Evaluation of the teaching quality model and its relationship with students academic performance through partial least squares-structural equation model

Zulkifley Mohamed

Abstract

Many institutes of higher learning (IHL) globally has implemented student evaluation of teaching (SET) in evaluating teaching quality among lecturer, The implementation of SET not only enhance the standard of teaching and learning and give an impact on students’ academic performance but also as critical decisions such as promotion, and for accreditation and governmental agencies that require such evaluations. Among the crucial components of SET were planning, teaching strategy, students’ participation, coursework assessment, soft skills and course quality. The study withal strives the development of teaching quality model by means of a SET. This study seek to rectify the argument that the teaching quality measured by a SET contributes to students’ academic performance. The teaching quality model and its relationship with students’ academic performance were evaluated by using Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM) approach as the sample size was too small to utilize Structural Equation Modelling-Analysis of Moment Structure (SEM-AMOS). A purposive sampling was utilized in this study involving 93 undergraduate students of Sultan Idris Education University's (UPSI) Mathematics Education Degree (BEd Maths) program. From the analysis, it revealed that all the relationships in the developed model were significant at p

References

1. S. Esmael, “Teaching quality evaluation: online vs. manually, facts and myths.” Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 2017; 16, 277-290.

2. J.E. Miller and P. Seldin, “Changing practices in faculty evaluation.” Academe, 2014; 100(3), 35-38.

3. J. Zheng, “Evaluating teaching quality in higher education: analytical modelling and computerized implementation.” International Journal of Security and Its Applications, 2016; 10(2), 197-204.

4. C.J.Y. Zhu, D. White, J. Rankin and C.J. Davison, “Making meaning from student evaluation of teaching: seeing beyond our own horizons.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 2018; 6(2), 128-142.

5. Y. Sok-Foon, J.H. Sze-Yin and B.C. Yin-Fah, “Student evaluation of lecturer performance among private university students.” Canadian Social Science, 2012; 8(4), 238-243.

6. E. Thanassoulis, P.K. Dey, K. Petridis, I. Goniadis and A.C. Georgiou, “Evaluating higher education teaching performance using combined analytic hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis.” J. Oper. Res. Soc., 2017; 68, 431-445.

7. S.R. Abd Hamid, S.S. Syed Hassan and N.H. Ismail, “Teaching quality and performance among experienced teachers in Malaysia.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 2012; 37(11), 85-103.

8. S. Jia and Y. Pang, “Teaching quality evaluation and scheme prediction model based on improved decision tree algorithm.” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2018; 13(10), 146-157.

9. A. Toropova, S. Johansson and E. Myrberg, “The role of teacher characteristics for student achievement in mathematics and student perceptions of instructional quality.” Education Inquiry, 2019; DOI: 10.1080/20004508.2019.1591844.

10. A. Khan and S.K. Ghosh, “Data mining based analysis to explore the effect of teaching on student performance.” Education and Information Technologies, 2018; 23(4), 1677-1697.

11. Y. Samian and N.M. Noor, “Students' perception on good lecturer based on lecturer performance assessment.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science, 2012; 56, 783-790.

12. P. Spooren, B. Brockx and D. Mortelmans, “On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: the state of the art.” Review of Educational Research, 2013; 83(4), 598–642.

13. P.A. Rehak and L. McKinney, “Utilizing course evaluation data to improve student learning and success in developmental math courses.” Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 2015; 39(2), 199-203.

14. R.J. Marzano, “Classroom assessment and grading that work.” Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2006.

15. R.J. Marzano, “The art and science of teaching: a comprehensive framework for effective instruction (professional development) (1st edition).” Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2007.

16. R.J. Marzano, T. Frontier and D. Livingston, “Effective supervision: supporting the art and science of teaching.” Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2011.

17. J.F. Hair, G.T.M. Hult, C.M. Ringle and M. Sarstedt, “A primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM).” Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, 2014.

18. J.F. Hair, W.C. Black, B.J. Babin and R.E. Anderson, “Multivariate data analysis (7th edition).” Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010.

19. C. Fornell and D.F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.” Journal of Marketing Research, 1981; 18(1), 39-50.

20. V.E. Vinzi, W.W. Chin, J. Henseler and H. Wang, “Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications.” Heidelberg:Springer, 2010.