ISSN 1011-3487
Assessment of lecturer performance
N. Sitwala Imenda
RATIONALE
rdinarily. reports arising from the assessment of
O lecturer performance are made in confidence.
This confident.iality is essential in order to encourage
lecturers to participate in the exercise freely. and
without fear of possible victimisation. This confiden-
tiality allows those lecturers who are genuinely
concerned about making improvements to deal with
people they can trust and who do not pose a threat to
their professional and career aspirations. However.
the confidentiality of these reports also has some
disadvantages. One of these is that lecturers who
have low self-confidence are usually afraid to avail
themselves of the opportunity. The same may be said
of the over-confident and those who regard them-
selves as being experienced. This article looks at an
example of an assessment report on one lecturer at
the University of Transkei (Unitra) in order to
encourage lecturers to come forward for evaluation.
AIM
The main aim of the assessment is to obtain
information to reinforce existing strengths of a given
lecturer's style and repertoire of teaching skills, and
suggest improvements in the instructional process.
PROCEDURE
Within the current spirit of voluntary participation. the
decision to be assessed is made by a concerned
lecturer. Once a lecturer has indicated the desire to
have this assessment conducted in one of his or her
courses. a pre-assessment meeting between the
lecturer and the assessor (Head of the Staff Devel-
opment Unit) is arranged. The purpose of this
meeting is to acquaint the lecturer with the proce-
dure and the parameters used in the assessment.
The next step involves the criteria selection. In this
regard. the lecturer is given a battery of about 140
structured and 10 open-ended items. all of which
focus on various aspects of the instructional process.
This procedure is commonly referred to as the
148
"cafeteria system" (Derry et al 1974; Moelwyn-
Hughes 1986). This battery of items focuses on
characteristics of the lecturer. the lecturer as a tutor.
the use of written assignments. the use of reading
assignments. the use of laboratory exercises and
assignments. course organisation. the use of audio-
visual media. and the ability to promote various
aspects of student development such as knowledge
and skills. attitudes. interests and curiosity. social
skills. self-concept and vocational skills. Out of the
battery of test items. the lecturer is asked to identify
25 structured. and any number of open-ended items
which reflect the concerns of the course in which the
assessment is to be carried out. The structured section
of the instrument utilises a Likert scale. ranging from
Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree in respect of the
criteria of performance comprising this part of the
assessment. In addition to the structured section. the
lecturer is also asked to add any other criteria that are
relevant but which are not reflected in the battery of
items provided.
After the identification of relevant criteria. these are
put together in the form of a questionnaire. which is
then administered to the lecturer's students at an
agreed time. The actual administration takes about 20
minutes. This may take place in the presence or
absence of the lecturer concerned. depending on his
or her wishes. Following the administration of the
questionnaire. an analysis of the response patterns of
the students is undertaken. This takes place in two
stages. The first stage involves computer analysis of
the objective section of the questionnaire. In this
analysis. frequencies of student responses on each
item are obtained. both in terms of actual numbers
and percentages. The second stage involves the
analysis of the open-ended section of the question-
naire. This is the more time-consuming stage because
every comment is recorded and synchronised with
comments from other students. In the preparation of
the report. comments from the open-ended section of
the questionnaire are related to the obserVations
emanating from the objective section. This exercise
is associated with a running commentary by the
assessor. Once the report has been completed. it is
given to the lecturer to study and prepare discussion
points for the next and final stage of this assessment
 SAJHE/SATHO VOL. 7 NO.3 1993

process. This report is made in confidence. As such it
is regarded as the exclusive property of the lecturer.
The post-assessment meeting is the final stage in the
exercise.
EXAMPLE
In the case reported here the lecturer selected 27
structured and 6 unstructured items forthe assessment.
The structured items fell in the following categories:
lecturer characteristics (17), laboratory work (02).
assessment and course components (04). use of audio
visual media (02) and personal development (02).
Completed Questionnaires were obtained from 133
students. This represented a 76% response rate.
FINDINGS
Table 1 gives the full pattern of responses obtained

Table 1
Student response patterns on the various areas (%)
Str Agr Agr Neut Diaagr StrAgr
The lecturer (1-18)
1. makes clear what the purpose of the lecture is 33 50 06 03 02
2. shows thorough knowledge of the subject matter 48 42 06 02 01
3. is clear and understandable in her explanations 41 39 16 01 03
4. makes good use of examples and illustrations 44 39 I 17 00 01
5. has good relationship with her class 54 32 10 02 01
6. is always well prepared for her class 53 40 06 01 00
7. is readily accessible outside lecture periods 34 42 21 01 01
8. stimulates activity in audience 25 42 26 04 02 i

