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. 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 i i 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. ii i 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. iv 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 v 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. v i 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 vi i 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 vi ii 5.3 Implication for Teaching 97 5.4 Recommendations 97 5.5 Suggestion for Further Studies 98 REFERENCES 99 APPENDICES 111 ix 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 a Table 4.4: Component Matrix 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 x 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 x i 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. xi i 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 1 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, 2 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 3 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. 4 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, 5 th No.32 of the Federal Government of Nigeria, National Policy on Education 4 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 6 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 7 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? 8 (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‟ 9 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. 1 0 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 1 1 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. 12 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) 13 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 14 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; 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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. 20 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 21 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. 22 Consequently, an effective teaching is one that results in the pupils learning maximally what is taught them. To be able to do this, the teacher must identify the needs of his/her pupils and then prepare the materials or learning experiences that best match their needs. Therefore, the preparation, the strategies and the medium through which the learning experiences are communicated must also be compatible with the needs of the learners. It is in this regard that one can say that teaching is effective. How do we then know that teaching is effective even after proper preparation and delivering of the lessons have been done? We know this through the process of assessment and evaluation. This is the method of knowing whether or not the learners have learnt what they were expected to learn from the lesson and the extent they have learnt. If, for instance, after a particular lesson, only 30% of the class is shown to have mastered the objectives of the lesson taught, this lesson cannot be said to be effective. But, if, for instance, about 70% or more of the class mastered the objectives, nobody will dispute the fact that the lesson was effective. Therefore, it can be postulated that all things being equal, an effective lesson preparation leads to an effective lesson delivery, and an effective lesson delivery leads to an effective mastery of lesson objectives. The objective of teaching is to help students develop their potentials on their own journey to adulthood so that they can become good, productive, and useful citizens to their nation. Thus, the future of the students depends on the good work of effective teachers. At this point, we need to clarify what we mean by effectiveness. The dictionary definitions of effectiveness are generally in terms of the extent to which something achieves its purpose; effectiveness is about doing the right things. It should not be confused with efficiency, which is about doing things right. Efficiency is important as an issue, but effectiveness is vital. By observing an effective teacher, it is possible to come up with a list of coherent set of actions that a teacher performs. The classification of related set of activities forms the components of teaching. Three major components of teaching identified were preparations, execution and evaluation of teaching events. 23 PREPARATION EXECUTION EVALUATION - Statement of - Lesson delivery - Administration objectives through teaching of quizzes - Selection of - Use of content learning instructional - Administration experiences materials of tests - Selection of - Management of instructional pupils - Making materials decisions - Preparation of lesson Fig 2.1: Component of Teaching. At the preparation stage, the teacher plans the lesson he/she intends to teach. It includes all the activities of the teacher that lead to putting the lesson together, i.e. objectives, appropriate subject matter, logical sequencing of the subject matter in a manner that the learner can follow, teaching aids, etc. The end result of this stage is the note of lesson. The execution stage is where the teacher communicates the lesson to the students. He/she follows the plans as put down in the lesson notes in implementing the teaching methods/strategies. The classroom management, which is a part of execution and evaluation, entails classroom controls and hygiene. Arrangement of seats, grouping of students, classroom disciplines, cleanliness, etc., are all under this category. Evaluation deals with ascertaining that the lesson is effective, i.e. that the students have learned; and that the teaching method/strategies were effective for the particular class that was taught. Thus, effective teaching is the teacher doing the right things in the teaching process so that at the end of the teaching events, he or she can truly say the goals and objectives of the lesson(s) have been achieved, i.e., the students for whom the lesson was planned have actually learnt. The aim of an effective teaching technique is for the teacher to understand and interpret the goals and objectives of the school curriculum correctly and from it arrange teaching events that will lead the students to achieve these goals and objectives. This can be done by providing a wide variety of learning experiences through the use of various teaching methods and techniques 24 at his or her command that are appropriate for the students and subject matter, and by the nurturing of creative responses in the students. Teaching can also be seen as helping pupils to acquire the problem-solving skill and the ability to think for themselves. It is helping them to learn how to learn (Rogers, 1983), so that they do not only know how and where to obtain needed information, but to develop the habit of inquiring and so on, and thus prepare them more adequately for the process of life-long education. That way, teaching helps pupils to acquire the ability to benefit from the numerous opportunities for self improvement which exists in their environment. Furthermore, according to Akinpelu (1981), teaching is a systematic activity deliberately engaged in by somebody to facilitate the learning of the intended worthwhile knowledge, skills and values by another person, and getting the necessary feedback. This viewpoint on teaching seems to have the following implication: (i) teaching is a systematic activity; \ (ii) (ii) teaching involves somebody making it possible for someone else to learn something, (iii) teaching is objective based: and (iv) teaching involves the continuous assessment of pupils‟ progress. Rogers (1983) introduces another dimension to the discussion on the meaning of teaching when he stated that teaching is, “permitting the student to learn, to feed his or her curiosity”. He added that, “merely to absorb facts is of only slight value in the present, and usually of even less value in the future”. He concluded that “learning how to learn is the element that is always of value, at present and most importantly in the future”. Rogers‟ conception of teaching is intended to create classroom environments conducive to self- initiated learning. Another way of looking at teaching is as a process of getting a learner to become really educated, which according to Obanya (1980), means the harmonious all-round development of the individual by adequately cultivating the three H‟s – that is, the Head, the Heart and the Hands. It would appear that the concept, „teaching‟ cannot be divorced from the performance of activities. Pinset (1962), views teaching as a complex process of co-operation and inter- communication between teacher and learner, not a one-way traffic in information from teacher to learner. Romiszowski (1984) agrees with Pinset (1962) on this score. Teaching would therefore 25 essentially consist of setting the stage to enable someone to learn. It would involve creating or providing experiences from which learners will acquire knowledge, skills, attitudes and appreciation that will serve as tools in life. 2.5. The Trend of Teacher Education Programme in Nigeria Teacher Education refers to professional education of teachers towards attainment of attitudes, skills and knowledge considered desirable so as to make them efficient and effective in their work in accordance with the need of a society at any point in time (Ibidapo – Obe, 2007). Teacher education was part of Western education which was introduced in the 1840s. The th development of teacher training colleges in Nigeria started in the second half of the 19 century, particularly as from the 1850s. Taiwo (1980) notes that the first teacher training college, known as “The Training Institution” was established by the Church Missionary Society (CMS) in Abeokuta in 1853, This school was later moved to Lagos in 1867, following the expulsion of the European missionaries from Abeokuta as a result of the “ifole” crisis. It was later moved to Oyo where it became St. Andrew‟s College, Oyo in 1896. The Wesleyan Methodist and Missionary Church Society opened an institution in Ibadan in 1905 to train Catechists and teachers. This school opened with only four candidates. However, by 1918, enrolment in the college had risen to twenty and the institution became known as Wesley College Ibadan. By 1925 fourteen institutions had been established in the country. An important event in the 1920s which affected education generally and teacher education in particular was the Phelps- Stokes Report. The recommendations guided the colonial administration under Mr. E .R .S Hussey to re-organize and re-orientate the educational system in the country. As a result of the recommendations of the Phelps-Stokes Reports and of the Colonial Advisory Committee\ on Native Education, training institutions were introduced. By 1948, these two systems became popular in the old western region and even beyond this period. The number of Teacher Training Colleges in Nigeria had by 1948 risen to fifty- three with student population of more than three thousand (Taiwo, 1980). Although the Colonial administration did not open a government teacher training college until 1929, it gave grants to voluntary agencies to continue their educational works to the rapid expansion of teacher education not only in the old Western Region but in the country generally. The early form of teacher education focused mainly on the training of teachers who operated at the primary level of education. Before independence, there were very few secondary school teachers. The available 26 few were expatriates and missionaries, most of whom had no teacher education preparation. There were also a few products of the secondary schools that were retained to teach as auxiliary teachers but needed higher skill that could be available only in a university or an advanced teachers‟ college. The importance of teachers and the roles they play in the educative process are central to basic education, particularly in third world countries. In more advanced countries, there may be close subtitles for teachers‟ roles in the form of teaching machines with programmed instruction (Balogun, 1988), but in developing countries such as Nigeria, teachers undoubtedly remain the managers of knowledge. In other words, teacher education in Nigeria is, and should be, the foundation of quality and relevance of education at all levels. Indeed, the National Policy on Education (Revised 2004) clearly endorses the fact that “no education system can rise above the quality of its teachers”. The expectation is very critical, not only to the effectiveness of teaching, but equally to the survival of the various disciplines in the curriculum of education. The National Policy on education in the section on teacher education provides that all teachers in educational institution from pre – primary to tertiary, shall be professionally trained as teachers. In practice, however, teaching has remained an all- comers trade and real professionalization is yet to be fully attained. The situation is more distressing at the tertiary education level where the practitioners prefer not to be classified as teachers but as lecturers. A preponderance of the lecturers in the universities, polytechnics and Colleges of Education are therefore not professionally trained to function as teachers. In Colleges of Education for example professional qualification in education is an imperative criterion for the recruitment of teacher – educators. Therefore in the production of effective teachers, the teaching quality of those that were involved as lecturer needs to be evaluated so as to infuse standard in the products. Afemikhe (1995) concluded that: Good teachers would beget good students from which the system can get a replenishment of its teaching stock. In the same token, poor teachers will beget poor students and consequently poorer future teachers. This quotation points to the fact that quality of teachers determines the effectiveness of teaching and worth of students. Teacher education is expected to produce teachers with appropriate skills, knowledge and affective dispositions as demanded by the educational system. Asron (2003) identified some specific areas of teacher education that need improvement. These 27 areas include teachers‟ communication skill, teaching of numeracy and basic sciences, use of instructional time, promotion of active learning, assessment techniques and teacher teamwork. Even though there are still signs of no commitment to teaching and many teachers would want to leave the profession at the slightest opportunity, it is heart-warming to note that a larger proportion of the current day teachers are professionally trained. The country became independent on 1st of October, 1960. This brought a new development in the field of education that caters for the numerous need of the citizen. This lead to the setting up of various committee to find a lasting solution to educational problem. Ashby Report of 1960 which was set up for post – school certificate and Higher Education, Advanced Teacher Training Colleges (Now Colleges of Education) were established as from 1962, to produce well – qualified non – graduate teachers to teach lower classes within secondary schools. The University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) had earlier in 1960 started an experimental B.A and B. Sc. Degrees in Education which attracted severe criticism. However, Mkpar (2002) stated that the trial that UNN blazed yielded good result because at present there are about 53 federal and state universities having faculties of education, and 62 Colleges of Education and polytechnics. In all these institutions, B.A/ B.Sc degrees in Education are offered. In order to maintain high standard in teacher education, the National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE) was established in 1989 with power among other functions to: i. co-ordinate all aspects of sub-degree teacher education; ii. lay down minimum standard for all programme of teacher education and accredit their certificate and other academic awards; ii. approve guidelines setting out criteria for accreditation of all Colleges of Education in Nigeria; iii. lay down standards to be attained and continually review such standards (Decree 1 of 1989). The National Policy on Education (2004) further stipulated that teacher education should recognize the need for changes in methodology and curriculum and teachers should be exposed to innovations in their profession. The type of teachers needed in Nigeria had become clearly defined in the National Policy on Education. This prescription implies that the minimum qualification to teach in our primary schools in Nigeria is NCE and both junior and senior secondary schools also require NCE qualifications. 28 2.4.1 Characteristics of an Effective Teacher Quite a number of attempts have been made to identify the attributes and skills of an effective teacher. According to Dillman and Browker (2001), effective teachers have in common the following characteristics: 1. Devotion to their Profession: Fortunately, although most of us do not realize it, teaching is a task that has the potential value of creating a better society through making desirable changes in individuals. The effective teacher has a positive attitude towards professional help. 2. Competence in teaching subject: Though obvious, this aspect of a teacher‟s job is not always emphasized in faculties of education. It is taken for granted that the teaching subject faculties are responsible for imparting the knowledge. An effective teacher knows the subject in and out, not just what is to be covered as shown in the syllabus. A teacher‟s knowledge of the teaching subject should not be less than that of a non- education graduate of the same field. It is only then that a teacher can open the doors of the field in an interesting and exciting manner to students. 3. Willing to add to knowledge base: Education is not static; new knowledge, ideas and insight of application of this knowledge emerge daily. A teacher who does not update his/her knowledge regularly soon becomes stale and outdated. Effective teachers always find the slightest opportunity to update their knowledge and skills. The effective teacher is a practical scholar, a student of the academic discipline. 4. Flexible and open-minded: Effective teachers are not fixed and limited in their ways. They are open-minded to receiving new ideas. They can see things from several angles, thus approach a topic from several viewpoints. They have creative minds. 5. Facilitate learning in students: Effective teachers do not show off what they know; rather help the students to learn. 29 6. Control students in constructive activities: The students know who the teacher in charge of the classroom is –. Yet, the effective teacher is not overbearing. He has affirmative personality, good humour, and encourages students by example. 7. Take initiative, and has generally well organized plans which are often well presented. 8. Active in the community, initiate parent contacts, and co-operate with parents. 9. Faces reality in an objective way: The effective teacher does not allow his/her emotions to cloud his/her judgment. He/she finds a way of ascertaining facts. When teachers have problems of their own, i.e emotional conflicts, fears, fixations, etc., they know that these may show themselves in their behaviour towards the students. The effective teacher seeks help and tries to free himself/herself from such emotional problems. 10. Inspires confidence: An effective teacher takes pride in what he/she does. He/she attacks new problems with zest; he/she is convincing. His/her voice inspires confidence and his/her mental and physical energy is at a higher level than average. These characteristics can be categorized into three areas: Personal qualities, knowledge, and skills. These three areas are illustrated in figure 2.2. Brophy and Good (1986) depict an effective teacher as one who is well organized, efficient, task-oriented and businesslike in the classroom. From data collected, they saw the effective teacher as one who lectures, demonstrates, and his/her students receive feedback on their practices 3 0 Personal Qualities Teacher Knowledge Skills Fig 2.2: Trademarks of a teacher (After Anderson, 1989) Clark and Peterson (1986 painted a portrait of an effective teacher thus: …thinking plays an important part in teaching and the image of a teacher a reflective professional… is not far-fetched. Teachers do plan in a rich variety of ways, and these plans have real consequences in the classroom. Teachers do have thoughts and make decisions frequently – during interactive teaching. Teachers do have theories and belief systems that influence their Perceptions, plans and actions… The emerging picture of the teacher as a professional is a developmental one that begins during undergraduate teacher education; and continues to grow and changes with professional experience. The education majors who would become professionals are firmly grounded in the disciplines and subject matters that they will teach. Their study of subject matter focuses on both content and on the cognitive organization in ways useful to themselves and their future students. They had both supervised practice in using the behavioural skills and strategies of teaching and have also been initiated into the less visible aspects of teaching including the full variety of types of planning and interactive decision making. The maturing professional teacher is one who has taken some steps towards making explicit his or her implicit theories and beliefs about learners, curriculum, subject matter, and the teacher‟s role. This teacher has developed a style of planning for instruction that includes several interrelated types of planning and that has become more streamlined and automatic with experience. Much of this teacher‟s interactive teaching consists of routines familiar to the students, thus decreasing the collective information-processing load. During teaching, the teacher attends to and intently processes academic and non-academic events and cues. These 3 1 experienced teachers have developed the confidence to depart from a planned course of action when they judge that to be appropriate. They reflect on and analyse the apparent effects of their own teaching and apply the results of these reflections to their future plans and actions. 2.5. The Concept of Evaluation and Educational Evaluation The word, „evaluation was coined from the Latin word, “valeo” meaning to value” or “to assess the worth of a thing”. Evaluation is a vital part of the decision making process used in every aspect of our daily life. Judging of the merit and worth of employees by their employers in order to decide who gets promoted, gets a pay rise, or gets fired is a form of evaluation. A business woman evaluates when she balances her account after each day to see whether she has made a profit or incurred a loss. In education, we evaluate teachers, students, administrators, facilities, service, budgets, instructional strategies, etc in order to judge the worth of any educational enterprise. This is with a view to maintaining, improving or changing any part of the educational programme. In other words, evaluation is an integral component of an instructional programme. To any institution, evaluation is as important as air is to living things. Evaluation illuminates by throwing light on the educational programme, and then giving direction about the next line of action. It also includes taking account of all phases of an institutional programme. From evaluation, modification and/or changes in practice might be advocated. th Formal evaluation has a long history, dating back to 18 century when Chinese officials administered civil service examinations. Literature revealed that the first formal educational evaluation was conducted in the United States in 1887 by Joseph Mayer Rice, a free-thinking pediatrician. Around the 1930s, another trailblazer named Ralph Tyler demonstrated a new approach to evaluation in the eight-year study of the Progressive Educational Association. Through it, the foundation was laid for the major forms of evaluation we are familiar with today. Ralph Tyler, in the 1930s, eventually conceived evaluation as the process of determining the degree to which the goals of a programme have been achieved. To him, goals and objectives have to be defined in behavioural terms for effective evaluation to be carried out. Essentially, the concept of evaluation is an integral part of the entire educational endeavour. It provides the basis for judging an educational endeavour. From the process perspective, available literature viewed evaluation as an attempt “to determine the relevance, effectiveness and impact of activities in the light of their objectives”. This means that evaluation should measure the totality 32 of the training outcomes for future progress and modification to be made. From evaluation, changes in practices could be instituted or a continuation of existing practices might be advocated. In another view, Dada (1999) observed that the process of systematically gathering data or information (facts, figures opinions, etc) for the purpose of assessing the worth of a programme, project, activity or situation as well as for taking further decisions is known as evaluation. However, evaluation may not necessarily imply that something wrong or defective exists in a programme. It could serve as a form of insurance that good practice will be nurtured, continued and maintained. Kolawole (1998) sees evaluation as a means of finding out whether „the how and what‟ of education are being achieved. Without evaluation to determine the status of an educational programme, and the programme goals and objective, systematic and successful planning would hardly be possible. Evaluation in education gives direction and inputs to educational efforts. It gives evidence and support to actions taken and suggests changes to be made if education and curriculum goals must be appreciably achieved. In the conception of Okpala, Onocha and Oyediji (1993) with respect to achieving educational objectives, evaluation is a process of gathering valid information on attainment of educational objectives, analyzing and fashioning information to aid judgment on the effectiveness of teaching or an educational programme. Centra (2000), sees evaluation as a process which attempts to determine as systematically and objectively as possible, the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and impact of activities in the light of specified objectives. Evaluation includes both quantitative and qualitative descriptions of learners‟ behaviour. For instance, at the end of a doctoral degree programme, a researcher is usually examined to determine the extent of his change in behaviour. The quantitative description of the researcher‟s performance could be in term of marks and grades on the basis of which the value judgment concerning the desirability of the performance is determined. The researcher is in this case, being evaluated. From the above definitions and explanations, evaluation is seen as a continuous stock-taking measure to determine the extent to which the objectives of educational programmes are being achieved and at what rate the resources are being utilized so as to provide information that will guide educational policy makers in current and future decisions on such educational programmes. Evaluation involves obtaining unbiased empirical research information to prove 33 the worth of educational programmes or activities. The generic goal of most evaluators, both in the public and private sectors, is to influence decision-making or public formulation through the provision of empirically-driven feedback. It is through evaluation that it becomes possible to determine the success or failure, stagnation or progress of education and its curriculum. Educational evaluation is the process of delineating, obtaining and providing useful information for judging decision alternative (Guba and Stufflebeam, 1970). It is a systematic description of educational objectives and an assessment of their merit or worth. The goal of educational evaluation, in essence, is to provide data concerning a selected programme in order to facilitate educational decision making. Ojo (2004) stated that evaluation means to examine and/or judge the quality or degree of a thing. It is on the whole, decision-driven. There are two major forms of evaluation, namely, formative and summative evaluation. These forms are in terms of when the evaluation is done. Evaluation carried out while an educational programme or curriculum is still in progress so as to determine the extent to which the objectives of the programme are being achieved is formative. This makes it possible for the data collected from the evaluation to be used in making necessary modifications and refinements in the programme. This type of evaluation provides feedback that can be used to bring about improvements in the programme or curriculum (Nwagwu, 1992). Summative evaluation focusses on the overall effectiveness of a project. The summary report provided by the summative evaluator on the effectiveness of the projects, demerits and comparison with alternative projects apart from being useful in predicting subsequent successes provides guide to policy makers on decision regarding the continuity or otherwise of the programme (Okpala, Onocha, and Oyediji, 1993). A further extension of the concept of evaluation is that which views it primarily as an aid to decision-making. Thus, a programme or project may be regarded as consisting of a series of decision-making right from the pre-planning stage through planning, implementation and follow- up stages. At any of these stages, there are usually several alternative routes open, and decisions have to be made on which route to take. This includes decisions on priorities as well as feasibility at each stage. This model de-emphasizes the role of evaluation in the passing of judgments. While of course the evaluation may occasionally pass judgment on the values of certain entities, there will be several situations where no such simple judgment can be made by 34 the evaluator. The task is primarily that of showing the likely consequences of alternative routes and the decision maker chooses after considering several other factors. 