International Journal of Medicine and

Pharmaceutical Science (IJMPS)

ISSN(P): 2250-0049; ISSN(E): 2321-0095
Vol. 6, Issue 5, Oct 2016, 9-14
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS: A STUDENT FEEDBACK

QUESTIONNAIRE BASED STUDY
MANJU NAIR1 & RENEEGA GANGADHAR2
1

Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College,

Paripally, Kollam, Kerala, India

Department of Pharmacology, Sree Mookambika Institute of

Medical Sciences, Kulasekharam, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT
Student rating forms can serve as a tool to measure teaching effectiveness. The study was done to find the
performance score of a single faculty in a government teaching hospital in Kerala. Seventy two student feedback forms
were analysed. Results were expressed in percentage and a staff appraisal score was found using UNZASAS method.
The minimum score was set at one hundred and forty and for each question, it was set at ten. More than seventy five
percent students responded positively regarding teachers ability to generate interest in subject, quality and audibility of
lectures, clarity in concepts, highlighting important points, completing portions on time, giving lecture notes and

encouragement. A score of two was obtained for class interactiveness. The final staff appraisal score was one hundred
and fifty. Remedial measures should be taken to improve where the minimum score of ten was not obtained. Such
studies should be repeated to assess the progress after correcting all flaws to improve the teaching performance in an
institution and thereby improve student outcomes as well
KEYWORDS : Student Evaluation, Teaching Effectiveness, Student Rating, Staff Appraisal Score

Original Article

conducting short exams. The score ranged between eight and nine for pace of lecture, rapport and student

Received: Jul 24, 2016; Accepted: Aug 22, 2016; Published: Aug 25, 2016; Paper Id.: IJMPSOCT20162

INTRODUCTION
Performance assessments that measure what teachers actually do in the classroom are a potent tool for
evaluating teachers competence and readiness and for supporting needed changes in teacher education1. Student
evaluation of teaching is done by means of a brief, standardized rating form on which students rate characteristics
of teachers and courses usually on a 5-point rating scale2. Students tend to give higher instructor rating when they
surrender their anonymity by signing the ratings and when the instructor is present 3,4,5,6. Hence it is ideal to do the
evaluation ensuring anonymity of students and in the absence of the faculty concerned. The ultimate purpose of all
teaching evaluations are improvement of faculty performance. Student rating forms can help instructors to admit
that something in the course or their teaching needs to change7. Meaningful change, according to instructors who
have made significant improvements in end-of-course ratings, does not require great effort8. Teachers use new
teaching strategies, pay more attention to student learning, and use assessments to change their practice to a much
greater degree after they have gone through the assessment process1. Research on student teachers who had
completed the Performance Assessment for California Teachers found that pre-service teachers did change their
teaching practices as a consequence of their experiences with the performance assessment 9, and first-year teachers

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

10

Manju Nair & Reneega Gangadhar

reported continued influences10. A Meta-analysis of 17 studies performed by Cohen on the effect of student-ratings
feedback on improving teaching showed that student rating forms administered during the first half of the term was
positively related to improving college teaching as measured by student ratings administered at the end of the term

11,12

When student evaluations are approached with the intention of improving teaching effectiveness, it is always the students
who gain because the emphasis is on making changes that will enable students to learn more effectively. Once faculty have
reflected on course feedback in light of their own goals and objectives and have targeted a few areas in which they would
like to improve, they can turn to certain strategies used by the most effective teachers in promoting student learning. One
way to get these suggestions is to talk to faculty who receive high ratings in the areas under consideration13. However,
Student ratings alone does not give a valid judgment about an instructors overall teaching effectiveness. Hence, student
consultations 14,15,16, consultant and peer ratings 17,18 etc. should be combined for better results. Feedback and consultation
that target problems identified by students and that address specific teaching behaviours results in the greatest
improvement19. Hence, this study was done to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of a faculty by using student rating forms
so as to enable improvement in teacher quality which is one of the most direct and promising strategies for improving
public education.
Objective

To evaluate the teaching effectiveness of a faculty by using student feedback questionnaire to improve teaching.

To assign a staff appraisal score for the faculty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy two Student feedback forms collected as a routine purely for personal improvement were analysed for
this study. At the end of the teaching program in Pharmacology, as a routine, feedback forms were distributed to only those
students who were wholeheartedly willing to fill up the forms without disclosing their identity in any way. The filled up
forms were collected and analysed. A 19 item feedback questionnaire prepared from in class feedback forms20 and
student course evaluation questionnaires21 available for student evaluation of teaching were used in this study. It
contained three general questions, 14 specific questions and 2 open ended questions to assess the teaching effectiveness of
the faculty. The general questions highlighted the student perceptions regarding the reasons for attending pharmacology
classes, usefulness of the subject and the year in which it should be ideally taught to them during their course. The specific
questions format contained the following items .1) teacher is able to generate an interest in you for the subject 2) lectures
are well prepared and organised 3) concepts are clearly explained in class 4) lectures are clear and audible 5) adjusts pace
of lecture to student level of understanding 6) classes are interactive 7) highlights important topics in class 8) shows
genuine interest in students. 9) encourages students to ask questions and give answers 10) treats students with respect 11)
gives lecture notes in class 12) conducts short exams after few topics are covered 13) completes portions on time 14)
maintains good rapport with students. A five point likert scale was used to rate these 14 specific questions. The open ended
questions were mainly to point out the additional strengths and weaknesses of the faculty and getting other suggestions for
improvement. . Strongly agree and agree responses were taken as positive responses and Strongly disagree and
disagree responses were taken as negative responses. UNZASAS system of evaluation22 was used to assign a staff
appraisal score for the faculty.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.6329