9. stresses important material 31 44 17 I 07 01

10. has realistic grasp of my level of understanding 15 48 26 05 03
11. encourages audience participation 49 38 09 02 00 I
12. communicates effectively 39 46 12 02 01
13. chooses and organises material well 30 49 18 02 01
14. is sensitive to feelings and problems of students 38 I 30 17 10 05
1 5. writes legibly on the board 34 41 17 06 01

=t t-
16. is punctual and reliable in attendance 64 31 04 01 00
17. has enthusiasm for her subject 19 01 00
40 37
18. links lecture to other parts of the course 24 40 26 06 01

"ill
19. Written assignment make students think 07 04 01
20. Directions for written assignments are clear and specific 27 38 25 08
- 01
I
21. Laboratory work was valuable 57 05 02 00
22. Laboratory assignments were relevant to class work 47 38 10 03 01
23. The class mark was a fair assessment of my performance 38 34 26 04 06
24. The course was well structured 34 ! 40 22 02 00
25. Films used were a great help 38 39 20 03 01
26. I gained a good understanding of concepts and
principles 31 53 10 02 00
27. I learned to apply principles from course to new
situations 25 44 26 04 00

149
ISSN 1011-3487

from Part I of the instrument. For the purpose of
further analysis. the first and last two columns of the
Likert scale were collapsed into the Agree and
Disagree categories. respectively. This gave rise to
Table 2. The first 14 items. as well as items 16. 17 and
18 relate to characteristics as Lecturer. In this regard.
these items addressed themselves to performance as
applied to the task of facilitating learning in a lecture
situation.
CONCLUSION
This assessment presents a good picture of how this
course is managed. Major strengths revolve around
thorough knowledge of the subject matter. stimula-
tion of student interest in the subject, use of good
explanations and examples. good rapport with
students. being prepared for lectures. ability to
interpret materials clearly. good organisation of
lecture material. and effective use of visual media. A
few areas of concern have also been voiced. In
particular. these include efforts to stimulate audience
participation; grasp of students' levels of understand-
ing and sensitivity to their academic problems;
making links with other subjects or topics within the
course; formulating written assignment topics and the
general issue of assessment.

Table 2
Student response patterns on the various criteria (%): Reduced model
Agr Neut Dug
The lecturer (1-18)
1. makes clear what the purpose of the lecture is 83 06 05
2. shows thorough knowledge of the subject matter 90 06 03
3. is clear and understandable in her explanations 80 16 04
4. makes good use of examples and illustrations 83 17 01
5. has good relationship with her class 86 10 03
6. is always well prepared for her class 93 06 01
7. is readily accessible outside lecture periods 76 21 02
8. stimulates activity in audience 67 26 06
9. stresses important material 75 17 08
10. has realistic grasp of my level of understanding 63 26 08
11. encourages audience participation 87 09 02
12. communicates effectively 85 12
~ 03
13. chooses and organises material well 79 18 03
14. is sensitive to feelings and problems of students 68 17 15
15. writes legibly on the bo.ard 75 17 07
16. is punctual and reliable in attendance 95 04 01
17. has enthusiasm for her subject 77 19 01
18. links lecture to other parts of the course 64 26 07
19. Written assignments make students think 87 07 05
20. Directions for written assignments are clear and specific 65 25 09
21. Laboratory work was valuable 92 05 02
22. Laboratory assignments were relevant to class work 85 10 04
23. The class mark was a fair assessment of my performance 62 26 10
24. The course was well structured 74 22 04
25. Films used were a great help 77 20 04
26. I gained a good understanding of concepts and principles 84 10 02
27. I learned to apply principles from course to new situations 69 26 04

150
 SAJHE/SATHO VOL. 7 NO.3 1993

REFERENCES

ALEAMONI. J.M. (1987) Student rating myth vs research facts Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education
1 (1).
CENTRA. JA (1979) Determining faculty effectiveness Jossey-Bass.
DERRY. J.O. et al (1974) The cafeteria system: a new approach to course and instructor evaluation Instructional
Research Bulletin Purdue University.
MOELWYN-HUGHES T. (1986) Professional development of academics: fashionable fad or responsible
innovation? South African Journal of Science 82.
SCRIVEN M. (1987) The validity of student ratings. Keynote address to the 13th Annual HERDSA Conference.
Perth. August.

151