2.6. The need for Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness In any educational setting, decision needs to be taken about various aspects of teaching and learning: the students, the teachers, the curriculum and the learning outcomes. The judgment as to whether or not the goal of teaching and learning are being met, are passed after evaluating the input, process and output of education. Evaluating these aspects makes evaluation a broad exercise, which is undertaken for many purposes. There is an inadvertent assumption that everyone knows the meaning of evaluation, whereas the concept is open to various definitions, perhaps as a result of its nebulous nature. Any definition of evaluation will depend on the perspectives from which it is viewed. Therefore it is necessary that the teaching effectiveness of lecturers of Colleges of Education have an in – depth understanding of the concept of evaluation and the purpose it serves. There are four major assumptions of teaching effectiveness. The first is that effective teaching tends to be actively pursuing goals. These goals, in turn, guide the planning, as well as the behaviours and interactions of the lecturer with student in the lecture room. Secondly, teaching is intentional because we always teach for some purpose, primarily to facilitate learning. Teaching is reasoned because what teachers teach their students is judged by them to be worthwhile” (Anderson et al, 2001). A third assumption implicit in this definition of teaching effectiveness is that vast majority of teachers‟ goals are, or should be, concerned either directly or indirectly with their students‟ learning. It should be obvious that if teachers‟ goals are stated in terms of their students‟ learning, then, as Medley (1982) has asserted, “teacher effectiveness must be defined, as learning of students, not behaviours of teachers”. In this regard, it is worth noting that the World Bank (1990) has suggested that “Countries must emphasize students‟ learning as the key policy objective”. A fourth assumption is that no teacher is effective in every aspect of the profession. For example, a primary school teacher may be highly successful in teaching reading comprehension to students while merely struggling to teach them the elements of rudimentary problem-solving in mathematics. Thus, the degree to which a given teacher is effective depends, to a certain extent on the goals being pursued by that teacher (Poter and Brophy, 1988). The degree to which 35 a teacher is effective also depends to a large extent, on the characteristics of the students being taught by the teachers. From these assumptions about teaching effectiveness/teacher effectiveness, it is noted that more is expected from the researcher or evaluator of teaching effectiveness to really have a valued and reliable instrument for measuring effective teaching. Despite the underlying assumptions, it seems reasonable to assume that those who are referred to as being “effective teachers” are more often than not effective in achieving specified learning goals. However, this effectiveness does not stem from rigid adherence to a standard set of behaviours, activities, methods or strategies in all situations. Rather, teachers who are consistently effective are those who are able to adapt their knowledge and skills to the demands inherent in various situations so as to best achieve their goals. School administrators are aware of the influence of teachers on students‟ achievement. It is also generally recognized that there is a wide variation in teacher effectiveness both within and between schools (Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger 2008; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff 2002; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Rockoff, 2004). In the last two decades, the record shows few ways of quantifying the variation in teacher classroom effectiveness. Many scholars agreed that teachers are hugely important, but noticed variations in teacher effectiveness within and between schools which is based on unobservable teacher characteristics that are difficult, if not impossible, to measure. School administrators could also recognize the difference in learning outcomes, as a result of a child assigned to one teacher over another. Although¸ quantitatively measuring the extent of a teacher's effectiveness was a daunting challenge, luckily, the empirical revolution that has occurred in education over the past few years has led to the development of a set of tools that are capable of quantifying the extent of variation in teacher effectiveness for the first time (McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz, & Hamilton, 2003). One of these tools is the Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale (SETES) which can be adopted or adapted by any researcher to measure teaching effectiveness of lecturers in any higher institutions of learning. Hanushek (1992) has quantified the difference between having the “best” and the “worst” teacher for one school year using data that were generated over a 4-year period by the Gary Income Maintenance Experiment, incorporating test scores from the Iowa Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary tests. In the study, all teachers were ranked based on effectiveness measured by student test scores and the difference between being assigned to a 36 teacher at the twenty-fifth percentile as compared to being assigned to a teacher at the seventy- _fifth percentile in quality was calculated. It was found out that the difference is about an additional grade-level's worth of proficiency by the end of the school year. Also, studies by researchers in Tennessee (Sanders & Rivers, 1996), New Jersey (Rockoff, 2004), Chicago (Aaronson et al., 2007) and Florida (West & Chingos, 2008) have all reached similar conclusions. As implied by the consensus reached by these independent studies of the magnitude of teacher‟s impacts, most contemporary education researchers agreed that teachers matter (Angrist & Lavy, 2001; Jacob & Lefgren, 2004; Jepsen & Rivkin, 2002; Kane, Rockoff, & Stagier, 2006; Kane & Staiger, 2005; Rivers & Sanders, 2002; Rockoff, 2004). The biggest issue facing school leaders, researchers and others in the education community is quantifying how much a particular teacher‟s characteristics matters and whether it is possible to predict teacher‟s performance based on characteristics observed at the time of hiring, when the teacher is still very fresh and he/she is putting his/her best in the attainment of effective teaching. Another important aspect to note is how much does teacher experience matter? It is intuitively appealing that a teacher's worst year is most likely his/her first year in the classroom, when classroom management issues are being tackled for the first time such as organizational routines are being established, curricula mapped and procedures developed. As a teacher's experience grows, however, we might expect that he/she is more likely to have figured out the most appropriate responses to a variety of classroom situations and problems, developed a strong sense of self-efficacy, that student achievement increases as a result (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Davis, 2009). There is also a belief that experience correlates with effectiveness, however, findings modest effects of experience limited to the first few years of a teacher's career, suggests that teacher effectiveness in most cases grows in the initial four or five years in the classroom and then begins to level off. (Hanushek, et al. 2005; Kane, et al. 2006; & Rockoff, 2004) 2.6.1. Teaching Effectiveness and Students’ Achievement Teaching effectiveness is an instructor‟s degree of success in facilitating student learning. The more students learn, the deeper the cognitive levels at which they learn, and the better they can communicate (or perform) what they have learned, the more effective an instructor‟s teaching. Formative evaluation in teaching is the evaluation activities done to provide instructors 37 with information they can use to improve their teaching; intended for personal use rather than public inspection; information is private and confidential; information is rich in detail so teachers can obtain clear insights on nature of teaching; Formative evaluation is informal, ongoing and wide ranging while Summative evaluation in teaching is the information gathered to make personnel decisions (hiring, promotion, tenure, merit pay); information is for public inspection; not intended to provide rich and detailed data for improvement of teaching. Although students‟ achievement is regarded as the purest form of assessing teacher‟s effectiveness, however, most investigations found little correlation between achievement and students‟ ratings. For example, in a well-controlled meta-analysis, Cohen (1983) found that students‟ achievement accounted for 14.4 percent of overall instructor rating variance. Other analyses have turned up even lower estimates of student rating validity. In a meta analysis of 14 multi-section validity studies, and, in a quantitative analysis of six validity studies chosen for their exceptional control of student presage variables, Dowell and Neal (1982) found that student achievement accounted for only 3.9 percent of between-teacher students‟ rating variance. In a more comprehensive study, Damron (1996) found that it is likely that most of the factors contributing to student instructional ratings are unrelated to an instructor‟s ability to promote student learning. The magnitude of teacher‟s impacts on student‟s achievement outcomes is again affirmed by the findings of Aaronson, Barrow and Sander (2007). The measure of teacher quality employed in their study is the effect on ninth-grade mathematics scores of a semester of instruction with a particular teacher, controlling for prior-year mathematics scores and a range of observable student characteristics. The improvement on the part of the teacher positively influences the score of the students over one year by approximately one-fifth of average yearly gains. The magnitude of this estimate is statistically similar to the results reported by Rockoff (2004) and Rivkin et al. (2005). 38 2.7. Use of Students’ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Various uses to which students‟ evaluation could be put have been identified. According to Yoloye (1978), the purpose of evaluation of teaching effectiveness is its usefulness to various groups interested in improving the quality of teaching in schools. Data on teaching effectiveness could serve both formative and summative purposes. Situations in which such data could be useful include: (i) Measuring classroom process variables; (ii) Measuring the attainment of programme objectives; (iii) Measuring program implementation; (iv) Identifying difficulties in programme use; (v) Identifying changes introduced by teachers; (vi) Identifying typical instructional pathways; (vii) Providing support for data from other sources; (viii) Measuring unintended outcomes According to Cruickshank (1986), research into factors affecting effective teaching has taken different approaches over the years. Initially, researchers sought to identify aspects of the teacher that might be associated with effective teaching. However, factors such as teacher personality, appearance, intelligence, and gender were unrelated to students‟ achievement and effective teacher could not be distinguished from ineffective teacher on these characteristics. Feldman (1976) reviewed studies in which students highlighted characteristics of superior teachers, such characteristics found correlations between characteristics and global ratings. These studies demonstrated the importance of the teacher‟s classrooms behaviour. He found 19 dimensions he believed formed the basis of students‟ belief about effective teaching. These are: value of the course, teacher‟s interest in the course, enthusiasm, subject matter knowledge, breadth of subject coverage, preparation and organization, presentation skills, speaking skills, sensitivity to student achievement, clarity of objectives, value of supplementary materials, classroom management, frequency and value of feedback, course difficulty, fairness, openness, encouragement and challenge, availability and, respect and friendliness. 39 Medley (1977) demonstrated that effective teachers manage their classes differently than less effective teachers. They exercise more control; apply rules consistently; and spend more time on academic tasks. Other studies (e.g. Marsh and Dunkin, 1992) have identified such teacher behaviours as subject knowledge, organizations, efficiency, self confidence, expectation level of students, and task orientation as characterizing effective instruction. Using data from several sources (factor analysis, reviews of current instrument, and interviews with teachers) Marsh and colleagues (Marsh, 1983, 1984, 1987; Marsh and Dunkin, 1992; Marsh and Roche, 1997), conclude that teaching is multidimensional. Specifically, they identified nine dimensions of teaching which are: learning/value, instructor enthusiasm, group interaction, individual rapport, organization/clarity, breadth of coverage, examination/grading, assignments/readings, and workload difficulty. An examination of the literature on the evaluation of teaching effectiveness revealed the existence of a large variety of close-ended rating scales. These scales vary in both the number and content of items used. This diversity of items suggests lack of information and agreement on the factors involved in effective teaching. The diversity of items probably also reflects Marsh and Roche‟s (1992) view that items on such evaluation scales should reflect multidimensionality of effective teaching. A recent series of articles in the American Psychologist dealt with some of the major validity issues pertinent to teaching evaluation instruments (Marsh and Roche, 1992). These authors suggest at least a moderate relationship between ratings of teaching effectiveness and measures of students‟ achievement. Students‟ evaluation of teachers‟ performance, or student ratings, is one of the most controversial techniques used to identify teaching effectiveness. Aleamoni (1981) offers the following arguments to support the use of students‟ ratings of teaching effectiveness: 1. Students are the main source of information about the learning environment, including teachers' ability to motivate students for continued learning, rapport or degree of communication between instructors and students. 2. Students are the most logical evaluators of the quality, the effectiveness of, and satisfaction with course content, method of instruction, textbooks, homework, and students‟ interest. 40 3. Student ratings encourage communication between students and their instructor. This communication may lead to the kind of student and instructor involvement in the teaching-learning process that can raise the level of instruction. 4. Student ratings of particular instructors and courses can be used by other students to select courses and instructors, and may increase the chances that excellence in instruction will be recognized and rewarded. 2.8. Students’ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness and Scholastic Development in Colleges of Education The evolution of NCE progrmame in Nigeria was as a result of the Ashby Commission set up in 1959 to forecast Nigeria Educational Needs from 1960 to 1980 (Adesina, 1977). The Commission identified two major problems in teacher education as: low output and poor quality of teacher produced. It was also observed by the Commission that new techniques approaches and additional knowledge were required for the training of teacher. The Commission further observed that higher education foundations which were primary and secondary school systems, were narrow and the structures of higher education cannot be large enough or varied enough to meet the needs of the nation. If the foundations are made of materials that crumble, in a few years then the whole structure will be in danger. (Adesina, 1977). To solve this problem, the Commission recommended among others, a modification of the Grade I Teachers‟ Certificate to what is today known as the Nigeria Certificate in Education (NCE) which was formally awarded by Advanced Teacher Training College (ATTC). According to Adesina, the first Advanced Teacher Training College (ATTC) was established at Abraka in 1961. This was closely followed by those in Lagos, Ibadan, Ondo, Owerri and Zaria respectively in 1962. It was expected that new programmes would help in bridging the gap between Teacher Grade II Certificate and Bachelor in Education Degree. The graduates of the ATTC, which became Colleges of Education (CoE) were regarded as middle level manpower in education. If it in the public service, they are employed into administrative cadres as executive officers. To increase the quality of the NCE programme and for the purpose of harmonization and standardization, the Federal government by virtue of Decree No 3 of 1989 set up the National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE) as the highest supervisory body for all NCE 41 progrmames in Nigeria. According to Act of Parliament No. 3 of 1989, section 5, the functions of the Commission include: 1. Through the Minister, advice the federal government on, and co-ordinate all aspects of teacher education falling outside the universities and polytechnics. 2. Make recommendations on the national policy necessary for the full development of teacher education and training of teachers. 3. Harmonize entry requirements and duration of courses in the Colleges of Education, lay down minimum standards for all programmes of teacher education and accredit their certificates and other academic awards after obtaining thereof prior approval of the Minister. 4. Approve guidelines, setting out criteria for the accreditation of all Colleges of Education in Nigeria. 5. Determine after appropriate consultations, the qualified teachers needed for the country and prepare periodic master plans for the balanced and coordinated development of Colleges of Education. 6. Make recommendations on the development of pre-vocational/technical, agricultural business, and home economics education in our primary and secondary schools, and advise as to the necessary facilities contribution of government and industry, and how to ensure that our women articulate and take full part in this. 7. Enquire into and advice the federal military government of the financial needs of the Colleges of Education and to receive block grants from government and allocate them to colleges according to government‟s directives. 8. Collate and analyze any public information related to teacher education in the country 42 9. Channel all external aids to Colleges of Education 10. Undertake periodic review of terms and condition of personnel teaching in the Colleges of Education and to advise government. At the formal inauguration of the governing board of the NCCE, by the then Honorable Minister of Education, Prof. Babatunde Fafunwa, at Lagos, in 1989, the Commission was challenged by the government to be fair as they cannot compromise on accountability and poor quality in teacher education. The issue of quality in teacher education cannot be over emphasized. The set up of the NCCE could be regarded as the greatest prestige and recognition ever given to Colleges of Education and other NCE awarding institutions in Nigeria. Within its few years of existence the Commission had been able to establish and enforce the minimum standard for training NCE teachers, execute some researches and crucial aspects of teacher education and undertake pre-accreditation and accreditation visits to all NCE awarding institutions in the country for the purpose of accrediting the full-time NCE programme. The NCE curriculum covered wide range of subjects and each student was required to choose and specialize in two teaching subjects. Education, usually a general course was basically secondary school oriented. Different types of course components; courses and teaching subjects existed in different institutions. They comprised of NCE secondary, where education, arts science and social subjects were offered. The methodology was basically for teaching secondary school children. NCE technical courses offered were basically technical subjects including computer, agricultural, and engineering education courses. NCE Business and Vocational Education courses include fine and applied arts and home economics, wood and metal works. The methodology of teaching the subjects usually forms part of the compulsory subjects – NCE Primary Education Students were specially trained to teach primary school children. All primary school subjects courses are tailored towards teaching the handicapped, including the gifted in secondary and primary schools. Teaching subjects were offered in combination with compulsory special education subjects. According to NCCE Minimum Standard for Nigeria Certificate in Education, it was categorically stated in No.3 that by the end of the NCE programme, the students should be able to: 43 (a) Discuss intelligently the main ideas that have affected and still affect the development and practice of education generally, and in Nigeria in particular; (b) Examine the main psychological health and socio-economic factors that may help or hinder a child‟s education performance; (c) Study learner approximately to determine the most effective ways of relating to them to ensure their maximum achievement; (d) Professionally combine the use of conventional and ICT or other innovational instructional/learning strategies in generating and imparting knowledge, attitudes and skills; (e) Develop, select, and effectively use appropriate curriculum processes, teaching strategies, instructional materials and methods for maximum learner achievement; (f) Broaden their intellectual perspective through the general studies education programme; (g) Demonstrate desirable attributes in moral and character development; (h) Discuss intelligently major issues affecting teacher education and the teaching profession in Nigeria; (i) Identify major problems of Education in Nigeria, and their corresponding solutions; (j) Demonstrate proficiency in measuring and evaluating learning outcomes, as well as in carrying out appropriate research on educational problems in Nigeria. 4 4 2.9. Instrumental Research Instrumental research according to Ziman (2002) means "the production of knowledge with clearly foreseen or potential uses. Research that is subordinated to a concrete purpose of application and utilization of the knowledge sought qualifies as instrumental. The practice and norms of instrumental research are almost the opposite of those of academic science. Being normal funded by contracts rather than by patronage, instrumental science is so captive of material interests and commercial agendas that is partisan rather than objective in its judgments. Its findings are exploited as intellectual property, and are thus proprietary rather than public. Because it serves specific power groups and technical elites, it tends to produce "local" rather than universal knowledge (Wilholt, 2006). Processes in instrumental research are guided by design rules. For instrumental research to promote enterprise that such research aims at the design rules must be strictly adhered to by the researcher (Wilhot, 2006). Generation of items, trial testing and the estimation of the psychometric properties to establish the validity and reliability of the instrument are significant steps in the processes involved in instrumental research. Instrumental research uses stakeholders as a means for collecting data. In this study, lecturers and students were used. The information gathered from the stakeholder through scientific methods or any means of collecting data is translated into scientific knowledge with the means of statistics or other quantifiable method. 2.10 Validation of Instruments Research instruments are very important in a research. Selection of the instrument to be used is not as important as determining the right instrument. A research instrument must be assessed prior to use for both validity and reliability. Survey research begins with assessing the validity and reliability of the research instrument selected. A systematic approach to establishing validity and reliability of a research instrument is required. One of the criteria that is essential to having a good measuring scale is validity. Validity refers to the accuracy of a measure: Does it accurately measure the variable that it is intended to measure? If we were developing a scale to measure teaching effectiveness for example, a major concern would be whether our measuring devices measure the concept as it is theoretically defined. The validity of many measures is difficult to demonstrate with any finality. However, 45 several procedures are used by researchers to assess the validity of measures, and good research always evaluates any measure used by applying at least some of these procedures (Zeller and Carmines, 1980). Validity refers to the extent to which a scale measures exactly what it is being developed to measure. Falaye (2008) stressed that “to ensure validity, the counselor or evaluator must ensure that the items in the instrument cover a representative sample of the entire content area, which may be cognitive, affective and psychomotor”. Theresa (2006) defined validity as the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inference researchers make based on the data they collect. She said that it is possible to have highly reliable instrument that are useless. For measuring to be useful, Adegbuyi (2011) suggested that, „it must be reliable and valid‟. The ways of determining validity are discussed below. Face Validity involves assessing whether a logical relationship exists between the variable and the proposed measure. Essentially, it amounts to a rather commonsense comparison of what comprises the measure and the theoretical definition of the variable: Does it seem logical to use this measure to reflect that variable? We might measure child abuse in terms of the reports made by physicians or emergency room personnel of injuries suffered by children. However, this is not a perfect measure because health personnel might be wrong. It does seem logical that an injury reported by such people might reflect actual abuse. No matter how carefully done, face validity is clearly subjective in nature. All we have is logic and common sense as arguments for the validity of a measure. This serves to make face validity the weakest demonstration of validity, and should usually be considered as no more than a starting point. All measures must pass the test of face validity. If they do, we should attempt one of the more stringent methods of assessing validity. An extension of face validity is called content validity or sampling validity. It has to do with whether a measuring device covers the full range of meanings or forms that would be included in a variable that is being measured. In other words, a valid measuring device would provide an adequate or representative sample of all content, or elements, or instances of the phenomenon being measured. For example, in measuring teaching effectiveness, it would be important to recognize that some indicators, such as mastery of subject matter, teaching style, communication skills, and organization measure teaching effectiveness. A valid measure of teaching effectiveness puts all these indicators into consideration. 