NAAS Rating: 3.54

Teaching Effectiveness: A Student Feedback Questionnaire Based Study

11

Data collected were analysed and results were expressed in percentage and a score was allotted for the percentage
ranges. For example, scores of 1 to10 were assigned to percentage ranges of 0-9%, 10-19%, 20-29%, 30-39%, 40-49%, 5059%, 60-69%, 70-79%, 80-89% and 90-100% respectively. Scores of +2, +1, 0,-1and-2 were attributed to options like
strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree respectively. These option scores were multiplied with scores
of percentage ranges to get an attribute score. The sum of all attribute scores yielded the staff appraisal score. The standard
staff appraisal score was fixed at 10 for each question (as the maximum score possible for each question was + 20) and the
target score was set at 140 (Since the likert scale was used for 14 questions, maximum score possible was +280). A score
above 140 was taken as a good rating for the faculty and vice versa.

RESULTS
72 student feedback forms were analysed. The response rate was 80 %. 41.7 % students opined that they attended
pharmacology classes as it was part of their curriculum, 22.2 % attended because they liked the subject, 8.3 % attended
only for getting attendance. The rest (27.8 %) opted for a combination of these. For 95.8 % students, pharmacology was
useful and 68.1 % felt that it should be taught in the second year of their course itself. 81.9 % students felt that the teacher
was able to generate an interest in the subject. 87.5 % felt that the lectures were well prepared and for 77.8%, concepts
were clearly explained in class. 75 % felt that lectures were clear and audible. 62.5 % agreed that the teacher adjusted the
pace of the lectures to their level of understanding. However, 30.6 % remained neutral, hence the staff appraisal score was
only nine. Three students suggested that the pace of lecture should be reduced even further as the name of many drugs
were difficult to comprehend. 43.1 % admitted that the classes were interactive, 25 % disapproved and 31.9 % remained
neutral and a staff appraisal score of two was obtained. Many suggested that classes should be made more interactive by
asking questions and cracking jokes in between. 84.7 % admitted that important points of the topic were highlighted in
class by the teacher. One student suggested that instead of highlighting only important points, broad coverage of the topic
should be done so that at least they could remember something from that topic.
66.7 % felt that the teacher showed genuine interest in students. 66.6 % students agreed that the teacher
encouraged them to ask questions, 9.8 % disagreed and 23.6% remained neutral. So a staff appraisal score of only 8 was
obtained. 65.3 % felt that the teacher treated students with respect but 26.4% remained neutral and the staff appraisal score
was only 8. For 81.9 %, the teacher gave lecture notes in class and majority opined that it was very useful to perform well
in examinations. 88.8 % admitted that short tests were conducted after few topics which helped them to perform better in
examinations and for 88.9 %, the portions were also completed on time by the teacher. 68 % admitted that she shared a
good rapport with students but 22.2 % remained neutral and 9.8 % disagreed. The staff appraisal score was only 9. The
final staff appraisal score was 150. (Table 1)
Table 1: Student Feedback of Teaching Effectiveness
No:
1
2
3
4
5
6

Statements
The teacher is able to generate an interest in you for the
subject
Lectures are well prepared and organised
Concepts are clearly explained in class
Lectures are clear and audible
Adjusts the pace of lecture class to students level of
understanding
Classes are interactive

www.tjprc.org

SD

Individual Score Percentage (%)

D
NL
A
SA
PR

SAS

2.8

4.2

11.1

33.3

48.6

81.9

11

0
0
2.8

4.17
6.9
0

8.33
15.3
22.2

40.3
34.7
30.6

47.2
43.1
44.4

87.5
77.8
75

14
13
12

4.2

2.8

30.6

31.9

30.6

62.5

4.2

20.8

31.9

25

18.1

43.1

editor@tjprc.org

12

Manju Nair & Reneega Gangadhar

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Table 1: Contd.,
Highlights important points of the topic in class
Shows genuine interest in students
Encourages students to ask questions and give answers
Treats students with respect
Gives lecture notes in class
Conducts short exams after a few topics are conducted
Completes portions on time
Maintains good rapport with students

0
4.2
4.2
2.8
1.4
1.4
1.4
5.6

4.2
8.3
5.6
5.6
4.2
4.2
2.8
4.2

11.1
20.8
23.6
26.4
12.5
5.6
6.9
22.2

34.7
26.4
44.4
43.1
31.9
19.4
36.1
33.3
Total

50
40.3
22.2
22.2
50
69.4
52.8
34.7

84.7
66.7
66.6
65.3
81.9
88.8
88.9
68

15
10
8
8
13
13
13
9
150

SD: Strongly disagree, D: Disagree, NL: Neutral, A: Agree, SA: Strongly agree, PR: Positive responses, SAS:
Staff appraisal score

