
5.25
Wilks l 0.9375, F 0.23, p-value 0.7978
Student evaluations of teaching
I evaluate teaching performance of the instructor
seriously
4.79
5.21
I believe the instructor would modify teaching
following results and suggestions in the student
evaluations of teaching
3.91
4.84
Wilks l 0.8347, F 24.46, p-value 0.0001

t-test

p-value

0.65

0.6162

0.42

0.7310

23.80

0.0003

27.02

0.0001

Table IV.
How student evaluations
of teaching are perceived
in clusters of inferior- and
superior-quality courses

IJEM
23,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

570

differences in students responses in evaluations of teaching, but students would think

that evaluations of teaching performance seemed to be useful guidelines for instructors
of superior-quality courses in improving teaching performance. Furthermore, lecturers
might not know that their courses were considered as inferior by students due to the fact
that they believed they delivered quality teaching. Although student evaluations of
teaching could be used as guidelines for lecturers to modify teaching styles for teaching
performance improvement, the imperative element in this process would be that
lecturers understood that certain dimensions of teaching were not ideal from students
viewpoints.
Conclusion
This study was undertaken to examine whether perceived differences in student
evaluations of teaching existed from lecturers and students viewpoints. Ten courses
from three different colleges in a large-scale university in Taiwan were selected for the
survey in this study. Approximately, 25 students in each course and the lecturers were
surveyed using equivalent statements in two versions of the questionnaires for
evaluations of teaching. Five factors were extracted to represent different dimensions
of teaching performance, including content of materials, learning condition, interaction,
attitudes, and responsiveness.
Results of this study indicated that instructors gave relatively high scores in
self-assessments of teaching performance, significantly higher than the average scores
in student evaluations of teaching. Instructors of superior- or inferior-quality courses
had no statistical differences in how student evaluations of teaching were valued.
Students of superior-quality courses took evaluations of teaching seriously and would
believe suggestions provided in evaluations were taken into consideration by
instructors.
Students were able to distinguish courses of different quality in various dimensions,
but lecturers seemed to believe they had done well in teaching and would not know
differences in teaching performance perceived by students as of superior- or
inferior-quality. For efficient utilization of student evaluations of teaching in
educational institutions, gaps in perceived differences in teaching performance from
lecturers and students need to be identified and filled.
Implications
The implication of the findings in this study is that evaluations of teaching
performance should not consider students responses as a unidimensional factor.
Various dimensions exist in student evaluations of teaching. With instructors
self-assessments of teaching performance, the evaluations of teaching could be
comprehensive and would reveal certain factors that students believe to be of great
importance but might not be emphasized by instructors.
Furthermore, a gap of perceived differences in evaluations of teaching performance
exists from students and instructors viewpoints. Instructors may not be aware of that
students respond differently in attitudes toward student evaluations of teaching.
Findings in this study could be used to form a baseline for educational institutions to
improve applicability of student evaluations of teaching and teaching performance.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

Limitations and suggestions for further research

Survey data in this study were obtained from a single university. Further research may
administer surveys in different universities to ensure diversity of respondents in
student evaluations of teaching. Instructors and students participated in this study
were of courses taught in classrooms. The interactive learning or internet-based
courses could be included in further research to reveal perceived differences in
evaluations of teaching performance from course-providers and students in different
course settings.