46 Validity can also be established by showing a correlation between a measuring device and some other criterion or standard that we know or believe accurately measures the variable under consideration. Or we might correlate the results of the measuring device with some properties or characteristics of the variable the measuring device is intended to measure. For example, a scale intended to measure teaching effectiveness should correlate with the achievement of students, if it is to be considered valid. The key to criterion validity is to find a criterion against which to compare the results of our measuring device. Criterion validity moves away from the subjective assessments of face and content validity and provides the more objective evidence of validity. One type of criterion validity is concurrent validity, in which the instrument being evaluated is compared to some already existing criterion, such as the results of another measuring device. If I had developed a new scale on teaching effectiveness, for example, i could compare its results to the results from existing scales on teaching effectiveness. A second form of concurrent validity is predictive validity, in which an instrument is used to predict some future state of affairs. Sometimes the future state of affairs used to validate measure is too far in the future and an earlier assessment of validity is desirable. If so, a variation on predictive validity, called the known groups approach, can be used. If it is known that certain groups are likely to differ substantially on a given variable, a measure‟s ability to discriminate between these groups can be used as an indicator of its ability to predict who will be in these groups in the future. The most complex of the types of validity discussed here, involves relating a measuring instrument to an overall theoretical framework in order to determine whether the instrument confirms a series of hypotheses derived from an existing and at least partially verified theory (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Zeller & Carmines, 1980). This can be in terms of not how they simply relate to any criterion but rather to measures of concept that are derived from a broader theory. This is the principle behind construct validity which is adduced with numerous comparisons with a variety of concepts derived from theory. For example, Murray Straus and his colleagues in 1996 developed a Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) to measure how partners resolve conflicts in relationships. It is partly a measure of the use of psychological and physical aggression, but it also measures forms of conflict resolution in general. The CTS consists of a number of subscales, and Straus and colleagues assessed the construct validity of the subscales. 47 In addition to validity, measures are also evaluated in terms of their reliability, refers to a measure‟s ability to yield consistent results each time it is applied. Determining reliability requires reliability testing to ascertain both stability and internal consistency of the research instrument. Stability, or “test-retest reliability”, is determined by using a reliability coefficient, discovering the consistency of results obtained on more than one administration of the instrument. The usual interval is 2 to 3 weeks. The reliability coefficient is “the correlation coefficient between the two sets of scores” (Polit & Beck, 2004). While attitudes tend to remain stable, be aware that knowledge can change the second administration as a direct result of the first administration. The most widely used method is the calculation of the coefficient alpha or Cronbach‟s alpha. Chapman (2003) defined reliability as the extent to which a measurement is repeatable with the same results. Reliability according to Falaye (2008) refers to consistency between two sets of scores obtained or observations made using the same instruments. Bamidele, 2004) who says a reliability scale should give the same measurement over and over again concluded that reliability of a measuring instrument is the degree of consistency in response of the respondents on different occasions. In other words, reliable measures do not fluctuate from time to time unless the variable being measured has changed. In general, a valid measure is reliable. The reliability of a test is intended to specify the degree of accuracy, dependability or consistency with which the test measures the variable it is designed to measure (Thorndike, 1990). The concept of reliability has been under continuing reformation and redevelopment with the resulting increase in clarity and range of applicability. Good (1996) advocates three reasons for estimating reliability coefficient to include: guiding test selection, supporting inference about test score, standard error of measurement and supporting inference about validity of a perfect reliable test. Methods of employing reliability of an instrument are of four types. The first and most generally applicable assessment of reliability is called “test-retest”. As the name implies, this technique involves applying a measure to a sample of individuals and then, somewhat later, applying the same measure to the same individuals again. After the retest, there are two scores on the same measure for each person. As a matter of convention, a correlation coefficient of .80 or more is normally necessary for a measure to be considered reliable. If a reliability coefficient does not achieve the conventional level but is close to it, the researcher must make a judgment 48 about whether to assume the instrument is reliable (and that the low coefficient is due to factors other than the unreliability of the instrument) or to rework the instrument in order to obtain higher level of association. In actual practice, the test-retest method sometimes cannot be used quite as simply as suggested because exposing people to the same measure twice creates a problem known as “multiple-testing effects” (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). A group of people may not react to a measure the second time the same way as they did the first. They may, for example, recall their previous answers, and this could influence their second response. Students might recall previous responses during the first attempt and maintain consistency or purposefully change responses for the sake of variety. Either case can have a confounding effect on testing reliability. The most serious problem with the test – retest method is the actual memory of particular items and of previous response to them. A parallel test form of reliability estimate is the correlation between observed scores on two parallel tests. When developing the scale, two separate but equivalent versions made up of different items are created. These two forms are administered to the same individuals at a single testing session. The results from each form are correlated with each other, as was done in test- retest, using an appropriate statistical measure of association, with the same convention of r= .80 required for establishing reliability. If the correlation between two forms is sufficiently high, we can assume that each scale is reliable. The advantage of multiple forms is that only one testing session is required and no control group is needed. This may be a significant advantage if either parallel testing sessions or using a control group is impractical. In addition, one needs to worry about forms changes in a variable over time because both forms are administered during the same testing session. Again, the problem with this method is that in preparing parallel form tests, there is the danger that the two forms will vary so much in content and format that each will have substantial specific variance distinct from the other. In the split-half method of reliability, the test group responds to the complete measuring instrument. The items that make up the instruments are then randomly divided into two halves. Each half is then treated as though it was a separate scale, and the two halves are correlated by using an appropriate measure of association. Once again, a coefficient of r=. 80 is needed to demonstrate reliability. 49 Internal consistency reliability is estimated using only one test administration, and thus avoids the problem associated with repeated testing. One complication in using the split-half reliability test is that the correlation coefficient may understate the reliability of the measure because, other things being equal, a long measuring scale is more reliable than a shorter one. Because the split-half approach divides the scale in two, each half is shorter than the whole scale and well appears less reliable than the whole scale. To correct for this, the correlation coefficient is adjusted by applying the Spearman-Brown formula. The split-half reliability test has several advantages. It requires only one testing session, and no control group is required. It also gives the clearest indication of reliability. For these reasons, it is preferred method of assessing reliability when it can be used. The only disadvantage, as noted, is that it cannot always be used. A study that established the foundation of Instrumental Enrichment (IE) Research was conducted by Feuerstein and his colleagues with a population of five hundred socially and culturally disadvantaged Israeli adolescents (Feuerstein, R., R & Y; Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. 1980; Rand, Tannenbaum, & Feuerstein, 1979) The main research hypothesis was that cognitive performance and school achievement of students who receive two years of the IE program will be higher than those of the matching groups of students who receive the same amount of general enrichment lessons. The pre- and post-test measures included Thurstoneís Primary Mental Abilities Test and a specially designed curriculum-based Achievement Battery. The results confirmed the main hypothesis: IE group students showed significantly better results on the post- tests. In the cognitive area better results were achieved in spatial relations, figure grouping, numbers, and addition sub-tests. In the curriculum based tasks IE group students performed significantly better in Geometry and Bible studies. A follow-up study (Rand, Y., Mintzker, Y., Miller, R., Hoffman, M., & Friedlender, Y. 1981) conducted two years after the end of IE intervention demonstrated that IE group students continued to perform better that control group students in both verbal and non-verbal cognitive tests. A large scale external validation of the IE program was conducted by the authors of the IE program in Venezuela (Ruiz, 1985; Savell, Twohig, & Rachford, 1986). In the study, adolescent students from higher and lower socio-economic status (SES) groups participated for 50 two years in the IE program. The effectiveness of the IE program was assessed with the help of pre-and post tests of general intellectual abilities, academic performance in mathematics and language, and in self-concept. The experimental IE group (318 students) was compared to the control group of equal size. Statistically significant gains for the IE group were observed in all three spheres: general intellectual abilities, academic performance and the self-concept. Before intervention, higher-SES group showed higher results in all three spheres. Some difference remained after intervention, but both groups improved their performance. As to intellectual abilities, both groups benefited equally, while in academic performance the high-SES group benefited more. It is interesting that pre-test differences in self-concept disappeared after intervention. 2.11 Summary of the Review The views of scholars about teaching effectiveness as reviewed in the literature seem to be diverse with regards to what constitutes teaching effectiveness. There appears to be a bottom line drawn among researchers on indicators of teaching effectiveness which hinge mainly on the ratings of observable teacher behaviour/characteristics in classrooms. The review also focused on the concept of teaching and teaching strategies because teaching is a polymorphous concept. Teaching, as conventionally understood by a traditional teacher, is the act of disseminating information to learner in the classroom. Various types of teaching as identified by Chauhan (1979) were also reviewed together with innovation in teaching. The trend of teacher education programme in Nigeria was also reviewed since the successful implementation of any school programme depends largely on the quality of teachers. As a way of ascertaining the worth of the teacher in the education sector, many studies have identified the roles, responsibilities, problems and major contributions of the teacher towards the achievement of educational goals and objectives. (Barr, 1948; Majasan, 1995; Taiwo, C.O. 1980) Evaluation has been variously defined (Alkin, 1970, Lewy, 1970, Yoloye 1978). There are also many models of evaluation (e.g. ATO, CIPP, EIPOL, Discrepancy, CES etc) but it has been discovered that no single model can solve all evaluation problems, rather the most suitable model should be used to provide feedback for programme designers, implementers and other relevant stakeholders (Stake 1967; Yoloye, 1978; Obemeata, 1984). 51 The literature reviewed indicates the needs for evaluating teaching effectiveness as an important means of achieving educational goals and objectives. Also, it will help in making decision by the school. Students in the Colleges of Education are faced with personal, academic and societal pressures in the course of their educational development. Teaching though, may be an art, effective teaching can be studied scientifically, its quality documented systematically and successfully imparted through good formal programme in form of lecturing. Lecturing is a ubiquitous teaching method in higher institutions of learning which needs to be evaluated. The evolution of NCE progrmame in Nigeria was as a result of the Ashby Commission set up in 1959 to forecast Nigeria‟s Educational Needs from 1960 to 1980 (Adesina, 1977). The Commission identified two major problems in teacher education as: low output and poor quality of teacher produced. The Commission further observed that higher education foundations which were primary and secondary school systems cannot be large enough or varied enough to meet the needs of the nation, if the foundations are made of materials that crumble, in a few years, then the whole structure will be in danger (Adesina 1977). To solve this problem, the Commission recommended among others, a modification of the Grade I Teachers‟ Certificate to what is today known as the Nigeria Certificate in Education (NCE). The concepts of validity and reliability were also examined. Validity of any instruments refers to the extent to which the particular instrument measures what it intends to measure. It means that a test or scale that is developed to measure a particular trait or behaviour should measure just that and not measure something else.(Falaye, 2008). Hills (1976) also defined validity as the degree to which the tests measure what they were supposed to measure. Validity refers to the accuracy of a measure. In addition to validity, measures are also evaluated in terms of their reliability, which refers to a measure‟s ability to yield consistent results each time it is applied. In other words, reliable measures do not fluctuate from time to time unless the variable being measured has changed. Reliability refers to consistency between two sets of scores obtained or observations made using the same instrument. (Falaye, 2008). 52 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the general plan on which the study was carried out. It includes the research type, population, sample and sampling techniques, instrumentation, data collection and analysis procedures aimed at answering the research questions. 3.1 Research Type and Design This study employs a mix method design. It combines qualitative and quantitative approaches together. The qualitative approach which is the first aspect is in the area of using focus group discussion to generate items needed for developing and validating the instrument used for the study which is students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness scale in Colleges of Education (SETES-CE). The quantitative approach which is an instrumental type of research entails the validation of the instrument and the subsequent collection of data to evaluate teaching effectiveness of some lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness in sampled Colleges of Education in South-western, Nigeria. 3.2 Population The target population of this study was all the years two and three students undergoing the Nigerian Certificate in Education (NCE) programmes and their lecturers in Colleges of Education located in the Southwest zone of Nigeria. Year one students were not considered for this study because they were still very new in the college and might not have been taught by some of the lecturers involved in the research. 3.3 Sampling Technique and Sample Stratified sampling technique was employed in the grouping of the Colleges of Education into federal, state and private. In all, four (4) are owned by the federal government, seven (7) are owned by state government, while the remaining eleven (11) colleges belong to various private bodies. In this study, only federal and state Colleges of Education were considered. At the federal level, two out of four Colleges of Education in the Southwest representing 50% that run regular programmes were purposively selected because others do not have all the five schools used for the study, while at the state level, 29% of the total number of 53 Colleges of Education which represent two out of seven were selected to cover the remaining sampled states. In all, four Colleges of Education was the sample for this study as shown in Table 3.1. Also, four (4) course combinations were drawn from each school of the colleges for uniformity across the selected Colleges of Education. In each of the selected colleges, one hundred and sixty (160) students from each of the 4 Colleges of Education, stratified by schools, course combinations and year of study were randomly selected to evaluate the three identified lecturers teaching the selected courses of study. Overall, a total of six hundred and forty (640) students and twenty – four (24) lecturers participated in the validation process of the study. Table 3.1: Classification of Colleges of Education in the Southwest Zone of Nigeria. States No. of Federal No. of State Total Colleges Colleges Ekiti - 01 01 Lagos 01 02 03 Ogun 01 01 02 Ondo 01 - 01 Osun - 02 02 Oyo 01 01 02 Total 04 07 11 Adapted from JAMB Brochure, 2009 Table 3.2: List of Colleges of Education Sample. S/N State Colleges of Education Ownership Selection Ekiti 1. College of Education, Ikere – Ekiti. State Not Selected Lagos 1. Federal College. of Education (Technical), Akoka. Federal Not Selected 2. Adeniran Ogunsanya College of Educ. Ijanikin. State ,, Michael Otedola College. of Primary Education, Epe State ,, Ogun 1. Federal College of Education, Osiele, Abeokuta. Federal Selected 2. Tai Solarin College of Education, Ijebu – Ode. State Not Selected Ondo 1. Adeyemi College of Education, Ondo. Federal Selected Osun 1. Osun State College of Education, Ila – Orangun. State Selected 2. College of Education, Ilesa, Osun State. State Not Selected Oyo 1. Federal College of Education (Special), Oyo. Federal Not Selected 2. Emmanuel Alayande College of Education, Oyo. State Selected 54 Table 3.3: List of Courses of Study and Students Sample in each College of Education. Schools Course of Study No. of Students Yr II Yr III Total Art & Social Economics/History 04 04 08 Sciences Economics/Political Science 04 04 08 Music (Double Major) 04 04 08 Political Science/Social Studies 04 04 08 16 16 32 Education Primary Education/English Language 04 04 08 Primary Education/Integrated Science 04 04 08 Primary Education/Social Studies 04 04 08 Primary Education/Yoruba 04 04 08 16 16 32 Languages English/Political science 04 04 08 English/Yoruba 04 04 08 Yoruba/History 04 04 08 Yoruba/French 04 04 08 16 16 32 Science Biology/Chemistry 04 04 08 Computer Science/Economics 04 04 08 Integrated Science (Double Major) 04 04 08 Integrated Science/Biology 04 04 08 16 16 32 Vocational & Agricultural Science 04 04 08 Technical Business Education 04 04 08 Education Home Economics 04 04 08 Technical Education 04 04 08 16 16 32 Grand Total (Per College) 80 80 160 3.4 Research Instrument The instrument, SETES-CE used for this study was developed by the researcher, which proceeded in a number of identifiable stages in accordance to the principles guiding the development of valid instruments. The stages are planning, preparing, focus group discussions, pilot testing and analysis of draft instrument. The purpose of this scale is to evaluate teaching effectiveness in Colleges of Education. 55 3.5 Procedure for the Development of the Scale 3.5.1 Generation of Items Generation of items involves the initial writing and collation of draft items into a pool. The items were generated from reviews of relevant literature, focus group discussions and written assignments in form of essay by 100 students randomly selected across different schools in Emmanuel Alayande College of Education, Oyo. The students were to write an essay on what th they perceived as the qualities of a good lecturer. On Tuesday, April 6 , 2010, five lecturers from Emmanuel Alayande College of Education who had been earlier informed participated in a focus group discussion. The purpose of the discussion was to deliberate on what they regarded as indicators of teaching effectiveness. At the end of the discussion, it was gathered that effective teaching can be considered from the following: mastery of subject matter, teaching methods, communication skill, instructional materials, course material, motivation/ reinforcement techniques, strategies for individual differences, methodology, classroom management and evaluation style, among others. Lecturers‟ personality (intelligence, hard work, friendliness, punctuality, firmness, self discipline, dressing, commitment, patience, tolerance and approachability. Also, materials preparation which includes the quality, adequacy and relevance of instructional material was considered. Curricular preparation was also examined to include the appropriateness of the content of the lesson. Finally, the issue of environment as a factor of effectiveness was also raised. The location of the college, lecture rooms arrangement, ventilation and physical facilities were also identified as the measure of teaching effectiveness. At the end, a total of 113 items were generated to form SETES-CE. The scale was divided into two sections, sections A and B. Section A sought information about the students‟ background and the name of the lecturer identified by the researcher to be rated by the students while section B consisted of the 113 generated items. 3.5.2 Establishing the Face and Content Validity The researcher critically examined the items for correctness to ensure that the indicators are well represented in the draft items. To establish content validity, five experts in the area of educational evaluation including my supervisor examined the extent to which the items measured teaching effectiveness. Their suggestions were used to restructure and polish some of the items. 56 There was an outright deletion of some items where they were duplicated, and new ones were generated where necessary. The face validity, in terms of the appearance, organization and typing format of the scale was examined at this stage. The items were again given back to these experts for final screening. After the initial content validation, the pool of items was printed and then administered to the target participants for pilot testing. 2.5.3. Pilot Testing The scale was administered to the selected sample of 640 respondents representing the four Colleges of Education sampled for this study by the researcher. Four research assistants were trained by the researcher in each of the sampled Colleges of Education to assist in administering the scale. The training was considered to be very important in order to ensure objectivity of data collection and control for possible procedural bias. Also, to ensure uniform administration conditions across the colleges, the research assistants to be involved in the data collection were given guidelines detailing specific instructions on how to administer the scale. Letter of introduction was collected from the Institute of Education for ease of entry into the Colleges of Education used for the study. 3.5.4 Establishing the Subscales of SETES-CE The purpose of the factor analysis in the construction of the scale is to “examine the stability of the factor structure and provide information that will facilitate the refinement of a new measure” (Hinkin, 1955: 977). At this stage, the researcher established the factor structure or dimensionality of the construct. Principal component factor analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation was used to analyse the data in order to determine the number of underlying factors. A scree test was also used to determine the number of meaningful factors. Two criteria were used to identify major factors of the scale:  The eigen value of the factor must be greater than 1 (Kaiser, 1960);  The scree plots for the factors must be on a slope. (Steven, 1992). 57 3.5.5 Determination of SETES-CE’s Psychometric Properties The internal consistency of the entire scale was estimated using the Cronbach reliability coefficient alpha (R). A high alpha is desirable since it reflects that the items are homogeneous and thereby measuring the same underlying property. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) suggest that an alpha level of at least .80 is sufficient for most purposes, given that correlations are attenuated very little measurement error at that level. Furthermore, DeVellis (1991) stated that alpha values between .80 and .90 should be considered very good. Therefore, in this study the suggestions of Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) and DeVellis (1991) were considered. 3.5.6 Use of Final Version of SETES-CE The final scale after the validation identified four components namely preparation with eight (8) items, personality having fourteen (14) items, followed by classroom interaction with thirty – eight (38) items and evaluation forming thirteen (13) items. A total of seventy – three (73) items form the final scale. The final scale was administered on 200 students each selected from the remaining two Colleges of Education namely, Adeniran Ogunsanya College of Education, Lagos and College of Education Ikere - Ekiti, Ekiti State. In each of the colleges, one particular general course each in education was selected in year II and III. Also, the researcher obtained information about the lecturers teaching the selected courses from the office of the dean, school of education of each college in order to consider their rank, age, gender and year of experience before the administration of the scale. After identifying the courses, and based on the information obtained from the deans‟ offices, four lecturers among those teaching the courses were selected and rated by the students from the five schools of the two colleges. 