DISCUSSIONS
More than 75 % students gave positive responses regarding generation of interest in subject by faculty, quality of
lectures , clarity and audibility of lectures, clear explanation of concepts, highlighting important points, delivering lecture
notes, completing portions on time and conducting short exams. The staff appraisal scores for these questions were also
above the set standard of 10. More than 50 % students gave positive responses on the teachers ability to adjust pace of
lectures to student level of understanding, encouraging students to ask questions, treating them with respect and sharing
good rapport with them. However the staff appraisal scores ranged between 8 and 9 without touching the set standard of
10. Only less than 10 % gave negative responses for these questions but 20-30% students remained neutral which might be
the reason for the lowering of the staff appraisal score. Very poor performance of the faculty was noticed in making the
class interactive. Only less than 50 % gave positive response, 25 % disagreed and 31.9 % remained neutral producing a
staff appraisal score of only 2. Many suggested that classes should be made more interactive by asking questions and
cracking jokes in between. Overall a staff appraisal score of 150 was obtained which was above the set standard of 140.
However, lot of improvement should be made to make the classes more interactive. For this, asking questions from
previous topics, cracking jokes in between etc. may be practiced. Steps may be taken to further improve rapport with
students and also reducing the pace of lecture.

CONCLUSIONS
Evaluation of teaching effectiveness using student rating forms and utilisation of UNZASAS scoring system has
helped us to understand the strengths and flaws in her teaching strategies. Specific remedial steps can be taken by the
faculty to improve those areas where a low staff appraisal score was obtained. The study may be repeated in future batches
after improving the flaws detected to find out the variation in staff appraisal scores. This study shows that student ratings
can be used as a valuable source of information to identify particular aspects of the teaching strategies that merit attention
and improvement. However, it should be combined with peer ratings, confidential interviews with students etc. to
contribute to further remedial measures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the students who have voluntarily given their feedbacks and the statistician, Mr. Jayakumar, for
his help.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.6329

NAAS Rating: 3.54

Teaching Effectiveness: A Student Feedback Questionnaire Based Study

13

REFERENCES
1.

Linda Darling-Hammond. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness-How teacher performance assessments can measure and
improve teaching. www.Americanprogress.org

2.

Harry G Murray. (2005). Student evaluation of teaching: Has it made a difference? Paper presented at the Annual meeting of
the society for teaching and learning in higher education. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.

3.

Braskamp, L. A, & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

4.

Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

5.

Feldman, K. A. (1979). The significance of circumstances for college students ratings of their teachers and courses. Research
in Higher Education, 10, 149-172.

6.

Marsh, H. W., & Dunkin, M. J. (1992). Students evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. In J. C.
Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Vol. 8. New York: Agathon Press.

7.

Weimer, M. (2009). Teachers who improved. The Teaching Professor, 23, 2.

8.

McGowan, W. R., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Factors contributing to improved teaching performance. Innovative Higher
Education, 34, 161-171.

9.

Chung, Beyond Assessment. For data on candidate and program effects of teacher performance assessment.

10. T. Sloan, L. Cavazos, and A. Lippincott. (2007). A holistic Approach to Assessing teacher competency: can one Assessment
Do it All? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
11. Cohen, A.P. (1980). Effectiveness of Student rating for Improving College Instruction: A Meta analysis of findings. Research
in Higher Education, 13: 321-341.
12. Stephen L Benton, William E Cashin. IDEA paper # 50. Student ratings of teaching: A summary of research and literature.
13. Speaking of teaching, FALL (1997), Using student evaluation to improve teaching. Stansford University Newsletter on
teaching. Vol 9, No.1.
14. Brinko, K. T. (1990). Instructional consultation with feedback in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 65-83.
15. Hampton, S. E., & Reiser, R. A. (2004). Effects of a theory-based feedback and consultation process on instruction and
learning in college classrooms. Research in Higher Education, 45, 497-527.
16. Marincovich, M. (1999). Using student feedback to improve teaching. In P. Seldin & Associates, Changing practices in
evaluating teaching: A practical guide to improved faculty performance and promotion/tenure decisions (pp. 45-69). Bolton,
MA: Anker.
17. Aleamoni, L. M. (1978). The usefulness of student evaluations in improving college teaching. Instructional Science, 7, 95-105.
18. Marsh, H. W., & Overall, J. U. (1979). Long-term stability of students evaluations: A note on Feldmans consistency and
variability among college students in rating their teachers and courses. Research in Higher Education, 10, 139-147.
19. Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1993). The use of students evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance
university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 217-251.
20. In class feedback forms from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/student-feedback/

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

14

Manju Nair & Reneega Gangadhar

21. Student course evaluation questionnaire from www.imsciences.edu.pk /files/qec/proforma /student course evaluation
questionnaire
22. Sekelani S Band. Student evaluation of teaching: a case study from school of Medicine, Medical journal of Zambia, vol35 (1)

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.6329

NAAS Rating: 3.54