References
Basow, S.A. and Montgomery, S. (2005), Student ratings and professor self-ratings of college
teaching: effects of gender and divisional affiliation, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 91-106.
Bosshardt, W. and Watts, M. (2001), Comparing student and instructor evaluations of teaching,
Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
Emery, C.R., Kramer, T.R. and Tian, R.G. (2003), Return to academic standards: a critique of
student evaluations of teaching effectiveness, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 37-46.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Black, W.C. and Tatham, R.L. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Johnson, D.E. (1998), Applied Multivariate Methods for Data Analysis, Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.
Liaw, S.-H. and Goh, K.-L. (2003), Evidence and control of biases in student evaluations
of teaching, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 37-43.
Mintu-Wimsatt, A., Ingram, K., Milward, M.A. and Russ, C. (2006), On different teaching
delivery methods: what happens to instructor course evaluations?, Marketing Education
Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 49-57.
Seiler, M.J., Seiler, V.L. and Chiang, D. (1999), Professor, student, and course attributes that
contribute to successful teaching evaluations, Financial Practice and Education, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 91-9.
Sojka, J., Gupta, A.K. and Deeter-Schmelz, D.R. (2002), Student and faculty perceptions of
student evaluations of teaching: a study of similarities and differences, College Teaching,
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 44-9.
Tippins, M.J. (2003), Implementing knowledge management in academia: teaching
the teachers, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 17 No. 7,
pp. 339-45.
Tsigilis, N., Grammatikopoulos, V. and Koustelios, A. (2007), Applicability of the teachers sense
of efficacy scale to educators teaching innovative programs, International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 634-42.
Wachtel, H.K. (1998), Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: a brief review,
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 191-211.

Differences
in teaching
performance
571

IJEM
23,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

572

Appendix. The questionnaire

Questionnaire for teachers
(1) I think the content of the teaching materials in this course is well-organized.
(2) I think the content of the teaching materials in this course is rich.
(3) I think the content of the teaching materials in this course is attractive.
(4) I think the content of teaching materials in this course helps students in learning.
(5) I think I care about students participation in this course.
(6) I think I pay attention to students reactions to teaching in this course and adjust
accordingly.
(7) I think I care about students conditions of learning in this course.
(8) I think I require students to concentrate in learning in the classroom.
(9) I think my lectures are understandable in this course.
(10) I think my presentation is in order in this course.
(11) I think my presentation is vivid in this course.
(12) I think my attitudes toward teaching are serious in this course.
(13) I think I have shown enthusiasm in teaching in this course.
(14) I think my attitudes toward teaching are vigorous in this course.
(15) I think I like to interact with students in this course.
(16) I think I like students to share personal views and opinions in this course.
(17) I think I like to ask students questions in this course.
(18) I think I like to encourage students to raise questions in this course.
(19) I think I like to respond to students questions in the classroom.
(20) I think I like to respond to students questions at the time other than regular lecture
hours.
Questionnaire for students
(1) I think the content of the teaching materials in this course is well-organized.
(2) I think the content of the teaching materials in this course is rich.
(3) I think the content of the teaching materials in this course is attractive.
(4) I think the content of teaching materials in this course helps students in learning.
(5) I think the instructor cares about students participation in this course.
(6) I think the instructor pays attention to students reactions to teaching in this course and
adjusts accordingly.
(7) I think the instructor cares about students conditions of learning in this course.
(8) I think the instructor requires students to concentrate in learning in the classroom.
(9) I think the lectures are understandable in this course.
(10) I think the presentation is in order in this course.
(11) I think the presentation is vivid in this course.
(12) I think the instructors attitudes toward teaching are serious in this course.
(13) I think the instructor has shown enthusiasm in teaching in this course.
(14) I think the instructors attitudes toward teaching are vigorous in this course.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

(15) I think the instructor likes to interact with students in this course.
(16) I think the instructor likes students to share personal views and opinions in this
course.
(17) I think the instructor likes to ask students questions in this course.
(18) I think the instructor likes to encourage students to raise questions in this course.
(19) I think the instructor likes to respond to students questions in the classroom.
(20) I think the instructor likes to respond to students questions at the time other than
regular lecture hours.
Corresponding author
Jane Lu Hsu can be contacted at: jlu@dragon.nchu.edu.tw

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Differences
in teaching
performance
573

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA At 05:46 23 November 2014 (PT)

1. Mukdashine Sandmaung, Do Ba Khang. 2013. Quality expectations in Thai higher education institutions:
multiple stakeholder perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education 21:3, 260-281. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
2. Akhtar Ali, Riaz H. Tariq, Keith J. Topping. 2013. Perspectives of academic activities in universities in
Pakistan. Journal of Further and Higher Education 37:3, 321-348. [CrossRef]