3.6 Method of Data Analysis To answer research question 1, the data was factor-analysed using the exploratory factor procedure. Cronbach alpha and standard error of measurement were used to establish the psychometric properties of the scale and its sub – scales in order to answer research question 2. Descriptive statistics was used to answer research questions 3 and 4. To determine the degree of th effectiveness of the lecturers, percentile rank was used, 75 percentile represents highly effective th th lecturer, 50 percentile represents effective lecturer while 25 percentile represents ineffective lecturer. ANOVA and Scheffe Post hoc test were used to answer research question 5. Research question 6 was answered with the use of t – test, while research question 7 (i & ii) was answered 58 with the use of ANOVA. Research question (7iii) was analysed by t – test and finally, research question 8 (i & v) was analysed with the use of t-test and 8 (ii, iii & iv) was analysed with the use of ANOVA. 3.7 Methodological Challenges. One of the challenges that the researcher faced was the attitude of some lecturers towards students evaluating their teaching effectiveness. Moreover, the constant and unpredicted industrial actions embarked upon by the staff of the college, and students‟ unrest in some cases also posed some challenges to the study. In this study, the population of both the student and the lecturers was a challenge to the researcher because the lecturers involved have to be those that had taught the selected students so as to be able to rate their teaching effectiveness, therefore, the researcher went through some findings to select the lecturers and students appropriately for the study. 59 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results in this section are presented along the lines of stated research questions. 4.1 Research Question 1 (i) How many reliable and interpretable components are there among the variables? Two tests of assumptions to determine the suitability of factor analysis were carried out and these are: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin‟s test of sampling adequacy and Bartlett‟s test of sphericity. Table 1 shows the results of the two tests. Table 4.1: Tests of Assumptions of Factor Analysis KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .690 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2.805E4 Df 6328 Sig. .000 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin‟s (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy shows that the value is 0.690. KMO values vary between 0 and 1. Values closer to 1 are better. A value of 0.6 is suggested as minimum loading. Thus factor analysis can be conducted based on KMO‟s test. Bartlett‟s test of sphericity tests the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity. The decision here is that for factor analysis to be tenable, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis. Table 4.1 shows that the value is significant and as such the hypothesis that it is an identity is rejected. Thus, factor analysis can be conducted. Taken together, these tests provide a minimum standard which should be passed before a factor analysis (or a principal components analysis) is conducted. The correlation matrix of the analysis shows that Fifty-six (62.22%) out of the possible ninety pairs of correlation shown here are significant at.05 levels. Most of the bivariate correlations are positive with only eight (8.88%) out of the ninety having negative values Table 4.2 shows the communalities values for all the initial components. This is the proportion of each variable's variance that can be explained by the factors (e.g., the underlying latent continua). It is also defined as the sum of squared factor loadings for the variable. 60 Table 4.2: Communality Values items Initial Extract items Initial Extract items Initial Extract Items Initial Extract 1 1.000 .678 29 1.000 .582 57 1.000 .648 85 1.000 .616 2 1.000 .683 30 1.000 .628 58 1.000 .625 86 1.000 .614 3 1.000 .661 31 1.000 .620 59 1.000 .609 87 1.000 .637 4 1.000 .634 32 1.000 .557 60 1.000 .598 88 1.000 .616 5 1.000 .654 33 1.000 .637 61 1.000 .564 89 1.000 .586 6 1.000 .579 34 1.000 .577 62 1.000 .529 90 1.000 .605 7 1.000 .682 35 1.000 .604 63 1.000 .633 91 1.000 .580 8 1.000 .643 36 1.000 .590 64 1.000 .633 92 1.000 .577 9 1.000 .610 37 1.000 .637 65 1.000 .576 93 1.000 .592 10 1.000 .614 38 1.000 .603 66 1.000 .606 94 1.000 .604 11 1.000 .642 39 1.000 .587 67 1.000 .621 95 1.000 .625 12 1.000 .588 40 1.000 .596 68 1.000 .581 96 1.000 .596 13 1.000 .590 41 1.000 .593 69 1.000 .641 97 1.000 .576 14 1,000 .598 42 1.000 .605 70 1.000 .585 98 1.000 .638 15 1.000 .667 43 1.000 .532 71 1.000 .633 99 1.000 .538 16 1.000 .656 44 1.000 .505 72 1.000 .582 100 1.000 .533 17 1.000 .608 45 1.000 .612 73 1.000 .596 101 1.000 .641 18 1.000 .652 46 1.000 .537 74 1.000 .621 102 1.000 .635 19 1.000 .591 47 1.000 .578 75 1.000 .647 103 1.000 .550 20 1.000 .541 48 1.000 .589 76 1.000 .597 104 1.000 .612 21 1.000 .621 49 1.000 .665 77 1.000 .575 105 1.000 .620 22 1.000 .634 50 1.000 .561 78 1.000 .643 106 1.000 .580 23 1.000 .602 51 1.000 .622 79 1.000 .594 107 1.000 .580 24 1.000 .601 52 1.000 .634 80 1.000 .535 108 1.000 .551 25 1.000 .605 53 1.000 .592 81 1.000 .591 109 1.000 .524 26 1.000 .604 54 1.000 .653 82 1.000 .638 110 1.000 .579 27 1.000 .672 55 1.000 .613 83 1.000 .612 111 1.000 .587 28 1.000 .640 56 1.000 .597 84 1.000 .550 112 1.000 .583 113 1.000 .496 61 The communality estimates ranged from 0.496-0.683. For item 2 with a communality estimate of 0.683, implies that 68.3% of the item which is adequate time distribution can be predicted from data on the remaining one hundred and twelve items. This implies that from the remaining one-hundred and twelve characteristics, we could determine the incidence of adequate time distribution behaviour for teaching effectiveness scale within 68.3% of the true value on the average. For item 113 with the least communality estimate of 0.496, this implies that 49.6% of the item which is to relate course content to other field and real life situation can be predicted from data on the remaining one-hundred and twelve characteristics. By knowing teaching effectiveness scale on the remaining one-hundred and twelve characteristics, we could determine the incidence of relating course content to other field and real life situation for teaching effectiveness scale within 49.6% of the true value on the average. On the whole, the communality estimates are considered high for a large number of characteristics as sixty characteristics(53.09%) possess communality estimate of 0.600 and above with fifty-two characteristics(46.02%) possess communality estimate of 0.500 and above while only one characteristic(0.89%) possesses a communality estimate of below 0.500. Four criteria were used in determining reliable and interpretable components and these are: Eigen values greater than 1, retaining 70% of the components accounting for the total variance, Scree plot test, and ensuring that the discrepancy of the residuals greater than 0.05 between observed and reproduced correlation is kept at the barest minimum. Forty-four components had Eigen value greater than 1 as shown in Table 4.3 and this criterion is overlooked because it lacks simplicity and more so Cattell (1966) and Kaiser‟s rule(1970) do not seems to be important when the number of variables are greater than thirty. The second component has to do with retaining 70% of the components accounting for the total variance. In this study, 60% of the variance could only be accounted for with the forty-four components. Forty-four components are still too large as the issue of parsimony with regard to data reduction has been defeated, and as such, the forty-four components were categorized by the researcher into four components that are closely related. 62 Table 4.3.1Initial Eigen values and Percentage of Variance Explained by Each Component Initial Eigen Values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Compone nt Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 3.614 3.198 3.198 3.614 3.198 3.198 2 2.639 2.335 5.533 2.639 2.335 5.533 3 2.343 2.073 7.607 2.343 2.073 7.607 4 2.270 2.009 9.616 2.270 2.009 9.616 5 2.157 1.909 11.525 2.157 1.909 11.525 6 2.079 1.840 13.365 2.079 1.840 13.365 7 2.006 1.775 15.141 2.006 1.775 15.141 8 1.940 1.717 16.858 1.940 1.717 16.858 9 1.875 1.660 18.517 1.875 1.660 18.517 10 1.860 1.646 20.164 1.860 1.646 20.164 11 1.806 1.598 21.761 1.806 1.598 21.761 12 1.752 1.551 23.312 1.752 1.551 23.312 13 1.735 1.535 24.847 1.735 1.535 24.847 14 1.687 1.493 26.340 1.687 1.493 26.340 15 1.631 1.444 27.784 1.631 1.444 27.784 16 1.616 1.430 29.214 1.616 1.430 29.214 17 1.578 1.397 30.611 1.578 1.397 30.611 18 1.533 1.356 31.967 1.533 1.356 31.967 19 1.501 1.328 33.295 1.501 1.328 33.295 20 1.471 1.302 34.597 1.471 1.302 34.597 21 1.462 1.293 35.891 1.462 1.293 35.891 22 1.446 1.279 37.170 1.446 1.279 37.170 23 1.411 1.248 38.418 1.411 1.248 38.418 24 1.393 1.233 39.651 1.393 1.233 39.651 25 1.373 1.215 40.867 1.373 1.215 40.867 26 1.324 1.171 42.038 1.324 1.171 42.038 27 1.300 1.151 43.189 1.300 1.151 43.189 28 1.273 1.126 44.315 1.273 1.126 44.315 29 1.260 1.115 45.430 1.260 1.115 45.430 30 1.245 1.102 46.532 1.245 1.102 46.532 31 1.221 1.081 47.612 1.221 1.081 47.612 32 1.195 1.058 48.670 1.195 1.058 48.670 33 1.186 1.050 49.720 1.186 1.050 49.720 34 1.165 1.031 50.750 1.165 1.031 50.750 35 1.147 1.015 51.765 1.147 1.015 51.765 36 1.133 1.003 52.768 1.133 1.003 52.768 37 1.118 .989 53.757 1.118 .989 53.757 38 1.088 .963 54.720 1.088 .963 54.720 39 1.083 .959 55.679 1.083 .959 55.679 40 1.072 .949 56.627 1.072 .949 56.627 41 1.052 .931 57.559 1.052 .931 57.559 42 1.038 .919 58.478 1.038 .919 58.478 43 1.023 .905 59.383 1.023 .905 59.383 44 1.007 .891 60.273 1.007 .891 60.273 63 Fig 4.1: Scree Plot of Teaching Effectiveness 64 The third criterion is to assess the Scree plot and retain all the components within the sharp descent which is shown in Fig 4.1. This criterion provides a simplistic way of providing reliable components for this study. In this diagram, the sharp descent that is realistic lies between 4 and 7 components and meaningful interpretation can be further enhanced when the residuals are looked at. The goal of data reduction is parsimony. Based on the range of components in the diagram (4-7 components), residuals are computed for that range of factors indicating the number of factors to be retained. The range of residuals for 4-7 factors computed which indicate the number of discrepancy between observed and reproduced correlation exceeding 0.05 is 1338- 1371 which translates to 21.0% for the range. This implies that increasing the number of components to be retained does not increase the fit of the model. In summary, four components that are reliable and interpretable are retained as shown in Table 4.4. Three reasons inform this decision. First, scree plot indicates that the number of reliable and interpretable components fall between 4-7. Second, the number of residuals between observed and reproduced correlations is the least when four components are considered. Third, literature indicates that most reliable and interpretable components for Teaching Effectiveness scale are four in number. Research Question 1(ii) If reliable components are identified, how can they be meaningfully interpreted? In order to meaningfully interpret the components retained, the following interpretability criteria are considered. These are:  There must be at least three items with significant loadings not lower than 0.30.  Variables that load on a factor must share some conceptual meaning.  Variables that load on different factors must be seen to measure different constructs.  The rotated pattern demonstrates simple structure. There must be no case of bipolar factor that gives factor interpretation some complexity.  There must be relatively moderate to high loadings on one factor only and low loadings on the other factors. 65 a Table 4.4: Rotated Component Matrix Components 1 2 3 4 Item81 .537 .129 -.006 -.120 Item82 .504 .144 -.059 -.061 Item65 .486 -.183 .145 .016 Item98 .-.024 .478 -.056 .178 Item100 -.011 .475 -.018 -.002 Item83 .467 .141 -.027 -.052 Item102 .463 .075 -.057 .012 Item66 .-.071 -.095 .111 .661 Item99 .-.057 .641 .000 .103 Item84 .454 .028 .009 -.037 Item97 -.031 .444 -.074 .209 Item101 .426 .082 .014 .022 Item64 -.084 .420 .119 .016 Item96 .413 -.084 -.030 .282 Item103 .451 .070 -.043 .054 Item80 .420 .116 .045 -.020 Item62 .-.079 .070 358 .124 Item113 .451 .013 -.003 .156 Item67 .-.076 -.069 .159 .442 Item78 .441 .123 -.056 .155 Item61 .209 .083 .449 -.083 .078 item 51 .405 .055 .150 .088 item 77 .317 .100 -.005 .126 item 111 -.121 .315 .033 Item13 .553 -.093 -.015 .068 Item14 -.084 .113 -.085 .487 Item34 .427 .052 .104 -.030 Item12 .409 .001 .067 .059 Item 15 -.112 .011 -.046 .343 Item 33 .321 .039 .121 .000 Item 53 .033 .028 .017 .420 Item55 .114 .295 -.056 .415 Item35 .404 .146 .116 -.100 Item57 .396 .116 .034 .003 Item56 .396 .222 -.051 .046 6 6 a Table 4.4: Rotated Component Matrix Continued Item36 .392 .143 .078 -.136 Item54 .090 .038 -.025 .390 Item2 .378 -.068 .251 .016 Item32 .004 .056 .048 .368 Item58 .366 .128 -.023 .059 Item52 .330 .141 .115 .051 Item8 -.078 .323 .174 .052 Item20 .604 -.088 .104 -.008 Item5 .601 -.061 -.007 .119 Item21 .079 .565 .-.011 -.119 Item19 .010 .559 .007 -.048 Item4 -.074 .554 ..056 .071 Item18 .051 .531 .125 -.142 Item6 -.016 .497 .022 .051 Item17 461 .183 .024 -.108 Item39 .422 -.067 .030 .118 Item 2 .417 .038 .025 .052 Item 3 - 0.83 .389 .126 .022 Item50 .385 -.043 . .104 .194 Item24 -.029 .359 .006 .119 Item37 .312 .145 .070 .017 Item93 .680 .000 .005 -.039 Item94 .017 .002 .678 -073 Item92 -.031 -.019 .025 .473 Item 95 .143 .020 .495 -.066 Item 91 .050 -.023 .462 .053 Item73 -.051 .057 .415 .043 Item48 .394 .221 .254 .073 Item72 .035 .058 -.004 .388 Item45 .004 -.096 .369 ..073 Item90 .033 -.008 .347 .020 Item27 -.020 .115 .345 .034 Item74 -.035 .082 .343 .041 Item46 .340 .103 .106 ..011 Item49 .333 .032 .181 .079 6 7 Table 4.4.1: Component 1 : This component containing thirty - eight (38) items is appropriately tagged Classroom Interaction. This is because most of the items centred on the teaching process in which the teacher dynamically engages the students. Component 1: Classroom Interaction. Items Items Factor No. Loading 2 Adequate time distribution 0.378 5 Understands the course material 0.601 12 Accepts students‟ opinion. 0.409 13 Uses non verbal communication during teaching. 0.553 17 Communicates appropriately with students. 0.461 18 Use of entire time for effective teaching. 0.531 20 Use of appropriate words during teaching. 0.604 22 Ensures appropriate sitting arrangement during lecture. 0.543 30 Use of instructional materials 0.583 33 Creates learning experiences that make subject matter meaningful for 0.321 students. 34 Carry students along during teaching. 0.427 35 Understands and uses of variety of instructional strategies. 0.404 36 Starts teaching from simple to complex. 0.392 37 Encourages students‟ participation in group discussion. 0.312 39 Concludes the lesson in a clear term. 0.422 46 Uses adequate examples during teaching. 0.340 48 Designs class activities that stimulate curiosity. 0.349 49 Presents lecture in a way that facilitate notes taking. 0.333 50 Uses variety of teaching methods during teaching. 0.385 51 Discusses current development in the field of study. 0.405 52 Provides relevant references during teaching. 0.330 56 Fluent in speaking. 0.396 57 Use of appropriate teaching methods. 0.396 58 Adequacy of instructional materials to teaching. 0.366 68 64 Encourages students‟ participation during teaching. 0.420 65 Uses short sentences in explaining terms. 0.486 77 Demonstrate the knowledge of the subject matter. 0.317 78 Enhances presentation with the use of humor. 0.441 79 Stimulates thinking skills of students. 0.586 80 Uses lecture method during presentation. 0.420 81 Has unique ways of distributing questions to students. 0.537 82 Encourages students‟ development of critical thinking. 0.504 83 Presents the lesson in a clear term. 0.467 84 Gives equal opportunity to students during lecture. 0.454 101 Uses illustration during teaching. 0.426 102 Adequate implementation of the course outline. 0.463 103 Starts and ends lecture on time. 0.451 113 Relates course content to other fields and real life situation. 0.451 Table 4.4.2: Component 2: The 13 items in component 2 measure more of what the lecturer does to progressively ascertain that the objectives of teaching – learning process are achieved. The component is appropriately interpreted as Evaluation. Component 2: Evaluation Items Items Factor No. Loading 3 Fair in award of marks to students. 0.389 4 Gives adequate feedback to students. 0.554 6 Gives students assignment. 0.497 8 Uses variety of assignment/examination to judge performance. 0.323 19 Gives more extended project to stimulate interest. 0.559 21 Allows students to brainstorm on questions raised during lesson. 0.565 24 Releases examination result on time. 0.359 96 Has appropriate method of evaluating students‟ work. 0.413 97 Has appropriate way of conducting continuous assessment. 0.444 98 Has appropriate skill in the setting of examination questions. 0.478 69 99 Gives exercises during lesson. 0.641 100 Develops examination questions that are related to the course content. 0.475 111 Clarifies students‟ questions. 0.315 Table 4.4.3: Component 3: The fourteen (14) items in this component deal with the uniqueness of the individual lecturer, his/her personal attributes and the component is appropriately tagged Personality. Component 3: Personality Items Items Factor No. Loading 26 Has unique way of facilitating learning 0.586 27 Smart dressing 0.345 45 Possesses an audible voice 0.369 61 Dedicated to teaching profession 0.449 62 Has knowledge of learners and their characteristics 0.358 72 Dynamic in conducting the lecture 0.404 73 Enthusiastic about teaching the course 0.415 74 Patient in attending to students‟ need 0.343 90 Possesses self discipline 0.347 91 Admired by professional colleague 0.462 92 Optimistic to assist students 0.425 93 A role model in the society 0.680 94 Punctual in teaching the course 0.678 95 Has self – control 0.495 70 Table 4.4.4: Component 4 : The eight (8) items that are loaded on component four are mainly based on what the lecturer does before the commencement of the class to ensure an effective teaching and the component is appropriately tagged Preparation Component 4: Preparation Items Items Factor No. Loading 14 Considers population of the class 0.487 15 Provides adequate lecture materials for the course 0.343 32 Creates learning environment that encourages active engagement. 0.368 53 Creates learning environment that encourages self motivation. 0.420 54 Follows syllabus strictly 0.390 55 Creates learning environment that encourages positive social interactions 0.415 66 Prepares course material for the course 0.661 67 Appropriates planning of the lesson ahead of time 0.442 Research Question 2 What are the psychometric properties in terms of reliability of: (i) the identified sub scales of Students Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale (SETES-CE)? (ii) the entire Students Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale (SETES-CE)? Table 4.5: Reliability of Teaching Effectiveness Scale Using Cronbach Alpha Sub-scale Reliability Determination (Cronbach Alpha) Classroom Interaction .7178 Evaluation .7187 Personality .7185 Preparation .7189 Entire scale Teaching Effectiveness .7185 7 1 Table 4.5 shows that the reliability indices of all the sub-scales range from 0.7178 to 0.7189 with Preparation (α=.7189) indicating the highest reliability value and classroom interaction (α= .7178) showing the least reliability value. The reliability determination of the entire scale indicates that α = .7185 .These values for different sub-scales and the entire scale show that 71.78- 71.89% of the variance in Teaching Effectiveness construct depends on true variance in the trait measured and that 18.11%- 18.22% depends on error variance. Table 4.6: Reliability of Teaching Effectiveness Scale Using Standard Error of Measurement Sub-scale Standard Error of Measurement Classroom Interaction (51-177) 11.09 Evaluation (30-64) 4.02 Personality (46-68) 3.96 Preparation (25-40) 2.80 Entire scale Teaching Effectiveness (170-331) 16.17 Standard error of measurement is an index of measurement accuracy that is best suited for interpretation of individual scores. The range of scores for Classroom Interaction from Table 4.6 indicates that the true score would lie between 40 and 188 to the nearest whole number at 95% confidence interval. In the case of evaluation component, the true score would lie between 26 and 68. In the case of Personality and preparation components of teaching effectiveness, the range of scores would lie between 42 and 72, and 22 and 43 respectively. The probability of the scores falling outside the band of values is five times out of one-hundred. 4.3 Research Question 3 What is the pattern of students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness of the different rank of lecturers? 72 Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics of Mean and Standard Deviation of Lecturers’ Teaching Effectiveness Components According to their Rank Classroom Interaction Evaluation Personality Preparation Rank of Lecturer Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Assistant Lecturer 155.98 7.56 52.99 3.57 57.65 3.77 32.87 2.81 Lecturer III 154.53 11.94 53.45 3.92 57.23 3.65 32.83 2.65 Lecturer II 155.41 7.48 53.32 3.75 57.31 3.77 32.54 2.93 Lecturer I 156.26 7.42 53.33 3.98 57.92 4.04 33.29 2.83 Senior Lecturer 156.33 10.64 53.17 3.99 57.31 3.89 32.85 2.72 Principal Lecturer 154.81 14.03 52.94 3.78 57.71 3.88 32.20 2.76 Chief Lecturer 156.15 13.19 52.60 3.98 57.26 3.69 32.82 2.76 The patterns of students‟ mean ratings of their lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness components based on the ranks of the lecturers are captured in Table 4.7 and illustrated by Fig 4.2. The pattern with regard to classroom interaction of students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness of different rank of lecturers shows that students‟ ratings of Senior Lecturer is the highest (Mean= 156.33), followed by the rating of lecturers in the rank of Lecturer 1 (Mean=156.26), while Lecturer III received the lowest ratings (Mean = 154.53). The evaluation component of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness indicates that lecturers in the rank of Lecturer III received the highest mean ratings from their students (Mean = 53.45), and this is closely followed by lecturers in the ranks of Lecturer 1 (Mean = 53.33) and lecturer II (Mean =53.32). Chief Lecturers received the lowest mean ratings from their students based on evaluation component of teaching effectiveness (Mean= 52.60). With regards to personality component of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness, the result shows that Lecturer 1 received the highest mean ratings from their students (Mean=57.92), this is followed by principal lecturer (Mean= 57.71) and assistant lecturer (Mean = 57.65) sequentially . Lecturers in the rank of Lecturer III received the lowest mean ratings with regard to the personality component of teaching effectiveness (Mean= 57.23). The pattern of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness with regards to preparation shows that students‟ ratings of Lecturer 1 is the highest (Mean= 33.29), followed by the ratings of the lecturers in the rank of Assistant Lecturer (Mean=32.87), while Principal Lecturer received the lowest ratings (Mean = 32.20). 73 Fig 4.2: Pattern of Students’ Ratings of Lecturers’ Teaching Effectiveness Components According to their Ranks Research Question 4: (4) What is the pattern of teaching effectiveness of lecturers in Colleges of Education as assessed by the students of different schools? Table 4.8: Mean and Standard Deviation of Lecturers’ Teaching Effectiveness Components According to their Schools in Colleges of Education Classroom Interaction Evaluation Personality Preparation Schools in colleges Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D of Education Arts & Social science 152.60 18.83 52.65 4.57 57.41 3.78 32.88 2.86 Education 155.28 7.60 53.13 3.40 57.19 4.08 32.70 2.73 Languages 156.22 7.10 53.32 3.83 57.68 3.68 32.74 2.79 Science 156.38 7.04 53.27 3.72 57.96 3.74 32.66 2.77 Vocational & Tech. Educ. 155.28 7.56 53.31 3.75 57.04 3.71 32.93 2.76 7 4 The patterns of teaching effectiveness of lecturers in Colleges of Education as assessed by the students from the five schools are captured in Table 4.8 and illustrated on fig 4.3. The pattern with regard to lecturers‟ classroom interaction shown reveals that students from the School of Science rated the selected lecturers higher than the students from other schools (Mean= 156.38) and this is followed by students‟ ratings from the School of Languages (Mean=156.22), while the students from the school of education and their counterparts from the School of Vocational and Technical Education had the same ratings in terms of classroom interaction (Mean = 155.28). In the case of evaluation component of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness, the results indicate that students from the School of Languages show the highest rating of the lecturers (Mean=53.32) and this is closely followed by students from the School of Vocational and Technical Education (Mean=53.31). Students from the School of Arts and Social Science gave the lowest ratings with reference to the evaluation component of the lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness (Mean= 52.65). Personality component of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness shows that students from the School of Science gave the highest mean rating (Mean=57.96) of the lecturers. This is followed by students from the School of Languages (Mean= 57.68) and school of arts and social science (Mean = 57.41). Students from the School of Vocational and Technical Education gave the lowest mean ratings with regard to the personality component of the lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness (Mean= 57.04). The pattern of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness with regard to preparation shows that vocational and technical education students‟ mean rating is the highest (Mean= 32.93), which is followed by students from the School of Arts and Social Sciences (Mean=32.88), while students from the School of Science gave the lowest rating with regard to preparation (Mean = 32.66). 75 Fig 4.3: Pattern of Students’ Ratings of Lecturers’ Teaching Effectiveness Components According to their Schools in Colleges of Education Research Question 5 Is there any difference in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers by students from school of? - Art and Social Sciences; - Education; - Languages; - Science; - Vocational and Technical Education. 7 6 Table 4.9: One Way Analysis of Variance of Teaching Effectiveness Components Variable Source of Variation SS df MS F Between Group 2922.441 4 730.610 Classroom Within Group 181690.156 1595 113.912 * 6.414 Interaction Total 184612.597 1599 Between Groups 99.119 4 24.780 Evaluation Within Groups 23693.865 1584 14.958 1.657 Total 23792.984 1588 Between Groups 175.010 4 43.753 Personality Within Groups 22834.104 1580 14.452 * 3.027 Total 23009.114 1584 Preparation Between Groups 16.899 4 4.225 Within Groups 12215.255 1580 7.731 .546 Total 12232.154 1584 * Significant at P ≤ 0.05 Table 4.9 shows that there exists a significant mean difference in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers by students from the five schools in the Colleges of Education, in terms of classroom interaction (F (4, 1595) = 6. 414; p =.000). Also, the Table shows that there exists a significant mean difference in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers by students from the five schools in the Colleges of Education in terms of personality (F (4,1580) = 3.027; p =.017). However, there is no significant mean difference in teaching effectiveness of lecturers from different schools in the Colleges of Education with regard to evaluation and preparation components. 7 7 Table 4.10 Scheffe Post- Hoc Analysis of Classroom Interaction and Personality Dependent (I) School (J) School Mean Difference Sig. Variable Art & Social Education . -2.6813 .039 * Science Languages -3.6156 .001 * Science -3.7594 .001 * Education Voc.& Tech. Educ -2.6719 .040 * Languages -.9344 .874 Languages Science -1.0781 .803 Classroom Voc. & Tech. Educ 0.0094 1.000 Interaction Science Science -.1438 1.000 Voc. & Tech. Educ. .9437 .870 Voc. & Tech. Educ. 1.0875 .798 Art & Social Education .2225 .970 Science Languages -.2650 .944 Science -.5431 .527 Education Voc.& Tech Educ. .3756 .822 Personality Languages -.4873 .621 Languages Sciences -.7656 .166 Voc. & Tech. Educ. .1531 .992 Science Science -.2781 .931 Voc. & Tech. Educ. .6406 .338 Voc. & Tech. Educ. .9187 .054 * Significant at P ≤ 0.05 7 8 Scheffe post-hoc analysis in Table 4.10 shows that the significant mean difference in teaching effectiveness of lecturers with regard to classroom interaction is due to the differences between rating by students from school of arts and social science, and schools of education, (p=.039) languages, (p=.001) science (p=.001) and vocational and technical education (p= .040). There were no significant mean differences in lecturers‟ personality when pair-wise comparison was carried out among the various schools in Colleges of Education. Research Question 6 Is there any significant mean difference in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers by male and female students? Table 4.11: A t-test of Teaching Effectiveness of Lecturers by Students’ Gender Dependent Gender N Mean SD t df Variable Classroom Male 800 155.2563 10.0624 1598 Interaction female 800 155.0413 11.3921 .400 Male 796 53.0854 3.1678 Evaluation Female 793 53.1942 3.7865 -.560 1587 Male 793 57.7100 3.7985 Personality Female 792 57.2008 3.8214 * 2.665 1583 Male 793 32.8298 2.8114 .716 1583 Preparation Female 792 32.7298 2.7468 * Significant at P ≤ 0.05 A look at Table 4.11 shows that there is a significant difference in the way male and female students rated their lecturers‟ personality (t=2.665, df: 1583, p=.008). This means that there is a significant difference in the ratings of male and female students in terms of their lecturers‟ personality. The difference observed is not as a result of error. Male students‟ ratings of the personality of their lecturers are significantly higher than their female colleagues. The teaching effectiveness of lecturers with regards to classroom interaction, evaluation, and 79 preparation do not vary significantly according to students‟ gender. This implies that students‟ ratings of their lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness with regard to classroom interaction, evaluation and preparation are not a function of their gender. Research Question 7 Do students‟ (i) course of study; (ii) age and (iii) year of study. influence their evaluation of teaching effectiveness? 80 Table 4.12: One Way Analyses of Variance of Teaching Effectiveness Components Based on Age and Course of Study. Dependent Independent Source SS Df MS F Variable Variable of Variation Between Group 3076.796 12 256.400 Classroom Age Within Group 181535.802 1587 114.381 *2.241 Interaction Total 184612.798 1599 Between Group 7541.447 19 396.918 Classroom Course of Within Group 177071.150 1580 112.070 *3.542 Interaction Study Total 184612.597 1599 Between Groups 319.771 12 26.648 Evaluation Age Within Groups 23473.213 1576 14.854 1.789 Total 23792.984 1588 Between Groups 629.765 19 33.146 Evaluation Course of Within Groups 23163.219 1569 14.763 *2.245 Study Total 23792.984 1588 Between Groups 238.291 12 19.858 Personality Age Within Groups 22770.823 1572 14.485 1.371 Total 23009.114 1584 Between Groups 457.773 19 24.093 Personality Course of Within Groups 22551.341 1565 14.410 *1.672 Study Total 23009.114 1584 Between Groups 79.062 12 6.588 Preparation Age Within Groups 12153.092 1580 7.731 .852 Total 12232.154 1584 Between Groups 109.818 19 5.780 Prparation Course of Within Groups 12122.330 1565 7.746 .746 Study Total 12232.148 1584 * Significant at P ≤ 0.05 Table 4.12 indicates how students‟ age and course of study influence the evaluation of their lecturers‟ classroom interaction component of teaching effectiveness. Findings reveal that there exists a significant mean difference in age (F(12, 1587) =2.241, p=.008 and course of study (F(19, 1580) =3.542, p=.000) . This implies that the way students view their lecturers‟ classroom interaction is a function of their age and course of study. Similarly, the evaluation components 8 1 show that there exists a significant mean difference in age (F(12,1576) =1.789, p=.045 and course of study (F(19, 1569) =2.245, p=.002) of the students rating their lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness . Also, course of study significantly influences the way students rate their lecturers‟ personality (F(19, 1565) =1.672, p=.034). However, students‟ ages do not significantly influence the way they rate their lecturers‟ personality. Similarly, student‟s courses of study and age have no significant influence on students‟ ratings of their lecturers‟ preparation. Table 4.13: Scheffe Post- Hoc Analysis of Classroom interaction of Teaching Effectiveness Components based on Course of Study Dependent Course of Course of Study Mean Standard Sig. Variable Study (I) (J) Difference Error Political Science/ Econs /History Social Studies * 9.38750 1.67385 .037 Pry. Educ/English *-9.42500 1.67385 .035 Classroom Interaction Pol Science/ Eng. Lang./ Pol *-9.33750 1.67385 .041 Social studies science Eng.Lang./Yoruba *-9.32500 1.67385 .041 Yor/French *-9.31250 .042 1.67385 Bio/Chem *-9.82500 .017 1.67385 Int. sc /Bio *-9.27500 .045 1.67385 * Significant at P ≤ 0.05 8 2 Table 4.14: Scheffe Post – Hoc Analysis of Classroom Interaction Component of Teaching Effectiveness based on Age. Subset for alpha = 0.05 students age N 1 16 104 151.8365 23 148 153.1959 24 36 153.6944 21 244 154.8402 22 168 155.3274 20 272 155.4191 19 232 155.8448 18 232 155.9483 17 140 156.6000 30 8 156.7500 15 8 158.5000 26 4 162.7500 25 4 164.5000 Sig. .524 Table 4.12 shows that the students‟ course of study and age significantly influenced the way they evaluated their lecturers‟ classroom interactions. Scheffe post-hoc analysis indicated the direction of variation in the way students offering different courses evaluated their lecturers‟ classroom interaction. Table 4.13 shows the pair-wise comparison of Economics/History and Political Science/Social Studies shows that there is significant difference (p=.037), other course combinations that show significant mean differences include Political Science/Social studies and Primary Education/English (p= .035), English Lang./Political science (p= .041), English Language/Yoruba (p= .041), Yoruba/French (p= .042), Biology/Chemistry p=.017), as well as Integrated Science/Biology (p=.045). Table 4.14 shows scheffe post – hoc analysis that indicated the direction of variation in the classroom interaction of teaching effectiveness base on age the students. 8 3 Table 4.15: t-Test Analysis of Teaching Effectiveness Components Based on Year of Study Dépendent Independent N Mean SD t Df Variable Variable Classroom Year two 800 154.39 13.17 -2.817* 1598 Interaction Year three 800 156.90 7.51 Evaluation Year two 789 53.11 4.06 Year three 800 53.17 3.68 -.275 1587 Personality Year two 785 57.41 3.85 Year three 800 57.51 3.78 -.522 1583 Preparation Year two 785 32.92 2.76 1.933 1583 Year three 800 32.65 2.79 * Significant at P ≤ 0.05 Table 4.15 shows that there is a significant mean difference in the rating of lecturers‟ classroom interaction according to students‟ year of study.(t=-2.817; df: 1598, p =.005). The Table shows that the mean of year three students‟ rating of lecturers‟ classroom interaction (M=156.90), evaluation (M=53.17) and personality (M=57.51) are significantly higher than year two students‟ rating, Only preparation component of teaching effectiveness shows that the mean students‟ rating of year two students is higher than that of year three students. Therefore, students‟ level significantly influences students‟ ratings of their lecturers‟ classroom interaction, evaluation, personality. Research Question 8 Would students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness vary significantly across lecturers?‟ (i) rank (ii) age (iii) year of experience (iv) gender? 8 4 Table 4.16: One Way Analysis of Variance of Classroom Interaction Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers’ Rank, Age and Years of Experience. Dependent Independent Source SS df MS F Variable Variable of Variation Between Group 830.154 6 138.359 Classroom Rank of Within Group 183782.443 1593 115.369 1.199 Interaction Lecturer Total 184612.598 1599 Between Group 2568.753 13 197.596 Classroom Age of Within Group 182043.845 1586 114.782 1.721 Interaction Lecturer Total 184612.598 1599 Between Group 2247.546 11 204.322 Classroom Year of Within Group 182365.052 1588 114.839 1.779 Interaction Experience Total 184612.598 1589 * Significant at P ≤ 0.05 One way analysis of variance in Table 4.16 shows that students‟ evaluation of their lecturers‟ classroom interaction does not vary significantly across the lecturers‟ ranks, age and years of experience. This implies that the students‟ ratings of classroom interaction do not vary across rank, age and years of experience of their lecturers. 8 5 Table 4.17: One Way Analysis of Variance of Evaluation Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers’ Rank, Age and Years of Experience. Dependent Independent Source SS df MS F Variable Variable of Variation Between Groups 111.166 6 18.328 Evaluation Rank of Within Groups 23681.818 1582 14.970 1.238 Lecturer Total 23792.984 1588 Age Between Groups 211..934 13 16.303 Evaluation of Lecturer Within Groups 23581.050 1575 14.972 1.089 Total 23792.984 1588 Between Groups 203.681 11 18.516 Evaluation Year of Within Groups 23589.303 1577 14.958 1.238 Experience Total 23792.84 1588 * Significant at P ≤ 0.05 Table 4.17 shows with respect to evaluation that students‟ mean ratings do not vary significantly across lecturers‟ ranks, age and years of experience. That is, the mean ratings of lecturers‟ evaluation by their students do not vary across rank, age and years of experience. 8 6 Table 4.18: One Way Analysis of Variance of Personality Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers’ Rank, Age and Years of Experience. Dependent Independent Source Variable Variable of Variation SS Df MS F Sig. Between Groups 97.879 6 16.313 Personality Rank of Within Groups 22911.235 1578 14.519 1.124 .346 Lecturer Total 23009.114 1584 Between Groups 144.816 13 11.091 Personality Age of Within Groups 22864.928 1571 14.554 .762 .701 Lecturer 1584 Total 23009.114 Between Groups 80.801 11 7.346 Personality Year of Within Groups 22928.313 1573 14.576 Experience .504 .902 Total 23009.114 1584 * Significant at P ≤ 0.05 Using analysis of variance, Table 4.18 shows that students‟ evaluation of lecturers‟ personality does not vary significantly across lecturers‟ ranks, age and years of experience. This implies that the students‟ mean ratings of lecturers‟ personality do not vary across rank, age and years of experience. 8 7 Table 4.19: One Way Analysis of Variance of Preparation Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Lecturers’ Rank, Age and Years of Experience. Dependent Independent Source of Variable Variable Variation SS Df MS F Between Groups 131.966 6 21.994 Preparation Rank of Within Groups 12100.188 1578 7.668 2.868* Lecturer Total 12232.154 1584 Between Groups 112.365 13 8.643 Preparation Age of Within Groups 12119.789 1571 7.715 1.120 Lecturer Total 12232.154 1584 Between Groups 154.840 11 14.076 Preparation Year of Within Groups 12077.314 1573 7.678 1.833* Experience Total 12232.154 1584 * Significant at P ≤ 0.05 Students‟ evaluation of lecturers‟ preparation component varies significantly according to rank of lecturers (F(6, 1578) =2.868: p = .009) and their years of experience (F (11, 1573) = 1.833: p=.044). However, lecturers‟ preparation component does not vary significantly across their age. The inference that can be drawn here is that rank of lecturers and their years of experience significantly influence the way they prepare for their classes. Scheffe Post Hoc analysis was further carried out to show the direction of variation. The result is presented in Table 4.20. 8 8 Table 4.20: Scheffe Post- Hoc Analysis of Preparation Component of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Rank of Lecturers. Dependent Rank of Rank of Lecturer Mean Variable Lecturer (I) (J) Difference Preparation Lecturer 1 Asst. Lecturer 0.42 Lecturer III 0.45 Lecturer II 0.75 Senior Lecturer 0.44 Principal Lecturer 1.10* Chief Lecturer 0.46 * Significant at P ≤ 0.05 Table 4.20 shows that there is significant variation between Lecturer I and Principal Lecturer. Also appendix 7 revealed the scheffe post – hoc analysis of four components of teaching effectiveness based on the rank of lecturers. Table 4.20: t-Test Analyses of Teaching Effectiveness Components Based on Lecturers’ Gender. Dépendent Independent N Mean SD t Df Sig. Variable Variable Classroom Male 800 155.06 10.86 -.316 1598 .752 Interaction Female 800 155.23 10.64 Evaluation Male 794 53.13 3.98 Female 795 53.15 3.76 -.116 1587 .908 Personality Male 792 57.42 3.73 Female 793 57.49 3.89 -.340 1583 .734 Preparation Male 792 32.86 2.73 1.200 1583 .230 Female 793 32.70 2.82 In terms of gender of lecturers, Table 4.20 shows that there exist no significant variations in the way their students rated teaching effectiveness on the four components. This implies that students‟ ratings of their lecturers on the four identified components of teaching effectiveness do not vary across their lecturers‟ gender. 8 9 4.9 Discussion Discussion in this study is done with reference to the four identified sub-scales of teaching effectiveness, and these are: Classroom Interaction, Evaluation, Personality And Preparation. Classroom Interaction The underlying factors within the SETES-CE indicated that more than half of the items in the teaching effectiveness scale loaded highly on classroom interaction component. This implies that classroom interaction is at the core of teaching effectiveness. The psychometric property of classroom interaction scale using Cronbach alpha for the determination of internal consistency gives a value of 0.7178, which is an indication that it is reliable. This could be based on the fact that if the reliability coefficient is squared to obtain the proportion of variance between two variables or between obtained score and true score as the case may be, the internal consistency would yield about 50% of shared variance. This research found out that Lecturer 1 received the highest mean ratings with reference to classroom interaction and they are followed closely by Assistant Lecturers, while Principal Lecturer recorded the least mean rating on classroom interaction. Lecturer 1 being fourth of the 7- scale ranks in Colleges of Education most likely would not be encumbered by delegated works and must have mastered the dynamics of teaching, thus making their classes highly interactive. Also, Assistant Lecturers are most likely to put in a lot of zeal, being relatively new on the job, hence, relate more with the students and may not yet be saddled with more responsibilities. They may also want to show that they are competent in the work they are employed to carry out. On the other hand, the low rating of Principal Lecturer could be that they have no reason to convince anyone of their competencies anymore and again they may be involved in one programme or the other within or outside the college. In addition, they may be more overburdened with administrative work that may occupy most of their time and hence might not have enough time to prepare and teach their students. The pattern of teaching effectiveness of lecturers in Colleges of Education as assessed by the students from different schools revealed that School of Science students gave the highest mean rating with regard to classroom interaction followed by the School of Languages. School of Education as well as School of Vocational and Technical Education have the same rating 90 while the students from the School of Arts and Social Sciences gave the least rating value. Science is being conceived presently from the practical orientation perspective in which there should be active interaction of students with their peers, resources and materials as well as their lecturers who are supposed to act more as facilitators than lecturers. This implies that students from School of Science in the Colleges of Education are already introduced to various forms of classroom interaction, which made them able to identify the factors responsible for classroom interaction and as such were able to rate their lecturers accordingly. This is in contrast to what happens in the School of Languages, where students are involved in extensive communication rather than hands – on activities. To those students, their lecturer‟s teaching was more or less interactive. School of Arts and Social Sciences gave the lowest rating to their lecturers. This could be explained from the viewpoint that arts students are trained to be more critical and probably what constitutes an effective interaction for science students may not constitute an effective interaction for them. This study was contrary to the findings of Money (1992). Out of 138 students spanned across faculties, results revealed that no significant difference was found in the ratings by students from different faculties while Kaufman (2002) supported the result of this study. His findings revealed that the faculties/schools of the students influenced their ratings and perceptions of lecturers. Also, there was a significant mean difference in students‟ ratings from the various schools in Colleges of Education, and this is collaborated in the literature (Bassow, 1995; Kaufman, 2002; Marsh and Bailey, 1993). Information that could be gleaned based on further analysis is that mean ratings of classroom interaction for lecturers by the students in arts and social sciences is significantly higher when compared to students from education, languages and sciences and this is responsible mainly for the significant difference obtained. On the basis of gender, there was no significant difference in students‟ rating of their lecturers with regard to classroom interaction. Lecturers‟ classroom interaction was rated about the same way, irrespective of gender dichotomy. This finding is contrary to those of Boggs and Wiseman, (1995); and Chang, (1997). Chang, (1997)‟s study which examined the effect of gender on students‟ rating, revealed that male students rated male lecturers higher than their female counterparts. Similarly, Boggs and Wiseman (1995) found out that there was presence of subtle gender biases in the overall students‟ evaluation. 91 Furthermore, in this study, significant mean differences were observed for classroom interaction with regards to students‟ age and course of study. In the related study conducted by Martins and Smith (1990), results indicated that higher ratings occurred among the middle aged, although there was no significant main effect on students‟ evaluation due to the students‟ age. Further analysis showed that there was a significant mean difference especially when Economics/History students are compared to Political science/Social studies students while, no significant mean difference was observed when compared to Primary Education/English Language students. Political Science/Social Studies students‟ view of their lecturers‟ classroom interaction is significantly lower than that of other students from the following course combinations: English Language/Political science, English language/Yoruba, Yoruba/French; Biology/Chemistry; and Integrated science/Biology. This result shows that there is variation in students‟ ratings across different course combinations. This result is supported by the work of Freedman (1994) who investigated the effect of course on students‟ evaluation. This result showed that the students‟ rating depended on different courses offered by the students. Lecturers‟ classroom interaction shows significant mean difference based on students‟ year of study, however, students‟ year of study does not significantly influence ratings of their lecturer‟s evaluation, personality and preparation component of teaching effectiveness. This finding is supported by Farah and Highly (1995). Different levels of undergraduate and graduate students were used to assess teaching effectiveness; results indicated differences in ratings due to year of study. On the other hand, Schuman (1993) submitted in his study that there was no significant difference in rating as all responses indicated comparable scores on measure of teaching effectiveness. Students‟ evaluation of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness does not vary across lecturers‟ gender, rank, age and year of experience in terms of the four components of teaching effectiveness. This implies that the mean ratings of lecturers‟ classroom interaction by their students are independent of lecturer‟s rank, age and year of experience. 92 Evaluation Thirteen items loaded on component 2 which is tagged evaluation. In the study carried out by Chang (1997), using a sample of 9,843 undergraduate students, four factors were extracted, namely preparation/planning, material/content, method/skills and assignment/ examination. Examination/assignment obtained by Chang (1997) could also be likened to evaluation extracted in this study as both components centre on establishing the outcome of a teaching-learning system, even though evaluation completely subsumes examination/assignment. The psychometric property of evaluation scale using Cronbach alpha for the determination of internal consistency gives a value of 0.7187 which is an indication that it is reliable. This is based on the fact that it accounts for over 50 % of shared variance between the obtained score and the true score. In this study, the students‟ pattern of evaluation component of teaching effectiveness based on the rank of lecturers shows that Lecturers III are rated highest by the students, while Chief Lecturers are rated least by the students. Lecturers II, I and Senior Lecturers are rated higher than Assistant Lecturers and Principal Lecturer. Two reasons may likely explain this pattern. First, there seems to be an inverse relationship between rank of lecturers and the scores they award students in their courses. That is, with increase in lecturer‟s rank, students tend to be awarded lower scores in courses taken by the lecturers. Dunkins (1990) supported these findings. He observed in his findings that teaching experience had indirect effect on students‟ evaluation. In other words, the rank of the lecturers affected students‟ evaluation. Similar study conducted by Anderson and Freidberg (1995) supported the preceding findings. This may be explained from the viewpoint that as a lecturer increases in rank, he/she becomes stricter with awarding marks or becomes more creative or conservative in evaluation mode and the consequence is that scores obtained on courses taken do not reflect the yearnings or aspirations of the students and since this affects the grade they come out with, it tends to affect negatively the way they rate such lecturer. Secondly, there is a tendency that the higher the lecturers‟ rank, which comes with increase in administrative work, the lower the time available to effectively evaluate the students, and the consequence is that the students view the lecturers as not doing well enough in assessments/evaluation procedures. On this basis, it appears the students‟ ratings are objective. 93 Lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness with regard to evaluation shows that vocational and technical education students gave the highest ratings, and this was followed closely by ratings of students from the School of Languages. Students from the School of Arts and Social Sciences rated their lecturers least. The field of vocational and technical education involves more of application and „hands-on‟ activities which make the students express their technical abilities, therefore students have the impression that the evaluation mode of their lecturers are the best. The ratings by the students from the School of Arts and Social Sciences are indication of the fact that the evaluation mode of their lecturers is not too satisfactory to them. In addition, this research found out that significant mean difference exists in the lecturers‟ evaluation among the schools in colleges. Students from the various schools in Colleges of Education view their lecturers‟ mode of evaluation the same way. This implies that there is no statistically mean difference in students‟ ratings of their lecturers among the different schools. This indicates that preparation and evaluation form the essential parts of lecturing in any citadel of learning. This is in line with Money‟s (1992) submission that there is no significant difference in the ranking of lecturers as rated by the students from the faculties of Nursing and Technology. Furthermore, this research shows that there is significant mean difference in students‟ ratings of their lecturers‟ evaluation according to the students‟ gender. The result indicates that the way students rate their lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness in terms of evaluation is independent of the students‟ gender. This finding is contrary to findings of Chang, (1997); and Krah and Bowlby, (1997). The influence of course of study, age and year of study on lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness was also carried out. There exists a significant mean difference in students‟ ratings of their lecturers‟ evaluation based on the students‟ age. With regard to year of study, there exists no significant mean difference in students‟ ratings of their lecturers‟ evaluation, and this is supported by Goldberg and Callanhan; and James, (1991). However, this is contrary to the findings of Stanton (1994) and Stringer and Irwing (1998). They confirmed in their study that students‟ course of study appeared as very influential on students‟ rating of teaching effectiveness. Students‟ evaluation of teaching effectiveness varied significantly across lecturers‟ gender, rank, age and years of experience under evaluation component. Lecturers‟ gender, rank, age and years of experience do not influence students‟ evaluation of their teaching effectiveness. 94 This implies that students‟ rating of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness is not a function of their personal characteristics and this confers some objectivity on the students‟ ratings. Personality Fourteen items loaded on the component of teaching effectiveness tagged personality. Personality as a component has the second highest items after classroom interaction, and this shows its relevance in determining lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness. The psychometric property of personality scale using Cronbach alpha for the determination of internal consistency gives a value of 0 .7185 which is an indication that it is reliable. This is based on the fact that it also accounts for over 50% of shared variance. Standard error of measurement is another reliability index used in this study for confirmation. In the case of personality component, the true score would lie between 42 and 72 to the nearest whole number at 95% confidence interval. The pattern of personality component of teaching effectiveness scale reveals that Lecturer 1 has the highest mean rating by the students and this is followed closely by Principal Lecturer. Lecturers 1 are at the fourth level of the 7 point scale used for ranking the status of lecturers in Colleges of Education. Most likely they must have mastered all that is required to move up the ladder in terms of promotion. They are fully aware of the college rules and probably may not like to flout them. On the other hand, Chief Lecturers are at the peak of their career and are mainly part of management. To the students, Chief Lecturers may appear harsh and as such, students may not rate them very high in terms of personality. In addition, they may not be directly accessible to the students and this may have a bearing in the way students also view their personality. Principal Lecturer and Assistant Lecturers are also rated very high in terms of personality. Principal Lecturers are expected to display friendly disposition as they aspire to a higher status. Assistant Lecturers on the other hand, may want to feel loved by people around them, thus they tend to put up a good image around themselves even if this is temporary. In addition, they may want to do everything possible to make the regularization and the confirmation of their appointment possible. Furthermore, this research found out that students from the School of Science rated lecturers‟ personality higher, and this is followed by students from the School of Languages. Students from the School of Vocational and Technical Education gave the least ratings. This 95 indicates that students from the School of Science do have good relationship with lecturers because of their interaction most especially during practical. One could have probably guessed that students from the School of Vocational and Technical Education would follow the pattern observed among science students due to some kind of similarities in the two fields of studies. There exists a significant mean difference in lecturers‟ personality. This is supported by evidence from literature by Bassow, (1995); Kaufman, (2002) and Stringer and Irwing, (1998). This research also found out that there is a significant mean difference in students‟ ratings of their lecturers' personality according to their gender. The result indicates that the way students rated their lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness in terms of personality is dependent on their gender, as female students seem more objective or stricter in their sense of judgment of teaching effectiveness as compared to male students. Literature (Amin, 1994; Lueck, 1993 and Tatto, 1995) is replete with evidences in support of this finding by Moreover, the influence of course of study, age and year of study on lecturers‟ personality shows that students‟ age and year of study do not influence their lecturers‟ personality; while on the other hand, students‟ course of study has an influence on ratings of teaching effectiveness. Students‟ evaluation of lecturers‟ personality across lecturers‟ gender, rank, age and year of experience as shown in this study revealed that age and rank of lecturers do not have any influence on lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness. Moreover, year of experience and gender of lecturers do not have any influence on students‟ ratings of lecturers‟ personality. Preparation Eight items loaded on component four which is named Preparation. The psychometric property of Preparation scale using Cronbach alpha for the determination of internal consistency gives a value of 0.7189 which is the highest in all the scales extracted, and it gives an indication that it is reliable. This is based on the fact that it also accounts for over 50% of shared variance. Standard error of measurement is another reliability index used in this study. In the case of preparation component, the true score would lie between 22 and 43 to the nearest whole number at 95% confidence interval. Lecturers‟ Preparation component of teaching effectiveness shows that lecturers 1 are the most highly rated because they have been teaching for a while and so they might have mastered and have been accustomed to teaching pattern. This is followed closely by Assistant 96 Lecturer, Lecturer III, Senior Lecturer and Chief Lecturer. Principal Lecturer are the least rated under this category. It can be understood that there is a huge tendency for Principal Lecturer to be more occupied in terms of teaching assignment as well as administrative work as there is a high probability that Chief Lecturers could have shelved some of the teaching commitments to the Principal Lecturer who are next in rank to them. There is a significant mean difference in lecturers‟ preparation across the five schools in the Colleges of Education. Mode of preparation of lecturers as rated by students from different schools does not differ significantly and this is supported by Money (1992) who found no significant difference in the rank of lecturers and rating of students. There is also a significant mean difference in students‟ ratings of their lecturers‟ preparation according to their gender. The result indicates that students‟ ratings of their lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness in terms of preparation vary across their lecturers‟ gender. This finding corroborates the findings of Chang, (1997); and Krah and Bowlby, (1997). In terms of lecturers‟ preparation, students‟ age, year of study and gender do not influence the ratings. This implies that irrespective of students‟ age, course of study and year of study, they appear not to be biased in their ratings of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness. However, students‟ evaluation of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness varied significantly across lecturers‟ rank, age, years of experience and gender with respect to Preparation. Students‟ evaluation of their lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness varies across lecturers‟ rank and year of experience. Further analysis showed that the significant mean difference occurs between Lecturers 1 and Principal Lecturers. This shows that Principal Lecturers‟ preparation is rated lower than that of Lecturer 1.the results also indicates the Lecturers‟ preparation does not vary significantly based on their age and gender as viewed by their students. This shows that Lecturers I put in more effort in preparation for teaching than Principal Lecturers. 97 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER STUDIES 5.1 Summary of the Findings Using principal component analysis, four components were reliably extracted from the original one-hundred and twenty one items of SETES-CE, and these are Classroom Interaction, Evaluation, Personality and Preparation. The reliability determination using internal- consistency by Cronbach alpha shows that all the four sub-scales and the entire scale are reliable. Standard error of measurement, an alternate way of expressing test reliability was used to express individual scores taking into considerations the actual or obtained scores and the true score, which in practice cannot be measured. This gives measurement accuracy by providing bandwidths of scores for different scales by taking into consideration 5% of error tolerance or 95% confidence interval on the instrument. The bandwidths of scores indicate that it is most likely reliable in predicting the scores on the same instrument when it is attempted again. Lecturers 1 were rated highest with regards to classroom interaction, while Principal Lecturers received the least mean ratings in the area of Classroom interaction as rated by their students. In the case of Evaluation, Lecturers III received the highest mean rating and Chief Lecturer the least when rated by the students. The ratings with respect to Personality component of teaching effectiveness indicate Lecturers 1 having the highest rating while Lecturers III and Chief Lecturers together had the least rating. As for lecturers‟ preparation, Lecturers I has the highest rating while Principal Lecturers has the least rating. Pattern of teaching effectiveness with regards to schools in Colleges of Education used in this study under Classroom Interaction indicates that School of Science students have the highest rating of the lecturers, while School of Vocational and Technical Education has the least rating. In the case of evaluation component, students from School of Languages and School of Vocational and Technical Education gave the highest rating value to the lecturer‟s while students from School of Arts and Social Sciences gave the least rating value. The students from the School of Science gave the highest ratings, while students from school of education and School of Vocational and Technical Education gave the least ratings. In the case of preparation component of teaching effectiveness, students from the School of Vocational and Technical Education gave the highest rating, while those from the School of Science gave the least. 98 The Personality component of lecturers as rated by their students showed significant mean differences at the different schools in Colleges of Education. Evaluation and Preparation components of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness as rated by the students from different schools show no significant difference. Gender of students has an influence only on the Personality component of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness. Gender of students does not have any influence on the lecturers‟ Classroom Interaction, Evaluation and Preparation. Course of study of students influenced their rating in term of lecturers‟ Classroom Interaction, Evaluation and Preparation. On the other hand, course of study of students does not have any influence on the lecturers‟ preparation. Age of students has influence on their ratings of lecturers‟ classroom interaction and evaluation of teaching effectiveness, while age of students was found to have no influence on their rating of lecturers‟ personality and preparation. The year of study of students has influence only on the lecturers‟ classroom interaction; while it was revealed that the year of study of students does not in any way influence the lecturers‟ evaluation, preparation and personality. Students‟ evaluation of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness varied significantly across lecturers‟ rank, age, years of experience and gender with respect to preparation. Students‟ evaluation of their lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness varied across lecturers‟ rank and year of experience. Further analysis showed that the significant mean difference occurs between Lecturers 1 and Principal Lecturers. This shows that Principal Lecturers‟ preparation is rated lower than that of Lecturers 1. Lecturers‟ preparation does not vary significantly based on their age and gender as viewed by their students. This shows that Lecturers I put in more effort in preparation for teaching than Principal Lecturers. 5.2 Conclusion The constructed Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale in Colleges of Education which was also validated and put to use in this study is reliable in determining the teaching effectiveness of lecturers. This study has shown that students, especially in the tertiary institutions can be relied upon to give some credible judgment with regards to lecturers‟ performance, especially those that are known to them. Students‟ variables in the school like their course of study and year of study have the potential to explain the pattern of teaching effectiveness of their lecturers. Gender of students does not seem to influence evaluation of 99 teaching effectiveness of their lecturers in this study. Also, lecturers‟ gender is not a determinant of lecturers‟ teaching effectiveness. 5.3 Implication for Teaching This study has implication for teaching if the outcome is made known to relevant stakeholders in Colleges of Education. First, it has the promise of rejuvenating the teaching- learning process. It does this by giving feedback to lecturers based on their performances with regards to their classroom interaction, evaluation, personality and preparation components of teaching effectiveness. In addition, it gives them the feelings that they are being monitored and have to do things accordingly. Second, interaction in a classroom is a dynamic process which gives primacy to meaningful participation on the part of the students and through which their problems can be identified and probably remedied. An improvement in classroom interaction is most likely to bring about meaningful learning, discourage rote learning and bring about improvement in achievement. Preparation is a worthwhile exercise prior to meaningful delivery. A lecture haphazardly prepared is a lecture that will most likely be poorly delivered. If lecturers are too loaded with academic and administrative work, there is a huge tendency that they will be lacking in proper preparation and the consequence is a lecture that does not have much impact on the learning of students. The aforementioned are some of the implications for teaching which need to be carefully considered. 5.4 Recommendations It is recommended that this SETES-CE be considered for adoption in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness of lecturers in Colleges of Education in Nigeria. It is also recommended that students‟ input though minimally be considered for promotion exercise for lecturers. It is also recommended that the outcome of this work be made known to all the schools used for this study. This becomes necessary in order to give them feedback which could engender corrections and improvement. Seminars should be organised for students to improve their objectivity when rating sensitive issues like teaching effectiveness of lecturers as well as their promotion exercises. This is to further confer some validity on such exercises. Conferences and seminars should also be organized for lecturers on how their classroom interactions could be further 10 0 enhanced. Lecturer – student ratio should be considered, as it could hinder their effective preparation for meaningful teaching. 5.5 Suggestion for Further Studies It is suggested that this study be replicated elsewhere to corroborate or refute some of the findings in this study. In addition, a confirmatory factor analysis should be carried out on this study in which variables are meticulously considered in order to accurately depict the underlying processes- the purpose of which to confirm or disconfirm- some a priori theory. A non-recursive structural equation modeling could also be considered in which lecturers‟ parameters are considered as variables, students‟ parameters are considered as variables, and institutional variables are also considered in a bi-directional causal flow with teaching effectiveness, acting as a moderator variable and its effect upon a standardized achievement score of students probably on a uniform average grade point could be considered. 10 1 REFERENCES Aaronson, D; Barrow, L. & Sander, W. 2007. Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95-135. Abdulkadir, I.A. 1991. Paying for Quality: The Prospects, in Ohuche R.O. (ed). Moving Education in Nigeria towards the year 2000. The Nigerian Academy of Education Optimal Computer Solutions Limited. Pp 159 - 173 Abdullahi, S. 2005. Why the reform in Educational Sector? National Freedom, 1.6:7 Abrami, P.C. 1989. How should we use student rating to evaluate teaching? Research in Higher Education, 30, 221-27. Adegbuyi, J.Y. 2011. Construction of Mathematics Attitude Scale Using Factor Analysis. An unpublished M.Ed paper presented to ICEE, Institute of Education, University of Ibadan. Adeniran, A.A.,1987. Development and Validation of a Training Package for Co-operating Teachers. A Ph.D Thesis, Institute of Education, University of Ibadan. Adesina, S. 1977. Planning and Educational Development in Nigeria. Lagos: Educational Industries Nigeria Limited 14 and 78. Adesina, S. 2005. Growth without development: Nigeria Educational Experience 1914 – 2004, Abeokuta, Educational Industries Nigeria Limited Pp 152 – 160. Afemikhe, O.A. 1995. The secondary school teacher of science: Quality control imperatives. A paper presented at the Valedictory conference in honour of Professor Romanus Ogbona Ohuche held from 11-13 May at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Akinpelu, J. O. 1981. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. Lagos Macmillian. Alkin, M.C. 1970. Product for Improving Educational Evaluation Comment.Vol.2 No. 3, P.1 Aleamoni, L. 1989, ``Typical faculty concerns about evaluation of teaching‟‟, in Aleamoni, L.M. (Ed.), Techniques for Evaluating and Improving Instruction, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Amin, M.E., 1994. Gender as a Determinant Factor in the Evaluation of Teaching. Assessment and Evaluation of Higher Education 19 (2), 135 – 143. Anderson, L. W. 1989. Research in classrooms: The study of teachers, teaching, and instruction. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Anderson, J. B. and Freiberg, H.J. 1995. Using Self Assessment As a Reflective Tool to Enhance the Student Experience. Teacher Education Quarterly 22 (1) 77 – 91 10 2 Anderson, L. W.; Krathwoul, D.R.; Airasian, P.W.; Crikshank, K.A.; Mayer, R.E.; Pintrich, P.R.; Raths, J.; Wittrock, M.C. (Eds). 2001. Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation say Francisco: Jossy –Bass Publishers. Anderson, L. W.; Krathwoul, D.R.; Airasian, P.W.; Crikshank, K.A.; Mayer, R.E.; Pintrich, P.R.; Raths, J.; Wittrock, M.C. (Eds). 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A revision of Bloom‟s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York Longman. Angrist, J. D., & Lavy, V. 2001. Does teacher training a_ect pupil learning? Evidence from matched comparisons in Jerusalem public schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 19(2), 343_369. Arreola, R.A. 1995. Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System. Bolton, Mass.: Anker. Asrons, A. 2003. Nigeria: Unusual Basic Education; Issues of Teaching and Learning, Research Report, Abuja, World Bank. Avalos, B. 1991. Approaches to Teacher Education, Initial Teacher training. Commonwealth Secretariat, Malborough House, London. Balogun, T.A. 1988. Education, Technology and Behaviour Change in Ogunniran A.: Problems and Prospect of Educational Technology in Nigeria; Ibadan Heinemann Books Limited. Pp 29 - 41 Bamidele, S.O. 2004. Education Research in Perspective. Niyi communication and printing ventures. University of Ibadan. Banjo Commission, 1960. Report of the Commission appointed to review the Educational System in Western Nigeria, 44 – 49, 1960. Barr, A. S. 1948. The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency. A Summary of Investigations. Journal of Experimental Education. 16, 295 – 306. Bare, C and Hill, S. 1992. Perception of Secondary student teaching Experience. Monograph No.13 Canada Saskatchewan. Basow, S.A. 1995. Student evaluations of college professors; When gender matters. Educational Psychology 87 (4), 656-665. Batten, M. 1993. Know to Teach Well: Teachers Reflect on their Classroom Practice. ACBR Research Monograph No 44. Belt, W.D., 1967. Microteaching: Observed and Critiqued by a Group of Trainees. Department of Teacher Education, Birmingham, Young University. 10 3 Boex, L.F. (2000) : Identifying the attributes of effective economics instructors: An analysis of student evaluation of instructor data. Journal of Economic Education, 31, 211-26. Boggs, C. 1995 identifying gender bias in teaching Evaluation Insight Offered by Communication Research International communication Association. Albuquerque. Boggs, C. and Wiseman, J.M 1995 The Role of gender and communicative Competence in University Students‟ Evaluation of Their Teaching Assistants Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of Speech Communication Association. Brophy, J., and Good, T. L. 1986 . Teacher behaviour. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching, Third edition. New York Macmillan. Campbell, D.T. and Stanley J.C. 1963. Experimental and Quasi – experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Campbell, D.J and Lee, C 1988. Self Appraisal in Performance Evaluation: Development Versus Evaluation. Academic of management Review 13, 302-314. Campbell, R.J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, R.D., and Robinson, W. 2003. Differential Teacher Effectiveness: Framing the concept. In assessing teacher effectiveness: Developing a differential model pp. 3 – 11. New York : Routledge. Capman, E. 2003. Development and Validation of a Brief mathematics attitude Scale for Primary – aged Students. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 4 (2), 63 – 73. Cashin, W.E. 2002. “Students‟ Rating of Teaching Educational Research in Teaching”. 15, 22- 23. Catell, R.B. 1966. the secree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 1, 245. Centra, J.A. 1993. Reflective Faculty Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Centra, J.A. 2000. Enhacing Teaching and Determining Faculty Effectiveness. Faculty Evaluation 12, 1-3. Chang, T.S 1997. Students‟ Rating of Instruction at Teachers college in Taiwan. Research Report MF/01 University of Taiwan. Chauhan, S.S. 1979: Innovations in Teaching-Learning Process. India, Vikas Publication House PVT.LTD. Cheng, Y.C., and Tsui, K.T. 1999. Multimodels of techer effectiveness: implication for research. The journal of educational research, 92(3),141 -150. 10 4 Clark, L.H. and I.S Starr 1967. Secondary School Teaching Methods. New York: Macmillan. Cody, J. 2002. Teacher Evaluations available to students “Research in Higher Education” 20(3) 211-215. Cohen, P.A. 1983. ``Comment on a selective review of the validity of student ratings of teaching‟‟, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 54, pp. 448-58. Colson v. Stieg, 433 N.E.2d 246 (Ill. 1982). Cope,E., 1969. Students and School Practice: education for Teaching; 80,25-35. Constine, A. 1997. Student Rating of College Teaching Reliability, Validity and Usefulness. Review of Educational Research Forum 10, 27 – 29. Cronbach L.J. 1951. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. Cronbach, L.J. and Meehl, P. 1955. Construct Validity in Psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, Pp. 281 - 302. Cruickshank, D.R. 1986. Profile of an Effective Teacher. Educational Horizons Winter, 80 – 86. Cruickshank, D.R. and Haefele, D.L. 1990. Research – based indicators: Is the glass half – full or half – empty? Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4(1), 33 – 39. Dada, A. 1999. Lectures and Lectures: A student evaluation. Nigerian Journal of Curriculum Studies. 6 (2) 161-173. Damron, J.C. 1996, ``Instructor personality and the politics of the classroom‟‟, available at: www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/ De-Wolf, W.A. 1974. Students Ratings of Instruction in Post Secondary Institutions (1) Seattle: University of Washington Educational Assessment Centre. Devillis, R.F. 1991. Scale Development: Theory and Applications: New bury park, C.A. Sage Publications. Dillman, D.A; Tortora, R.D; & Browker, D.K. 1998. “Principles for Conducting Web Surveys” Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://survey. sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/paper. htm Dillman, D.A. and Browker, D.K. 2001. The Web Questionnaire Challenge to Survey Methodologists. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://survey. sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/zuma_paper_dillman_bowker.pdf 10 5 Dowell, D.A. and Neal, J.A. 1982. ``A selective review of the validity of student ratings of teaching‟‟, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 53, pp. 51-62. Doyle, K.O. 1983. Evaluating Teaching, Lexington, Lexington Books. Dunkin, M.J. 1990. Willingness to Obtain Student Evaluation as a Criterion on Academic Staff Performance. Higher Education Research and Development 9,51-60. Ezewu, E. 1983. some comments on the curriculum for Training Teachers for the Primary Schools in Bendel State‟ Nigeria, Journal of Education for Teaching. 7, 164-173 Fafunwa, A.B. 1974. History of Education in Nigeria. London George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Falaye, F.V. 2008. Development and Validation of Students‟ Attitude Towards Social Studies Scale (SAT 3S). Journals of the Social Sciences 3 (2), 185 – 188. Farah, B.N. and Higby, M. A. 1995. Student Perception of Teaching Formats and Teaching Aids. Education for Information 13 (2) 349 359. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1981. National Policy on Education: Government Paper Lagos: Federal Ministry of Information. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1998. National Policy on Education: Yaba Lagos, Nigeria: NERDC Press. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004. National Policy on Education. Lagos Government Press. Feldman, K.A. 1986, ``The perceived instructional effectiveness of college teachers as related to their personality and attitudinal characteristics: a review and synthesis‟‟, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 24, pp. 139-213. Feldman, K.A. 1993. College Students View of Male and Female Student Teachers: Part II Evidence from Students‟ Evaluation of their Classroom Teachers. Research in Higher Education 34 (2) 151 – 211. Flander, N.A., 1961. Interaction, Analysis: A teaching for Qualifying Teacher Influence. A Paper Presented to the A.E.R.A. (Mimeo). Folorunso, J.O. 2008. Evaluation of the Pre-NCE Programme in Science, Technical and Languages Education in Colleges of Education. A Post field seminar paper presented to ICEE, University of Ibadan. Freedman, H.R. 1994. Student Evaluation of College Instruction. Effect of Type of Course Taught, Instructor Gender and Gender Role and Student Gender. Journal of Educational Psychology. 86, 627 – 630. 10 6 Godberg, G. and Callahan, J., 1991. Objectivity of Student Evaluation of Instructors. Journal of Education of Business. 66 (6) 377 – 378. Good, T.L., 1996. teaching effect and teacher evaluation. In J.P. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, and E. Guyton (Eds), handbook of research on teacher education. pp 617 – 665. New York Macmillan. nd Gorsuch, R.L. 1983. Factor Analysis (2 ) Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Eribaum Guabatz, N. 2000. What‟s the use of Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness?. http://csti.syr.edu/cst/T-L/stdrate.htm Guba, E.G. and stufflebeam, D.L. 1970. Evaluation: The Process of Stimulating Aiding and Abetting Insightful Action. Bloomington. Indiana University. Hale, C.O. and Waugh G. 1996. Assessing Teaching Effectiveness in a Leberal College: The Student Perspective Paper Presented at AIR Annual forum, Albuquerques. Hanushek, E. A. 1992.The trade-o_ between child quantity and quality. The Journal of Political Economy, 100(1), 84-117. Hanushek, E; Kain, J.F; O'Brien, D. & Rivkin, S.G. 2005. The market for teacher quality (Working Paper No. 11154). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11154 Harris, K. 1992. Teacher and Classes: A maxist Analysis, London, Routledge and Kegan Publication. Hills, J.R. 1976: Measurement and Evaluation in the Classroom. Howell Company Ohio Pp. 14 – 32 Hinkin, T.R. 1995. A Review of Scale Development and Application of New Scales to measure the French Raven bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (4) 561 – 567. Husband, C.T. 1996. Variation in Student evaluation of Teachers‟ Lecturing and Small group Teaching: A Study of the London School of Economics and Political Science Study. Higher Education 21, 187-206. Ibidapo – Obe, 2007. The Challenge of Teacher Education in Nigeria: The University of Lagos Experience. A Paper Presented at the Second Regional Research Seminar for Africa, organized by the UNESCO forum on Higher Education Research and Knowledge in Accra, Ghana from 22 – 24 March, 2007. Jacob, B., and Lefgren, L. 2004. Remedial education and student achievement: A regression- discontinuity analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86 (1), 226-244. 10 7 James, R.M. 1998. Higher School Student Rating of Teachers and Teaching Methods. Journal of Educational Research 63 (6) 219 - 224 Jepsen, C., & Rivkin, S. 2002. What is the tradeo_ between smaller classes and teacher quality? Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w9205. Johnson, S. 1992. Experience is the Best teacher: An Analysis of Role of Experience in Learning to Teach. Paper Presented at American Educational Researchers Association,San Francisco. Jonas, J.E. 1994. The Effect of Experience Upon Teacher Adaptability Among Preservice Teachers. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of American educational Researcher Association. Kaiser, H.E. 1960. The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis Educational Psychological Measurement. 20: 141 – 151. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D.O. 2005. Using imperfect information to identify e_ective teachers. Unpublished manuscript. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. Retrieved from https://www.dartmouth.edu/_dstaiger/Papers/2005/Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D.O. (2008). Estimating Teacher Impacts on Student Achievement: An Experimental Evaluation (Working Paper No. 14607). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14607 Kane, T. J., Rocko_, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. 2008. What does certi_cation tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27 (6),615_631. Kaufman, D.M. 2002. “Student Evaluation of Faculty Teaching. A Paper presented at SFUFA Forum Kentucky, U.S.A. Kolawole, C.O.O. 1998. Linguistic Inputs and three methods of Presentation as determinant of Students‟ Acheivement in Senior Secondary School Essay writing in Ibadan. An unpublished Ph.D Thesis. University of Ibadan. Krah, H. and Bowlby, J. 1997. Good Teaching and Satisfied University Graduates. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 27 (2-3) 157-180. Lankford, H; Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. 2002. Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (1), 37-62. Lewy Arieh, (Ed). 1970. Handbook of Curriculum Evaluation, Paris Unesco; New York; Longman Lissitz, R.W. and Green S.B. 1975. Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A monte Carlo Approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 : 10 – 13. 10 8 Lueck, T.L. 1993. The Interaction effects of gender on teaching Evaluation Journal Educator 48 (3) 46-54. Marie, A.C. and Jean-Francois R. 1990. Development and Cross Validation of an Instrument to Measure First-Year Pharmacy Students Towards AIDS/HIV Patients. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Summer. Majasan, J.A. 1995. The Teachers Profession: A manual for professional Excellence. Ibadan. Spectrum Books Limited. Marsh, H.W. 1983. Multidimensional Ratings of Teaching Effectiveness by students from DFT Academic Settings and their Relation to Student/Course/Instructor Characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology. Marsh, H.W. 1984. Students‟ Evaluation of University Teaching: Dimensionality, Reliability, Validity, Potential Biases and Utility. Journal of Educational Psychology. Marsh, H.W. 1987. Students Evaluation of University Teaching: Research Findings Methodological Issues and Directions for Further Research. International Journal of Educational Research Vol. II No. 3, 252-390. Marsh, H.W. and Bailey, M., 1993. Multidimensional Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness. Journal of Higher Education 64 (1) 1- 18. Marsh, H.W. and Dunkin M.J. 1992. Students Evaluation of University Teaching. A Multidimensional perspectives. In J. Smart (ed). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Volume 9, New York. Marsh, H.W. and Roche, L.A.1992. The Use of Student Evaluation of University Teaching in Different Setting: The Applicability Paradigm. Australian Journal of Education 36, 278 – 300. Martha, George and Marsh. 2004. An Instrument to Measure Mathematics Attitudes. Academic Exchange Quarterly Summer. Vol. 8, issue 2. Martins, K.J. and Smith, L.R. 1990. Effect of Teacher, Age and Gender on Student Perception. Paper Presented at the Annual Forum of American Educational Researchers Association, U.S.A. Masters, J.R. 1988. High School Student Ratings of Teachers and Teaching Methods. Journal of Educational Research 6 (3) 219 – 224. McCallum, L.W. 1984. ``A meta-analysis of course evaluation data and its use in the tenure decision‟‟, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 21, pp. 150-8. 10 9 McCarey, D. F; Lockwood, J. R.; Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. 2003. Evaluating value- added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. Medley, D.M. 1982. “ Teacher effectiveness” In: H.E. Mitzei (Ed).Encyclopedia of Educational th Research (5 Edition) PP 1894 – 1903. New York: The Free Press. Medley, D.M. 1977. Teacher Competence and Teacher Effectiveness Washington, D.C. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Medley, D.M. 1992. Teacher Evaluation. Alkin et al. (Eds). Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Macmillan New York. 1345 – 1351. Mkpa, M.A. 2002. Teacher Preparation for a Successful Universal Basic Education in Nigeria.Searchlight on Secondary School Education in Nigeria, Ado – Ekiti. The All Nigeria Conference of Principals of Secondary Schools (ANCOPSS): 108 – 120. Money, S. M. 1992. What is Teaching Effectiveness? A survey of Student Teacher Perception of Teacher Effectiveness. Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology. Ontario, Canada. Morell, D. and Souviney, R. 1990. Student Evaluation of Instructional Quality: How does UCSD Rate? Research Report. Department of Education University of Calfonia, San Diego. nd Morrison, A. and Melnytre D. 1973. Teachers and Teaching. 2 Edition. Penguin. Murray, H. G., 1994. “Can teaching be improved”?, Broch University, Ontario, Canada. Muijs, D., 2006. Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: Some Methodological reflections. Educational Research and Evaluation 12 (1) 53 – 74. National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE) 1990. Accredited Manual, Kaduna, NCCE 1993 Annual Report Kaduna: NCCE (January – December). Guidelines on Academic Programmes. Needels, M.C. 1991. Comparison of Student, First Year and Experienced Teachers Interpretations of a First Grade Lesson. Teaching and Teacher Education 7 (3) 269-278. nd Nunnaly, J. 1978. Psychmetry theory (2 ed). New York: Mc-Graw Hill. Nunnally, J.C. and Beinstein, L.H. 1994. Psychometric Theory Willey New York : McGrawHill. Nwagwu, N.A. 1992. “Financing Education in Nigeria: Issues and Innovation” in towards st Education in Nigeria for the 21 century edited by Onafor and U. gbenedo Benin City, University of Benin Press. Pp. 90 – 101. st Nweke, R. 1990 Teaching Practice in Educational Institutions in Nigeria. 1 Faculty of Education Seminar Series: Teaching Practice. University of Benin Faculty of Education. 11 0 Obanya, P.A.I. 1980. General Methods of Teaching. Yaba, Lagos: Macmillan (Nigeria) Publishers Limited. Obemeata, J.O. 1984. The emerging profession of Educational Evaluation, Nigerian Educational Forum Vol. 7. No. 2 Pp 215 – 221. Obemeata, J.O. 1995, Education: an unprofitable Industry in Nigeria. A Postgraduate School Interdisciplinary Research Discourse. University of Ibadan, Ibadan,Nigeria. Odor, G.O. 1990. Teaching Practice in the College of Education, Its Objectives and st Implementation. 1 Faculty of Education Seminar Series: Teaching Practice. University of Benin Faculty of Education. Ogunniyi, M.A., 2004. Development, Validation and Use of University Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Scale (USETES-CE). A Ph.D thesis in ICEE University of Ibadan. Ojo, O.A., 2004. Development and Validation of Students Evaluation of School Effectiveness Scale (SESES) in Ekiti State: M.Ed. Dissertation, Institute of Education, University of Ibadan. Okpala, P.N., 2008. Evaluation – Driven Educational Programmes for Sustainable National Development: The Roles of Institutes of Education in Nigeria. A Guest Lecture delivered at th the 60 Anniversary Celebration of the University of Ibadan. P 2. Okpala, N; Onocha, C.O. & Oyedeji, O.A. 1993. Measurement and Evaluation in Education, String – Horden Publishers Nigeria Limited Pp. 263. Olaitan, S.O. and Agusiobo, O.N. 1981. Principles of Practice Teaching. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Omoregie, N. 2006. Inadequaices in Teacher Education in Nigeria: The way out, Arts and Education, Benson Idahosa University. Onocha, C. O. 1995. Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education: What factors are Important to Students? In Ayodele, S.O. (ed). Education in the Services of Humanity ERSG, Ibadan. Onocha, C.O. 1996. Stability of Students‟ Evaluation of University Teaching. Nigerian Journal of Chemical and Counselling Psychology 12 (1) 35 - 50 Onocha, C.O. 1997. “Students Evaluation of Teaching: Methodological Issues” A Paper th Presented During I.C.E.E. Staff Seminar on 10 October, 1997. Orji, U.E. 2004. Personal and School Factors as Determinants of Students‟ Perception of Teaching Effectiveness in Nigerian Colleges of Education. A Ph.D thesis in ICEE, University of Ibadan. 11 1 Overall, J.U., and Marsh, H.W., 1980. Students‟ Evaluation of Instruction: Longitudinal study of other stability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72-321. Partlow, K.M. & Gibbs, W. J. 2003. Indicators of constructivist principles in Internet-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14(2), 68-97. Pinset, R.W.K. 1962. Values, Education and the Adult. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Polit, D. F. & Beck, C. T. 2004. Nursing research: Principles and methods. (7ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. Porter, A.C.; Brophy, J. 1988. “Synthesis of Research on Good Teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching”. In Educational Leadership. 45 (8) 74 – 85. Rae, L.M. and Parker, R.A. 1997. Designing and Conducting Survey Research. San Francisco: Jossey – Bass Inc. Randy, D. and Cork, et al. 1998. Development and Initial Validation of an Instrument to Measure Physicians‟ use of knowledge about, and Attitude Towards Computers. American Medical Information Association. 5(2) 164-167. Riger, S. 1993. Gender and Teaching Evaluation. Evaluation report 18, 45 – 47 Rivers, J. & Sanders, W. 2002. Teacher quality and equity in educational opportunity: Findings and policy implications. In L.T. Izumi & E. M. Evers (Eds). Teacher Quality (pp. 13- 24). Stanford, CA: Hoover Insstitution Press. Rockoff, J. 2004. The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252. http://cnx.org/content/m44965/1.4/ Connexions module: m44965 13 Rogers, C.A. 1983. Freedom to Learn from the 80s. Columbus: Charles E. Merril Publishing Company. Romiszowski, A.J. 1984. Designing Instructional Systems. London: Kogan Page. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. 1996. Research progress report: Cumulative and residual e_ects of teachers on future student academic achievement: Tennessee value-added assessment system. University of Tennessee Value-Added research and Assessment Center. Retrieved from http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/pdf/Sanders_Staiger, D. O., & Rocko_, J. E. (2010). Searching for E_ective Teachers with Imperfect Information. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24 (3): 97_118. 11 2 Sanders, W.L. and Rivers, J. C. 1996. Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. KNOXVILLE: University of Tennesseee. Value – Addes Research and Assessment Centre. Schmitt, N.W. and Klimoski, R.J. 1991. Research Methods in Human Resources Management. Cincinnati; South – Western Publishing. Schwab, D.P. 1980. Construct Validity in Organization Behaviour. In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organization Behaviour, Vol. 2 greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Schuman, T.R. 1993. Students‟ And Residents‟ Ratings of Teaching Effectiveness in a Department of Pediatrics. Teaching And Learning in Medicine 5 (3) 128-132. Scriven, M. 1987. The Validity of Students‟ Rating Nedlands. University of Western Australia Press. Scriven, M. 1995. “Student Rating Ratings in Teacher Evaluation, Evaluation Perspectives” Newsletter of the Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation), 4(1), 1-4. Stake Robert, 1967. The Countenance of Educational Evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68 (7) 538. Stanton, H.E. 1994. Diagnostic Ratings Scale of Teacher Performance Australian Journal of Education 15 (1) 95-103. nd Stevens, J. 1992. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 2 Edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Stringer, M. and Finlay, C. 1993. Assuring Quality Through Student Evaluation. In R. Ellis (ed). Quality Assurrance for University Teaching Milton. Open University Press Stringer, M. and Irwing, P. 1998. Students‟ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness. A Structural Modeling Approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology 68, 409 – 426. Swaffield, B. C. 1996. What Happens When Male Professors Enact Feminist Pedagogies. Paper Presented for the Annual Conference On College Composition and Administration Milwaukee, W.J. Taiwo Commission, 1969. Report of the Committee Appointed to Review the Primary Educational System in Western Nigeria Taiwo, C.O. 1980, The Nigerian Education System, Past, Present and Future, Lagos, Thomas Nelson Nig Ltd, 172 11 3 Tatro, C.N. 1995. Gender Effects on Student Evaluation of Faculty Journal of Research and Development 28 (3) 169-173. Theall, M. and Franklin, J. 2001 “Looking for bias in all the wrong places- A search for truth or a witch hunt in student ratings of instruction? “In the students rating debate; are they valid? How can we best use them: Theresa, M.A. 2006. School Context, Student Attitudes and Behaviour, and Academic Acheivement: An Exploratory Analysis www.mdrc.org. Copyright © 2006 by MDRC. nd Thondike, R. L 1971. Educational Measurement (2 Edition) Washington D.C. American Council on Education. 1 – 30. st Ukeje, B.O. 2000. Teacher Education in Nigeria: current Status, 21 Century Challenges and strategies for improvement in Faculty of Education, University of Jos. VanDalen, D.B. and R.W. Brittell 1959. Looking Ahead to Teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Vanoostendorp, K.D. 1999. Effects of Students Gender Bias Towards the Instructor and Classroom Management at the Secondary Level. Masters‟ Degree Dissertation Michigan State University. Veldman, J.E. & Peck,R.F. 1998. The Pupil Observation Survey: Teacher Characteristics from the Students‟ Viewpoint. Austin, Texas: Texas University, Research and Development Taxes University. Wallen, N.E., and Fraenkel, J.R. 2001. Educational Research: A guide to the process. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ward, B.E., 1970. A survey of microteaching in N.C.A.T.E. Accredited Secondary Programme. Stanford Centre for Research and Development in Teaching Research and Development Memorandum. 70 Warkins, D. 1994. Students Evaluation of University Teaching: A cross Cultural Presentation Research in Higher Education, 35 (2) 251 – 266. Wilson, B.P., 1996. “Student Evaluation: The Urban – Rural Dimension Journal of ASCILLITE 11, 26 – 28. Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Davis, H. 2009. Teachers' self-e_cacy beliefs. In K. Wentzel & A. Wig_eld (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 627-654). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.2http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/pdf/Sanders_RiversTVASS_teacher%20e_ects.pd f http://cnx.org/content/m44965/1.4/ World Bank. 1990. Primary Education : A world Bank Policy Paper. Washington, DC: Author. 11 4 Wright, S.P., 2004. Advantage of multivariate longitudinal approach to educational value-added assessment without imputation. Paper presented at the National Evaluation Institute, Colorado Springs, CO. Retrieved August 22 2008 from http://www.wmiich.edu/evactr/create/2004/wright-NE104.pdf Yoloye, E.A. 1977. “ Observational Techniques”. In Lewy A.(Ed). Handbook of Curriculum Evaluation. Longman Paris. Yoloye, E.A. (Ed). 1978. Evaluation for Innovation. Ibadan University Press. Pp 3-4. Zahn, D.K. and Schrammn, R.M. 1992. Student Perception of Teacher Effectiveness Based on Teacher Employment and Course Skill Level Bussiness Education Forum 46 (3) 16 – 18. Zeller R.A. and Carmines, E.G. 1980 measurement in the society sciences: the link between theory and data.cambridge, m.a. gambridge university press. 11 5 APPENDIX 1 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN STUDENTS’ EVALUATION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS SCALE (SETES-CE) INTRODUCTION: This scale is developed to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of lecturers teaching various courses in colleges of education. You are required to put a mark ( ) in the appropriate boxes. SECTION A Students‟ Age (As at last birthday) _____________________________________ Sex: Male [ ] Female [ ] School: ___________________________________________ Course of Study: ____________________________________________ Year of Study: Year Two [ ] Year Three [ ] Type of College: Federal [ ] State [ ] Name of the lecturer: ________________________________________________ Title of the Course: ____________________________________________ 11 6 SECTION B INSTRUCTION: The underlisted are some of the items considered to make the teaching of a lecturer effective. Read through each of the items and think of a good lecturer among those teaching you in this semester and rate that lecturer. The 5 – point scales are as follows: Very Poor (1); Poor (2); Moderate (3); Good (4); Very Good (5) S/N ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 1. Has knowledge of the course being taught 2. Adequate time distribution 3. Fair in award of marks to students 4. Gives adequate feedback to students 5 Understands the course material 6 Gives students assignment 7 Possesses an audible voice 8 Uses variety of assignment/examination to judge performance 9 Use of verbal and non verbal communication 10 Has unique ways of distributing questions to students 11 Gives opportunity to every students. 12 Accepts students‟ opinion 13 Uses non verbal communication during teaching 14 Considers population of the class 15 Provides adequate lecture materials for the course 16 Creates learning environment that encourage self motivation. 17 Communicates appropriately with students 18 Use of entire time for effective teaching 19 Gives more extended project to stimulate interest 20 Use of appropriate words during teaching 21 Allows students to brainstorm on questions raised during lesson 22 Ensures appropriate sitting arrangement during lecture 23 Gives adequate feedback to students 11 7 24 Releases examination result on time 25 Encourages and facilitates appointment with students 26 Has unique way of facilitating learning 27 Smart dressing 28 Adequate control of the class. 29 Timeliness in the use of teaching methods 30 Use of instructional materials 31 Quality of instructional materials 32 Creates learning environment that encourage active engagement. 33 Creates learning experiences that make subject matter meaningful for students 34 Carry students along during teaching 35 Understands and uses variety of instructional strategies 36 Starts teaching from simple to complex 37 Encourage students‟ participation in group discussion 38 Appropriateness of the location of the college 39 Concludes the lesson in a clear term 40 Creates learning experiences that makes subject matter meaningful for students 41 Understands and uses variety of instructional strategies 42 Has self – control 43 Follows syllabus strictly 44 Revises lectures in terms of evaluation 45 Possesses an audible voice 46 Uses adequate examples during teaching 47 Demands for compulsory attendance at the lectures 48 Designs class activities that stimulate curiosity 49 Presents lecture in a way that facilitate notes taking 50 Uses variety of teaching methods during teaching 51 Discusses current development in the field of study 52 Provides relevant references during teaching 53 Creates learning environment that encourages self motivation. 11 8 54 Follows syllabus strictly 55 Creates learning environment that encourages positive social interactions 56 Fluent in speaking 57 Use of appropriate teaching methods 58 Adequacy of instructional materials to teaching 59 Alert and enthusiastic about teaching the course 60 Dynamic and energetic in conducting the lecture 61 Dedicated to teaching profession 62 Has knowledge of learners and their characteristics 63 Clear explanation of the lecture 64 Encourages students‟ participation during teaching 65 Uses short sentences in explaining terms 66 Prepares course material for the course 67 Appropriate planning of the lesson ahead of time 68 Use of good examples during teaching 69 Has genuine interest in individual student 70 Welcomes students‟ idea and advice 71 Has appropriate method of evaluating students‟ work 72 Dynamic in conducting the lecture 73 Enthusiastic about teaching the course 74 Patient in attending to students‟ need 75 Use of entire time for effective teaching 76 Adequate implementation of the course outline 77 Demonstrates the knowledge of the subject matter 78 Enhances presentation with the use of humor 79 Stimulates thinking skills of students 80 Uses lecture method during presentation 81 Has unique ways of distributing questions to students 82 Encourages students‟ development of critical thinking. 83 Presents the lesson in a clear term 11 9 84 Gives equal opportunity to students during lecture 85 Develops examination questions that are related to the course content 86 Gives exercises during lesson 87 Renders help willingly to students 88 Displays professionalism 89 Gives course assignments that are clear and precise 90 Possesses self discipline 91 Admired by professional colleague 92 Optimistic to assist students 93 A role model in the society 94 Punctual in teaching the course 95 Has self – control 96 Has appropriate method of evaluating students‟ work 97 Has appropriate way of conducting continuous assessment 98 Has appropriate skill in the setting of examination questions 99 Gives exercises during lesson 100 Develops examination questions that are related to the course content 101 Uses illustration during teaching 102 Adequate implementation of the course outline 103 Starts and ends lecture on time 104 Relates well with other colleagues and agencies to support students‟ learning 105 Competent in the field of study 106 Has unique way of facilitating learning 107 Appropriate planning of the lesson ahead of time 108 Has a sense of homour 109 Patience in attending to students‟ need 110 Appreciates students‟ idea 111 Clarifies students‟ questions 112 Has knowledge of educational purpose and values 113 Relates course content to other fields and real life situation 12 0 APPENDIX 2 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN STUDENTS’ EVALUATION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS SCALE (SETES-CE) INTRODUCTION: This scale is developed to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of lecturers teaching various courses in colleges of education. You are required to put a mark ( ) in the appropriate boxes. SECTION A (This section is to be completed by the student) Students‟ Age (As at last birthday) ______________________________________ Sex: Male [ ] Female [ ] School: _____________________________________________ Course of Study: ____________________________________________ Year of Study: Year Two [ ] Year Three [ ] Type of College: Federal [ ] State [ ] Name of the lecturer: _________________________________________________ Title of the Course: _____________________________________________ SECTION B (This section is to be completed by the Researcher) Rank of the Lecturer:___________________________________________________ Gender of the Lecturer:________________________________________________ Age of the Lecturer:___________________________________________________ Year of experience of the Lecturer:________________________________________ Year of Course being taught:_____________________________________________ 12 1 SECTION C (This section is to be completed by the student) INSTRUCTION: Please you are to carefully read through the items in Section C and place a tick( ) on the appropriate column that indicates the teaching effectiveness of the identified lecturer. Thank you so much for your highly valued cooperation. The underlisted are some of the items considered to make the teaching of a lecturer effective. Read through each of the items and think of a good lecturer among those teaching you in this semester and rate that lecturer. The 5 – point scales are as follows: Very Poor (1); Poor (2); Moderate (3); Good (4); Very Good (5) S/N ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 CLASSROOM INTERACTION 1. Adequate time distribution 2. Understands the course material 3. Accepts students‟ opinion. 4. Uses non verbal communication during teaching 5 Communicates appropriately with students 6 Use of entire time for effective teaching 7 Use of appropriate words during teaching 8 Ensures appropriate sitting arrangement during lecture 9 Creates learning experiences that make subject matter meaningful for students 10 Carry students along during teaching 11 Understands and uses of variety of instructional strategies 12 Starts teaching from simple to complex 13 Encourages students‟ participation in group discussion 14 Concludes the lesson in a clear term 15 Uses adequate examples during teaching 16 Designs class activities that stimulate curiosity 17 Presents lecture in a way that facilitates notes taking 18 Uses variety of teaching methods during teaching 19 Discusses current development in the field of study 12 2 20 Provides relevant references during teaching 21 Fluent in speaking 22 Use of appropriate teaching methods 23 Adequacy of instructional materials to teaching 24 Encourages students‟ participation during teaching 25 Uses short sentences in explaining terms 26 Demonstrate the knowledge of the subject matter 27 Enhances presentation with the use of humor 28 Stimulates thinking skills of students 29 Use lecture method during presentation 30 Has unique ways of distributing questions to students 31 Encourages students‟ development of critical thinking. 32 Presents the lesson in a clear term 33 Gives equal opportunity to students during lecture 34 Uses illustration during teaching 35 Adequate implementation of the course outline 36 Starts and ends lecture on time 37 Relates course content to other fields and real life situation 38 Appropriate planning of the lesson ahead of time EVALUATION 1 Fair in award of marks to students 2 Gives adequate feedback to students 3 Gives students assignment 4 Uses variety of assignment/examination to judge performance 5 Gives more extended project to stimulate interest 6 Allows students to brainstorm on questions raised during lesson 7 Releases examination result on time 8 Has appropriate method of evaluating students‟work 9 Has appropriate way of conducting continuous assessment 12 3 10 Has appropriate skill in the setting of examination questions 11 Gives exercises during lesson 12 Develops examination questions that are related to the course content 13 Clarifies students‟ questions PERSONALITY 1 Has unique way of facilitating learning 2 Smart dressing 3 Possesses an audible voice 4 Dedicated to teaching profession 5 Has knowledge of learners and their characteristics 6 Dynamic in conducting the lecture 7 Enthusiastic about teaching the course 8 Patience in attending to students‟ need 9 Possesses self discipline 10 Admired by professional colleagues 11 Optimistic to assist students 12 A role model in the society 13 Punctual in teaching the course 14 Has self – control PREPARATION 1 Considers population of the class 2 Provides adequate lecture materials for the course 3 Creates learning environment that encourages active engagement. 4 Creates learning environment that encourages self motivation. 5 Follows syllabus strictly 6 Creates learning environment that encourages positive social interactions 7 Prepares course material for the course 8 Appropriates planning of the lesson ahead of time 12 4 APPENDIX 3: FACTOR LOADING OF STUDENTS’ EVALUATION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS SCALE a Component Matrix Component 1 2 3 4 item48 .394 -.253 item34 .427 -.261 item83 .467 .233 item81 .537 .238 -.223 item12 .409 -.225 item17 .461 -.224 -.202 item52 .330 item57 .369 item64 .420 item58 .366 item33 .321 item35 .404 -.205 item101 .426 item78 .441 item80 .420 item49 .333 item37 .312 item46 .340 item51 .405 item113 .451 item79 .586 item50 .385 item77 .317 item38 item104 item47 item63 item76 item60 item89 item75 item40 item107 item59 item88 item105 item4 .554 item23 .211 -.274 .266 item98 .478 item65 .486 -.266 .214 item5 .601 -.261 .241 item102 .463 -.258 item97 .444 item3 .389 item84 .454 -.250 item96 .413 12 5 item6 .579 item82 .504 -.241 item100 .475 item2 .378 -.228 item99 .641 item103 .451 -.222 item8 .323 item111 .315 item19 .559 item109 item112 item16 item85 item108 item87 item93 .680 item94 .678 item92 .425 item95 .495 item91 .462 item73 .596 item72 .404 item27 .345 item18 .531 -.203 -.243 item36 .392 -.242 item90 .347 item61 .586 item74 .343 item62 -.210 item45 .369 item26 .586 item71 item28 item20 .604 -.354 item13 .553 -.341 item14 .487 item22 .543 -.204 -.281 item39 .422 -.279 item21 .565 -.226 -.264 item55 -.260 item56 .396 -.254 item32 .368 item53 .420 item54 .390 item15 .343 item24 .359 .220 item66 .661 item67 .442 item68 item30 item29 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 4 components extracted. 12 6 APPENDIX 4 Item-Total Statistics of 113 items Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted item1 458.22 219.071 .091 .720 item2 458.26 217.508 .157 .718 item3 458.27 218.462 .116 .719 item4 458.28 217.986 .135 .718 item5 458.31 217.927 .150 .718 item6 458.28 217.741 .151 .718 item7 458.27 219.305 .079 .720 item8 458.28 217.548 .167 .717 item9 458.24 219.046 .090 .720 item10 458.24 218.960 .093 .719 item11 458.17 218.920 .098 .719 item12 458.26 217.424 .172 .717 item13 458.29 217.264 .169 .717 item14 458.29 218.080 .128 .718 item15 458.23 218.822 .106 .719 item16 458.24 218.793 .105 .719 item17 458.26 217.606 .159 .718 item18 458.26 217.268 .156 .718 item19 458.26 218.652 .117 .719 item20 458.30 217.975 .144 .718 item21 458.30 218.148 .126 .718 item22 458.33 217.658 .145 .718 item23 458.31 217.364 .172 .717 item24 458.25 217.719 .159 .718 item25 458.22 219.917 .053 .721 item26 458.23 218.563 .114 .719 item27 458.19 218.404 .122 .719 item28 458.21 218.694 .110 .719 item29 458.26 218.874 .104 .719 item30 458.23 218.876 .100 .719 item31 458.22 219.389 .079 .720 item32 458.22 218.637 .117 .719 item33 458.27 217.698 .153 .718 item34 458.22 217.059 .173 .717 item35 458.25 217.947 .138 .718 item36 458.32 217.895 .136 .718 item37 458.25 217.882 .136 .718 item38 458.27 217.803 .140 .718 12 7 item39 458.26 217.736 .155 .718 item40 458.27 218.506 .118 .719 item41 458.29 219.235 .087 .720 item42 458.27 219.056 .096 .719 item43 458.25 219.321 .079 .720 item44 458.25 219.113 .091 .719 item45 458.22 218.392 .120 .719 item46 458.25 217.344 .168 .717 item47 458.28 218.011 .139 .718 item48 458.30 216.243 .218 .716 item49 458.32 217.958 .141 .718 item50 458.26 217.841 .147 .718 item51 458.24 217.945 .138 .718 item52 458.29 218.003 .141 .718 item53 458.26 218.654 .107 .719 item54 458.28 218.511 .114 .719 item55 458.27 218.824 .103 .719 item56 458.24 217.591 .158 .718 item57 458.27 217.589 .156 .718 item58 458.32 217.603 .159 .718 item59 458.24 218.829 .104 .719 item60 458.23 218.370 .119 .719 item61 458.25 218.204 .136 .718 item62 458.24 218.309 .124 .719 item63 458.26 218.561 .113 .719 item64 458.30 217.451 .165 .717 item65 458.28 217.797 .145 .718 item66 458.30 218.509 .117 .719 item67 458.26 218.302 .124 .719 item68 458.23 218.708 .112 .719 item69 458.24 218.911 .098 .719 item70 458.21 219.541 .068 .720 item71 458.21 218.044 .136 .718 item72 458.25 217.919 .145 .718 item73 458.28 218.352 .121 .719 item74 458.24 218.274 .123 .719 item75 458.25 218.448 .120 .719 item76 458.23 218.443 .121 .719 item77 458.24 218.372 .126 .718 item78 458.29 217.517 .159 .718 item79 458.24 218.031 .132 .718 item80 458.27 217.894 .142 .718 item81 458.30 217.545 .154 .718 item82 458.28 217.899 .139 .718 12 8 item83 458.31 217.381 .167 .717 item84 458.29 217.760 .150 .718 item85 458.29 218.595 .112 .719 item86 458.28 219.334 .077 .720 item87 458.27 218.833 .101 .719 item88 458.25 218.773 .103 .719 item89 458.27 218.118 .129 .718 item90 458.26 218.369 .123 .719 item91 458.25 218.267 .126 .718 item92 458.32 218.391 .125 .719 item93 458.29 218.218 .122 .719 item94 458.27 218.522 .116 .719 item95 458.23 218.217 .132 .718 item96 458.26 218.351 .123 .719 item97 458.28 218.317 .123 .719 item98 458.27 218.243 .122 .719 item99 458.27 218.522 .118 .719 item100 458.27 218.524 .116 .719 item101 458.25 217.490 .163 .717 item102 458.26 218.484 .116 .719 item103 458.26 218.396 .130 .718 item104 458.23 218.227 .131 .718 item105 458.23 219.402 .077 .720 item106 458.21 217.850 .147 .718 item107 458.23 218.321 .125 .719 item108 458.22 218.943 .099 .719 item109 458.23 218.853 .102 .719 item110 458.24 219.003 .096 .719 item111 458.24 218.576 .112 .719 item112 458.23 218.421 .121 .719 item113 458.28 217.693 .151 .718 12 9 APPENDIX 5 Multiple Comparisons for Years of Experience Preparation Scheffe (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval lecturer,s lecturer,s year of year of Mean Difference (I- exp exp J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 3 -.67000 .39186 .992 -2.4111 1.0711 5 -.30108 .32050 1.000 -1.7251 1.1229 8 .00000 .39186 1.000 -1.7411 1.7411 10 -.81000 .39186 .961 -2.5511 .9311 11 -.35500 .33936 1.000 -1.8629 1.1529 12 -.13500 .33936 1.000 -1.6429 1.3729 16 -.69680 .39488 .989 -2.4513 1.0577 18 .44000 .39186 1.000 -1.3011 2.1811 20 .20708 .39593 1.000 -1.5521 1.9663 25 -.25000 .39186 1.000 -1.9911 1.4911 33 -.33458 .39593 1.000 -2.0938 1.4246 3 2 .67000 .39186 .992 -1.0711 2.4111 5 .36892 .32050 1.000 -1.0551 1.7929 8 .67000 .39186 .992 -1.0711 2.4111 10 -.14000 .39186 1.000 -1.8811 1.6011 11 .31500 .33936 1.000 -1.1929 1.8229 12 .53500 .33936 .996 -.9729 2.0429 16 -.02680 .39488 1.000 -1.7813 1.7277 18 1.11000 .39186 .711 -.6311 2.8511 20 .87708 .39593 .935 -.8821 2.6363 25 .42000 .39186 1.000 -1.3211 2.1611 33 .33542 .39593 1.000 -1.4238 2.0946 5 2 .30108 .32050 1.000 -1.1229 1.7251 3 -.36892 .32050 1.000 -1.7929 1.0551 13 0 8 .30108 .32050 1.000 -1.1229 1.7251 10 -.50892 .32050 .996 -1.9329 .9151 11 -.05392 .25363 1.000 -1.1808 1.0730 12 .16608 .25363 1.000 -.9608 1.2930 16 -.39572 .32418 1.000 -1.8361 1.0447 18 .74108 .32050 .913 -.6829 2.1651 20 .50816 .32545 .996 -.9379 1.9542 25 .05108 .32050 1.000 -1.3729 1.4751 33 -.03350 .32545 1.000 -1.4795 1.4125 8 2 .00000 .39186 1.000 -1.7411 1.7411 3 -.67000 .39186 .992 -2.4111 1.0711 5 -.30108 .32050 1.000 -1.7251 1.1229 10 -.81000 .39186 .961 -2.5511 .9311 11 -.35500 .33936 1.000 -1.8629 1.1529 12 -.13500 .33936 1.000 -1.6429 1.3729 16 -.69680 .39488 .989 -2.4513 1.0577 18 .44000 .39186 1.000 -1.3011 2.1811 20 .20708 .39593 1.000 -1.5521 1.9663 25 -.25000 .39186 1.000 -1.9911 1.4911 33 -.33458 .39593 1.000 -2.0938 1.4246 10 2 .81000 .39186 .961 -.9311 2.5511 3 .14000 .39186 1.000 -1.6011 1.8811 5 .50892 .32050 .996 -.9151 1.9329 8 .81000 .39186 .961 -.9311 2.5511 11 .45500 .33936 .999 -1.0529 1.9629 12 .67500 .33936 .971 -.8329 2.1829 16 .11320 .39488 1.000 -1.6413 1.8677 18 1.25000 .39186 .515 -.4911 2.9911 20 1.01708 .39593 .830 -.7421 2.7763 25 .56000 .39186 .998 -1.1811 2.3011 33 .47542 .39593 1.000 -1.2838 2.2346 11 2 .35500 .33936 1.000 -1.1529 1.8629 13 1 3 -.31500 .33936 1.000 -1.8229 1.1929 5 .05392 .25363 1.000 -1.0730 1.1808 8 .35500 .33936 1.000 -1.1529 1.8629 10 -.45500 .33936 .999 -1.9629 1.0529 12 .22000 .27709 1.000 -1.0112 1.4512 16 -.34180 .34285 1.000 -1.8651 1.1815 18 .79500 .33936 .905 -.7129 2.3029 20 .56208 .34405 .994 -.9666 2.0907 25 .10500 .33936 1.000 -1.4029 1.6129 33 .02042 .34405 1.000 -1.5082 1.5491 12 2 .13500 .33936 1.000 -1.3729 1.6429 3 -.53500 .33936 .996 -2.0429 .9729 5 -.16608 .25363 1.000 -1.2930 .9608 8 .13500 .33936 1.000 -1.3729 1.6429 10 -.67500 .33936 .971 -2.1829 .8329 11 -.22000 .27709 1.000 -1.4512 1.0112 16 -.56180 .34285 .994 -2.0851 .9615 18 .57500 .33936 .992 -.9329 2.0829 20 .34208 .34405 1.000 -1.1866 1.8707 25 -.11500 .33936 1.000 -1.6229 1.3929 33 -.19958 .34405 1.000 -1.7282 1.3291 16 2 .69680 .39488 .989 -1.0577 2.4513 3 .02680 .39488 1.000 -1.7277 1.7813 5 .39572 .32418 1.000 -1.0447 1.8361 8 .69680 .39488 .989 -1.0577 2.4513 10 -.11320 .39488 1.000 -1.8677 1.6413 11 .34180 .34285 1.000 -1.1815 1.8651 12 .56180 .34285 .994 -.9615 2.0851 18 1.13680 .39488 .687 -.6177 2.8913 20 .90389 .39891 .924 -.8686 2.6763 25 .44680 .39488 1.000 -1.3077 2.2013 33 .36222 .39891 1.000 -1.4102 2.1347 13 2 18 2 -.44000 .39186 1.000 -2.1811 1.3011 3 -1.11000 .39186 .711 -2.8511 .6311 5 -.74108 .32050 .913 -2.1651 .6829 8 -.44000 .39186 1.000 -2.1811 1.3011 10 -1.25000 .39186 .515 -2.9911 .4911 11 -.79500 .33936 .905 -2.3029 .7129 12 -.57500 .33936 .992 -2.0829 .9329 16 -1.13680 .39488 .687 -2.8913 .6177 20 -.23292 .39593 1.000 -1.9921 1.5263 25 -.69000 .39186 .989 -2.4311 1.0511 33 -.77458 .39593 .975 -2.5338 .9846 20 2 -.20708 .39593 1.000 -1.9663 1.5521 3 -.87708 .39593 .935 -2.6363 .8821 5 -.50816 .32545 .996 -1.9542 .9379 8 -.20708 .39593 1.000 -1.9663 1.5521 10 -1.01708 .39593 .830 -2.7763 .7421 11 -.56208 .34405 .994 -2.0907 .9666 12 -.34208 .34405 1.000 -1.8707 1.1866 16 -.90389 .39891 .924 -2.6763 .8686 18 .23292 .39593 1.000 -1.5263 1.9921 25 -.45708 .39593 1.000 -2.2163 1.3021 33 -.54167 .39994 .999 -2.3187 1.2354 25 2 .25000 .39186 1.000 -1.4911 1.9911 3 -.42000 .39186 1.000 -2.1611 1.3211 5 -.05108 .32050 1.000 -1.4751 1.3729 8 .25000 .39186 1.000 -1.4911 1.9911 10 -.56000 .39186 .998 -2.3011 1.1811 11 -.10500 .33936 1.000 -1.6129 1.4029 12 .11500 .33936 1.000 -1.3929 1.6229 16 -.44680 .39488 1.000 -2.2013 1.3077 18 .69000 .39186 .989 -1.0511 2.4311 20 .45708 .39593 1.000 -1.3021 2.2163 13 3 33 -.08458 .39593 1.000 -1.8438 1.6746 33 2 .33458 .39593 1.000 -1.4246 2.0938 3 -.33542 .39593 1.000 -2.0946 1.4238 5 .03350 .32545 1.000 -1.4125 1.4795 8 .33458 .39593 1.000 -1.4246 2.0938 10 -.47542 .39593 1.000 -2.2346 1.2838 11 -.02042 .34405 1.000 -1.5491 1.5082 12 .19958 .34405 1.000 -1.3291 1.7282 16 -.36222 .39891 1.000 -2.1347 1.4102 18 .77458 .39593 .975 -.9846 2.5338 20 .54167 .39994 .999 -1.2354 2.3187 25 .08458 .39593 1.000 -1.6746 1.8438 13 4 APPENDIX 6 MULTIPLE COMPARISM OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS COMPONENT BASED ON STUDENTS‟ AGE Scheffe 95% Confidence Interval (I) (J) students students Lower Dependent Variable age age Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Upper Bound Classroom Interaction 15 16 6.66346 3.92410 .996 -11.3614 24.6884 17 1.90000 3.88789 1.000 -15.9586 19.7586 18 2.55172 3.84600 1.000 -15.1144 20.2179 19 2.65517 3.84600 1.000 -15.0110 20.3213 20 3.08088 3.83656 1.000 -14.5419 20.7037 21 3.65984 3.84285 1.000 -13.9918 21.3115 22 3.17262 3.87034 1.000 -14.6054 20.9506 23 5.30405 3.88221 1.000 -12.5284 23.1365 24 4.80556 4.18045 1.000 -14.3968 24.0080 25 -6.00000 6.54950 1.000 -36.0844 24.0844 26 -4.25000 6.54950 1.000 -34.3344 25.8344 30 1.75000 5.34765 1.000 -22.8138 26.3138 16 15 -6.66346 3.92410 .996 -24.6884 11.3614 17 -4.76346 1.38454 .459 -11.1232 1.5963 18 -4.11174 1.26212 .563 -9.9092 1.6857 19 -4.00829 1.26212 .608 -9.8057 1.7891 20 -3.58258 1.23306 .749 -9.2465 2.0814 21 -3.00363 1.25248 .928 -8.7567 2.7495 22 -3.49084 1.33446 .867 -9.6205 2.6388 23 -1.35941 1.36850 1.000 -7.6455 4.9266 24 -1.85791 2.06818 1.000 -11.3579 7.6420 25 -12.66346 5.44952 .943 -37.6952 12.3683 26 -10.91346 5.44952 .983 -35.9452 14.1183 30 -4.91346 3.92410 1.000 -22.9384 13.1114 17 15 -1.90000 3.88789 1.000 -19.7586 15.9586 16 4.76346 1.38454 .459 -1.5963 11.1232 18 .65172 1.14461 1.000 -4.6059 5.9093 13 5 19 .75517 1.14461 1.000 -4.5024 6.0128 20 1.18088 1.11248 1.000 -3.9292 6.2909 21 1.75984 1.13396 .998 -3.4489 6.9686 22 1.27262 1.22391 1.000 -4.3493 6.8945 23 3.40405 1.26094 .838 -2.3879 9.1960 24 2.90556 1.99864 .999 -6.2749 12.0861 25 -7.90000 5.42350 .999 -32.8122 17.0122 26 -6.15000 5.42350 1.000 -31.0622 18.7622 30 -.15000 3.88789 1.000 -18.0086 17.7086 18 15 -2.55172 3.84600 1.000 -20.2179 15.1144 16 4.11174 1.26212 .563 -1.6857 9.9092 17 -.65172 1.14461 1.000 -5.9093 4.6059 19 .10345 .99303 1.000 -4.4579 4.6648 20 .52916 .95583 1.000 -3.8613 4.9196 21 1.10811 .98075 1.000 -3.3968 5.6131 22 .62089 1.08349 1.000 -4.3560 5.5978 23 2.75233 1.12515 .917 -2.4159 7.9206 24 2.25383 1.91586 1.000 -6.5465 11.0541 25 -8.55172 5.39355 .998 -33.3264 16.2229 26 -6.80172 5.39355 1.000 -31.5764 17.9729 30 -.80172 3.84600 1.000 -18.4679 16.8644 19 15 -2.65517 3.84600 1.000 -20.3213 15.0110 16 4.00829 1.26212 .608 -1.7891 9.8057 17 -.75517 1.14461 1.000 -6.0128 4.5024 18 -.10345 .99303 1.000 -4.6648 4.4579 20 .42571 .95583 1.000 -3.9648 4.8162 21 1.00466 .98075 1.000 -3.5003 5.5096 22 .51745 1.08349 1.000 -4.4594 5.4943 23 2.64888 1.12515 .937 -2.5194 7.8171 24 2.15038 1.91586 1.000 -6.6499 10.9507 25 -8.65517 5.39355 .998 -33.4298 16.1195 26 -6.90517 5.39355 1.000 -31.6798 17.8695 30 -.90517 3.84600 1.000 -18.5713 16.7610 20 15 -3.08088 3.83656 1.000 -20.7037 14.5419 13 6 16 3.58258 1.23306 .749 -2.0814 9.2465 17 -1.18088 1.11248 1.000 -6.2909 3.9292 18 -.52916 .95583 1.000 -4.9196 3.8613 19 -.42571 .95583 1.000 -4.8162 3.9648 21 .57895 .94306 1.000 -3.7529 4.9108 22 .09174 1.04949 1.000 -4.7290 4.9125 23 2.22317 1.09245 .981 -2.7949 7.2412 24 1.72467 1.89685 1.000 -6.9883 10.4376 25 -9.08088 5.38682 .997 -33.8246 15.6629 26 -7.33088 5.38682 1.000 -32.0746 17.4129 30 -1.33088 3.83656 1.000 -18.9537 16.2919 21 15 -3.65984 3.84285 1.000 -21.3115 13.9918 16 3.00363 1.25248 .928 -2.7495 8.7567 17 -1.75984 1.13396 .998 -6.9686 3.4489 18 -1.10811 .98075 1.000 -5.6131 3.3968 19 -1.00466 .98075 1.000 -5.5096 3.5003 20 -.57895 .94306 1.000 -4.9108 3.7529 22 -.48722 1.07224 1.000 -5.4124 4.4380 23 1.64422 1.11432 .999 -3.4743 6.7627 24 1.14572 1.90953 1.000 -7.6255 9.9169 25 -9.65984 5.39130 .994 -34.4242 15.1045 26 -7.90984 5.39130 .999 -32.6742 16.8545 30 -1.90984 3.84285 1.000 -19.5615 15.7418 22 15 -3.17262 3.87034 1.000 -20.9506 14.6054 16 3.49084 1.33446 .867 -2.6388 9.6205 17 -1.27262 1.22391 1.000 -6.8945 4.3493 18 -.62089 1.08349 1.000 -5.5978 4.3560 19 -.51745 1.08349 1.000 -5.4943 4.4594 20 -.09174 1.04949 1.000 -4.9125 4.7290 21 .48722 1.07224 1.000 -4.4380 5.4124 23 2.13144 1.20573 .995 -3.4070 7.6698 24 1.63294 1.96427 1.000 -7.3897 10.6556 25 -9.17262 5.41093 .996 -34.0271 15.6819 26 -7.42262 5.41093 1.000 -32.2771 17.4319 13 7 30 -1.42262 3.87034 1.000 -19.2006 16.3554 23 15 -5.30405 3.88221 1.000 -23.1365 12.5284 16 1.35941 1.36850 1.000 -4.9266 7.6455 17 -3.40405 1.26094 .838 -9.1960 2.3879 18 -2.75233 1.12515 .917 -7.9206 2.4159 19 -2.64888 1.12515 .937 -7.8171 2.5194 20 -2.22317 1.09245 .981 -7.2412 2.7949 21 -1.64422 1.11432 .999 -6.7627 3.4743 22 -2.13144 1.20573 .995 -7.6698 3.4070 24 -.49850 1.98756 1.000 -9.6281 8.6311 25 -11.30405 5.41943 .976 -36.1976 13.5895 26 -9.55405 5.41943 .995 -34.4476 15.3395 30 -3.55405 3.88221 1.000 -21.3865 14.2784 24 15 -4.80556 4.18045 1.000 -24.0080 14.3968 16 1.85791 2.06818 1.000 -7.6420 11.3579 17 -2.90556 1.99864 .999 -12.0861 6.2749 18 -2.25383 1.91586 1.000 -11.0541 6.5465 19 -2.15038 1.91586 1.000 -10.9507 6.6499 20 -1.72467 1.89685 1.000 -10.4376 6.9883 21 -1.14572 1.90953 1.000 -9.9169 7.6255 22 -1.63294 1.96427 1.000 -10.6556 7.3897 23 .49850 1.98756 1.000 -8.6311 9.6281 25 -10.80556 5.63691 .989 -36.6981 15.0870 26 -9.05556 5.63691 .998 -34.9481 16.8370 30 -3.05556 4.18045 1.000 -22.2580 16.1468 25 15 6.00000 6.54950 1.000 -24.0844 36.0844 16 12.66346 5.44952 .943 -12.3683 37.6952 17 7.90000 5.42350 .999 -17.0122 32.8122 18 8.55172 5.39355 .998 -16.2229 33.3264 19 8.65517 5.39355 .998 -16.1195 33.4298 20 9.08088 5.38682 .997 -15.6629 33.8246 21 9.65984 5.39130 .994 -15.1045 34.4242 22 9.17262 5.41093 .996 -15.6819 34.0271 23 11.30405 5.41943 .976 -13.5895 36.1976 13 8 24 10.80556 5.63691 .989 -15.0870 36.6981 26 1.75000 7.56271 1.000 -32.9885 36.4885 30 7.75000 6.54950 1.000 -22.3344 37.8344 26 15 4.25000 6.54950 1.000 -25.8344 34.3344 16 10.91346 5.44952 .983 -14.1183 35.9452 17 6.15000 5.42350 1.000 -18.7622 31.0622 18 6.80172 5.39355 1.000 -17.9729 31.5764 19 6.90517 5.39355 1.000 -17.8695 31.6798 20 7.33088 5.38682 1.000 -17.4129 32.0746 21 7.90984 5.39130 .999 -16.8545 32.6742 22 7.42262 5.41093 1.000 -17.4319 32.2771 23 9.55405 5.41943 .995 -15.3395 34.4476 24 9.05556 5.63691 .998 -16.8370 34.9481 25 -1.75000 7.56271 1.000 -36.4885 32.9885 30 6.00000 6.54950 1.000 -24.0844 36.0844 30 15 -1.75000 5.34765 1.000 -26.3138 22.8138 16 4.91346 3.92410 1.000 -13.1114 22.9384 17 .15000 3.88789 1.000 -17.7086 18.0086 18 .80172 3.84600 1.000 -16.8644 18.4679 19 .90517 3.84600 1.000 -16.7610 18.5713 20 1.33088 3.83656 1.000 -16.2919 18.9537 21 1.90984 3.84285 1.000 -15.7418 19.5615 22 1.42262 3.87034 1.000 -16.3554 19.2006 23 3.55405 3.88221 1.000 -14.2784 21.3865 24 3.05556 4.18045 1.000 -16.1468 22.2580 25 -7.75000 6.54950 1.000 -37.8344 22.3344 26 -6.00000 6.54950 1.000 -36.0844 24.0844 Evaluation 15 16 1.20500 1.41800 1.000 -5.3085 7.7185 17 -.11786 1.40291 1.000 -6.5620 6.3263 18 .81897 1.38779 1.000 -5.5558 7.1937 19 .43534 1.38779 1.000 -5.9394 6.8101 20 1.13235 1.38439 1.000 -5.2267 7.4915 21 .43932 1.38693 1.000 -5.9315 6.8101 22 .95238 1.39658 1.000 -5.4627 7.3675 13 9 23 1.28472 1.40186 1.000 -5.1546 7.7241 24 .04167 1.50848 1.000 -6.8874 6.9708 25 -1.37500 2.36333 1.000 -12.2308 9.4808 26 2.87500 2.36333 1.000 -7.9808 13.7308 30 .87500 1.92965 1.000 -7.9887 9.7387 16 15 -1.20500 1.41800 1.000 -7.7185 5.3085 17 -1.32286 .50530 .867 -3.6439 .9982 18 -.38603 .46167 1.000 -2.5067 1.7346 19 -.76966 .46167 .997 -2.8903 1.3510 20 -.07265 .45133 1.000 -2.1458 2.0005 21 -.76568 .45907 .997 -2.8744 1.3430 22 -.25262 .48744 1.000 -2.4916 1.9864 23 .07972 .50237 1.000 -2.2279 2.3873 24 -1.16333 .75011 .998 -4.6089 2.2823 25 -2.58000 1.96786 1.000 -11.6193 6.4593 26 1.67000 1.96786 1.000 -7.3693 10.7093 30 -.33000 1.41800 1.000 -6.8435 6.1835 17 15 .11786 1.40291 1.000 -6.3263 6.5620 16 1.32286 .50530 .867 -.9982 3.6439 18 .93682 .41302 .953 -.9604 2.8340 19 .55320 .41302 1.000 -1.3440 2.4504 20 1.25021 .40143 .642 -.5937 3.0941 21 .55717 .41011 1.000 -1.3266 2.4410 22 1.07024 .44164 .922 -.9584 3.0989 23 1.40258 .45806 .670 -.7015 3.5066 24 .15952 .72119 1.000 -3.1532 3.4723 25 -1.25714 1.95702 1.000 -10.2466 7.7323 26 2.99286 1.95702 .999 -5.9966 11.9823 30 .99286 1.40291 1.000 -5.4513 7.4370 18 15 -.81897 1.38779 1.000 -7.1937 5.5558 16 .38603 .46167 1.000 -1.7346 2.5067 17 -.93682 .41302 .953 -2.8340 .9604 19 -.38362 .35833 1.000 -2.0296 1.2623 20 .31339 .34490 1.000 -1.2709 1.8977 21 -.37965 .35497 1.000 -2.0102 1.2509 14 0 22 .13342 .39097 1.000 -1.6625 1.9293 23 .46576 .40943 1.000 -1.4149 2.3464 24 -.77730 .69132 1.000 -3.9528 2.3982 25 -2.19397 1.94621 1.000 -11.1338 6.7458 26 2.05603 1.94621 1.000 -6.8838 10.9958 30 .05603 1.38779 1.000 -6.3187 6.4308 19 15 -.43534 1.38779 1.000 -6.8101 5.9394 16 .76966 .46167 .997 -1.3510 2.8903 17 -.55320 .41302 1.000 -2.4504 1.3440 18 .38362 .35833 1.000 -1.2623 2.0296 20 .69701 .34490 .982 -.8873 2.2813 21 .00397 .35497 1.000 -1.6265 1.6345 22 .51704 .39097 1.000 -1.2788 2.3129 23 .84938 .40943 .977 -1.0313 2.7301 24 -.39368 .69132 1.000 -3.5692 2.7819 25 -1.81034 1.94621 1.000 -10.7502 7.1295 26 2.43966 1.94621 1.000 -6.5002 11.3795 30 .43966 1.38779 1.000 -5.9351 6.8144 20 15 -1.13235 1.38439 1.000 -7.4915 5.2267 16 .07265 .45133 1.000 -2.0005 2.1458 17 -1.25021 .40143 .642 -3.0941 .5937 18 -.31339 .34490 1.000 -1.8977 1.2709 19 -.69701 .34490 .982 -2.2813 .8873 21 -.69304 .34141 .981 -2.2613 .8752 22 -.17997 .37870 1.000 -1.9195 1.5596 23 .15237 .39773 1.000 -1.6746 1.9793 24 -1.09069 .68446 .998 -4.2347 2.0533 25 -2.50735 1.94379 1.000 -11.4360 6.4213 26 1.74265 1.94379 1.000 -7.1860 10.6713 30 -.25735 1.38439 1.000 -6.6165 6.1017 21 15 -.43932 1.38693 1.000 -6.8101 5.9315 16 .76568 .45907 .997 -1.3430 2.8744 17 -.55717 .41011 1.000 -2.4410 1.3266 18 .37965 .35497 1.000 -1.2509 2.0102 19 -.00397 .35497 1.000 -1.6345 1.6265 14 1 20 .69304 .34141 .981 -.8752 2.2613 22 .51307 .38789 1.000 -1.2687 2.2948 23 .84541 .40649 .977 -1.0218 2.7126 24 -.39765 .68959 1.000 -3.5652 2.7699 25 -1.81432 1.94560 1.000 -10.7513 7.1227 26 2.43568 1.94560 1.000 -6.5013 11.3727 30 .43568 1.38693 1.000 -5.9351 6.8065 22 15 -.95238 1.39658 1.000 -7.3675 5.4627 16 .25262 .48744 1.000 -1.9864 2.4916 17 -1.07024 .44164 .922 -3.0989 .9584 18 -.13342 .39097 1.000 -1.9293 1.6625 19 -.51704 .39097 1.000 -2.3129 1.2788 20 .17997 .37870 1.000 -1.5596 1.9195 21 -.51307 .38789 1.000 -2.2948 1.2687 23 .33234 .43828 1.000 -1.6809 2.3455 24 -.91071 .70879 1.000 -4.1665 2.3451 25 -2.32738 1.95249 1.000 -11.2960 6.6412 26 1.92262 1.95249 1.000 -7.0460 10.8912 30 -.07738 1.39658 1.000 -6.4925 6.3377 23 15 -1.28472 1.40186 1.000 -7.7241 5.1546 16 -.07972 .50237 1.000 -2.3873 2.2279 17 -1.40258 .45806 .670 -3.5066 .7015 18 -.46576 .40943 1.000 -2.3464 1.4149 19 -.84938 .40943 .977 -2.7301 1.0313 20 -.15237 .39773 1.000 -1.9793 1.6746 21 -.84541 .40649 .977 -2.7126 1.0218 22 -.33234 .43828 1.000 -2.3455 1.6809 24 -1.24306 .71914 .996 -4.5464 2.0603 25 -2.65972 1.95627 1.000 -11.6457 6.3263 26 1.59028 1.95627 1.000 -7.3957 10.5763 30 -.40972 1.40186 1.000 -6.8491 6.0296 24 15 -.04167 1.50848 1.000 -6.9708 6.8874 16 1.16333 .75011 .998 -2.2823 4.6089 17 -.15952 .72119 1.000 -3.4723 3.1532 18 .77730 .69132 1.000 -2.3982 3.9528 14 2 19 .39368 .69132 1.000 -2.7819 3.5692 20 1.09069 .68446 .998 -2.0533 4.2347 21 .39765 .68959 1.000 -2.7699 3.5652 22 .91071 .70879 1.000 -2.3451 4.1665 23 1.24306 .71914 .996 -2.0603 4.5464 25 -1.41667 2.03403 1.000 -10.7599 7.9265 26 2.83333 2.03403 .999 -6.5099 12.1765 30 .83333 1.50848 1.000 -6.0958 7.7624 25 15 1.37500 2.36333 1.000 -9.4808 12.2308 16 2.58000 1.96786 1.000 -6.4593 11.6193 17 1.25714 1.95702 1.000 -7.7323 10.2466 18 2.19397 1.94621 1.000 -6.7458 11.1338 19 1.81034 1.94621 1.000 -7.1295 10.7502 20 2.50735 1.94379 1.000 -6.4213 11.4360 21 1.81432 1.94560 1.000 -7.1227 10.7513 22 2.32738 1.95249 1.000 -6.6412 11.2960 23 2.65972 1.95627 1.000 -6.3263 11.6457 24 1.41667 2.03403 1.000 -7.9265 10.7599 26 4.25000 2.72893 .998 -8.2852 16.7852 30 2.25000 2.36333 1.000 -8.6058 13.1058 26 15 -2.87500 2.36333 1.000 -13.7308 7.9808 16 -1.67000 1.96786 1.000 -10.7093 7.3693 17 -2.99286 1.95702 .999 -11.9823 5.9966 18 -2.05603 1.94621 1.000 -10.9958 6.8838 19 -2.43966 1.94621 1.000 -11.3795 6.5002 20 -1.74265 1.94379 1.000 -10.6713 7.1860 21 -2.43568 1.94560 1.000 -11.3727 6.5013 22 -1.92262 1.95249 1.000 -10.8912 7.0460 23 -1.59028 1.95627 1.000 -10.5763 7.3957 24 -2.83333 2.03403 .999 -12.1765 6.5099 25 -4.25000 2.72893 .998 -16.7852 8.2852 30 -2.00000 2.36333 1.000 -12.8558 8.8558 30 15 -.87500 1.92965 1.000 -9.7387 7.9887 16 .33000 1.41800 1.000 -6.1835 6.8435 17 -.99286 1.40291 1.000 -7.4370 5.4513 14 3 18 -.05603 1.38779 1.000 -6.4308 6.3187 19 -.43966 1.38779 1.000 -6.8144 5.9351 20 .25735 1.38439 1.000 -6.1017 6.6165 21 -.43568 1.38693 1.000 -6.8065 5.9351 22 .07738 1.39658 1.000 -6.3377 6.4925 23 .40972 1.40186 1.000 -6.0296 6.8491 24 -.83333 1.50848 1.000 -7.7624 6.0958 25 -2.25000 2.36333 1.000 -13.1058 8.6058 26 2.00000 2.36333 1.000 -8.8558 12.8558 Personality 15 16 2.84000 1.39840 .981 -3.5835 9.2635 17 2.12143 1.38352 .999 -4.2337 8.4766 18 1.83190 1.36861 1.000 -4.4548 8.1186 19 1.74138 1.36861 1.000 -4.5453 8.0280 20 2.18750 1.36525 .998 -4.0837 8.4587 21 1.78750 1.36785 1.000 -4.4957 8.0707 22 2.40303 1.37784 .995 -3.9260 8.7321 23 2.26389 1.38248 .997 -4.0865 8.6143 24 1.66667 1.48762 1.000 -5.1667 8.5000 25 -.50000 2.33066 1.000 -11.2058 10.2058 26 .00000 2.33066 1.000 -10.7058 10.7058 30 3.25000 1.90298 .996 -5.4912 11.9912 16 15 -2.84000 1.39840 .981 -9.2635 3.5835 17 -.71857 .49832 .999 -3.0076 1.5704 18 -1.00810 .45529 .961 -3.0995 1.0833 19 -1.09862 .45529 .924 -3.1900 .9927 20 -.65250 .44509 .999 -2.6970 1.3920 21 -1.05250 .45300 .943 -3.1333 1.0283 22 -.43697 .48233 1.000 -2.6525 1.7786 23 -.57611 .49542 1.000 -2.8518 1.6996 24 -1.17333 .73974 .998 -4.5713 2.2247 25 -3.34000 1.94066 .996 -12.2544 5.5744 26 -2.84000 1.94066 .999 -11.7544 6.0744 30 .41000 1.39840 1.000 -6.0135 6.8335 17 15 -2.12143 1.38352 .999 -8.4766 4.2337 16 .71857 .49832 .999 -1.5704 3.0076 14 4 18 -.28953 .40731 1.000 -2.1605 1.5814 19 -.38005 .40731 1.000 -2.2510 1.4909 20 .06607 .39588 1.000 -1.7524 1.8845 21 -.33393 .40475 1.000 -2.1931 1.5253 22 .28160 .43733 1.000 -1.7272 2.2904 23 .14246 .45173 1.000 -1.9325 2.2175 24 -.45476 .71122 1.000 -3.7217 2.8122 25 -2.62143 1.92997 1.000 -11.4867 6.2438 26 -2.12143 1.92997 1.000 -10.9867 6.7438 30 1.12857 1.38352 1.000 -5.2266 7.4837 18 15 -1.83190 1.36861 1.000 -8.1186 4.4548 16 1.00810 .45529 .961 -1.0833 3.0995 17 .28953 .40731 1.000 -1.5814 2.1605 19 -.09052 .35337 1.000 -1.7137 1.5327 20 .35560 .34013 1.000 -1.2068 1.9180 21 -.04440 .35042 1.000 -1.6540 1.5652 22 .57113 .38759 .999 -1.2092 2.3515 23 .43199 .40377 1.000 -1.4227 2.2867 24 -.16523 .68177 1.000 -3.2969 2.9664 25 -2.33190 1.91931 1.000 -11.1482 6.4844 26 -1.83190 1.91931 1.000 -10.6482 6.9844 30 1.41810 1.36861 1.000 -4.8686 7.7048 19 15 -1.74138 1.36861 1.000 -8.0280 4.5453 16 1.09862 .45529 .924 -.9927 3.1900 17 .38005 .40731 1.000 -1.4909 2.2510 18 .09052 .35337 1.000 -1.5327 1.7137 20 .44612 .34013 1.000 -1.1163 2.0085 21 .04612 .35042 1.000 -1.5635 1.6557 22 .66165 .38759 .996 -1.1187 2.4420 23 .52251 .40377 1.000 -1.3322 2.3772 24 -.07471 .68177 1.000 -3.2064 3.0570 25 -2.24138 1.91931 1.000 -11.0577 6.5749 26 -1.74138 1.91931 1.000 -10.5577 7.0749 30 1.50862 1.36861 1.000 -4.7780 7.7953 20 15 -2.18750 1.36525 .998 -8.4587 4.0837 14 5 16 .65250 .44509 .999 -1.3920 2.6970 17 -.06607 .39588 1.000 -1.8845 1.7524 18 -.35560 .34013 1.000 -1.9180 1.2068 19 -.44612 .34013 1.000 -2.0085 1.1163 21 -.40000 .33706 1.000 -1.9483 1.1483 22 .21553 .37556 1.000 -1.5096 1.9406 23 .07639 .39223 1.000 -1.7253 1.8781 24 -.52083 .67500 1.000 -3.6214 2.5797 25 -2.68750 1.91692 .999 -11.4928 6.1178 26 -2.18750 1.91692 1.000 -10.9928 6.6178 30 1.06250 1.36525 1.000 -5.2087 7.3337 21 15 -1.78750 1.36785 1.000 -8.0707 4.4957 16 1.05250 .45300 .943 -1.0283 3.1333 17 .33393 .40475 1.000 -1.5253 2.1931 18 .04440 .35042 1.000 -1.5652 1.6540 19 -.04612 .35042 1.000 -1.6557 1.5635 20 .40000 .33706 1.000 -1.1483 1.9483 22 .61553 .38490 .998 -1.1525 2.3835 23 .47639 .40118 1.000 -1.3664 2.3192 24 -.12083 .68024 1.000 -3.2455 3.0038 25 -2.28750 1.91877 1.000 -11.1013 6.5263 26 -1.78750 1.91877 1.000 -10.6013 7.0263 30 1.46250 1.36785 1.000 -4.8207 7.7457 22 15 -2.40303 1.37784 .995 -8.7321 3.9260 16 .43697 .48233 1.000 -1.7786 2.6525 17 -.28160 .43733 1.000 -2.2904 1.7272 18 -.57113 .38759 .999 -2.3515 1.2092 19 -.66165 .38759 .996 -2.4420 1.1187 20 -.21553 .37556 1.000 -1.9406 1.5096 21 -.61553 .38490 .998 -2.3835 1.1525 23 -.13914 .43403 1.000 -2.1328 1.8546 24 -.73636 .70011 1.000 -3.9523 2.4796 25 -2.90303 1.92590 .999 -11.7496 5.9435 26 -2.40303 1.92590 1.000 -11.2496 6.4435 30 .84697 1.37784 1.000 -5.4821 7.1760 14 6 23 15 -2.26389 1.38248 .997 -8.6143 4.0865 16 .57611 .49542 1.000 -1.6996 2.8518 17 -.14246 .45173 1.000 -2.2175 1.9325 18 -.43199 .40377 1.000 -2.2867 1.4227 19 -.52251 .40377 1.000 -2.3772 1.3322 20 -.07639 .39223 1.000 -1.8781 1.7253 21 -.47639 .40118 1.000 -2.3192 1.3664 22 .13914 .43403 1.000 -1.8546 2.1328 24 -.59722 .70920 1.000 -3.8549 2.6604 25 -2.76389 1.92922 .999 -11.6257 6.0979 26 -2.26389 1.92922 1.000 -11.1257 6.5979 30 .98611 1.38248 1.000 -5.3643 7.3365 24 15 -1.66667 1.48762 1.000 -8.5000 5.1667 16 1.17333 .73974 .998 -2.2247 4.5713 17 .45476 .71122 1.000 -2.8122 3.7217 18 .16523 .68177 1.000 -2.9664 3.2969 19 .07471 .68177 1.000 -3.0570 3.2064 20 .52083 .67500 1.000 -2.5797 3.6214 21 .12083 .68024 1.000 -3.0038 3.2455 22 .73636 .70011 1.000 -2.4796 3.9523 23 .59722 .70920 1.000 -2.6604 3.8549 25 -2.16667 2.00591 1.000 -11.3807 7.0474 26 -1.66667 2.00591 1.000 -10.8807 7.5474 30 1.58333 1.48762 1.000 -5.2500 8.4167 25 15 .50000 2.33066 1.000 -10.2058 11.2058 16 3.34000 1.94066 .996 -5.5744 12.2544 17 2.62143 1.92997 1.000 -6.2438 11.4867 18 2.33190 1.91931 1.000 -6.4844 11.1482 19 2.24138 1.91931 1.000 -6.5749 11.0577 20 2.68750 1.91692 .999 -6.1178 11.4928 21 2.28750 1.91877 1.000 -6.5263 11.1013 22 2.90303 1.92590 .999 -5.9435 11.7496 23 2.76389 1.92922 .999 -6.0979 11.6257 24 2.16667 2.00591 1.000 -7.0474 11.3807 26 .50000 2.69121 1.000 -11.8620 12.8620 14 7 30 3.75000 2.33066 .998 -6.9558 14.4558 26 15 .00000 2.33066 1.000 -10.7058 10.7058 16 2.84000 1.94066 .999 -6.0744 11.7544 17 2.12143 1.92997 1.000 -6.7438 10.9867 18 1.83190 1.91931 1.000 -6.9844 10.6482 19 1.74138 1.91931 1.000 -7.0749 10.5577 20 2.18750 1.91692 1.000 -6.6178 10.9928 21 1.78750 1.91877 1.000 -7.0263 10.6013 22 2.40303 1.92590 1.000 -6.4435 11.2496 23 2.26389 1.92922 1.000 -6.5979 11.1257 24 1.66667 2.00591 1.000 -7.5474 10.8807 25 -.50000 2.69121 1.000 -12.8620 11.8620 30 3.25000 2.33066 .999 -7.4558 13.9558 30 15 -3.25000 1.90298 .996 -11.9912 5.4912 16 -.41000 1.39840 1.000 -6.8335 6.0135 17 -1.12857 1.38352 1.000 -7.4837 5.2266 18 -1.41810 1.36861 1.000 -7.7048 4.8686 19 -1.50862 1.36861 1.000 -7.7953 4.7780 20 -1.06250 1.36525 1.000 -7.3337 5.2087 21 -1.46250 1.36785 1.000 -7.7457 4.8207 22 -.84697 1.37784 1.000 -7.1760 5.4821 23 -.98611 1.38248 1.000 -7.3365 5.3643 24 -1.58333 1.48762 1.000 -8.4167 5.2500 25 -3.75000 2.33066 .998 -14.4558 6.9558 26 -3.25000 2.33066 .999 -13.9558 7.4558 Preparation 15 16 .81000 1.02161 1.000 -3.8827 5.5027 17 .72143 1.01074 1.000 -3.9214 5.3642 18 .47845 .99985 1.000 -4.1143 5.0712 19 .24138 .99985 1.000 -4.3514 4.8341 20 .31985 .99739 1.000 -4.2616 4.9013 21 .44167 .99929 1.000 -4.1485 5.0319 22 .77121 1.00659 1.000 -3.8525 5.3949 23 .47917 1.00998 1.000 -4.1601 5.1185 24 .47222 1.08679 1.000 -4.5199 5.4644 25 -.75000 1.70268 1.000 -8.5712 7.0712 14 8 26 .25000 1.70268 1.000 -7.5712 8.0712 30 -1.00000 1.39023 1.000 -7.3860 5.3860 16 15 -.81000 1.02161 1.000 -5.5027 3.8827 17 -.08857 .36405 1.000 -1.7608 1.5837 18 -.33155 .33262 1.000 -1.8594 1.1963 19 -.56862 .33262 .996 -2.0965 .9592 20 -.49015 .32517 .999 -1.9838 1.0035 21 -.36833 .33094 1.000 -1.8885 1.1518 22 -.03879 .35237 1.000 -1.6574 1.5798 23 -.33083 .36194 1.000 -1.9934 1.3317 24 -.33778 .54042 1.000 -2.8202 2.1446 25 -1.56000 1.41776 1.000 -8.0724 4.9524 26 -.56000 1.41776 1.000 -7.0724 5.9524 30 -1.81000 1.02161 .994 -6.5027 2.8827 17 15 -.72143 1.01074 1.000 -5.3642 3.9214 16 .08857 .36405 1.000 -1.5837 1.7608 18 -.24298 .29756 1.000 -1.6098 1.1239 19 -.48005 .29756 .998 -1.8469 .8868 20 -.40158 .28921 1.000 -1.7301 .9269 21 -.27976 .29569 1.000 -1.6380 1.0785 22 .04978 .31949 1.000 -1.4178 1.5174 23 -.24226 .33001 1.000 -1.7582 1.2736 24 -.24921 .51959 1.000 -2.6359 2.1375 25 -1.47143 1.40995 1.000 -7.9480 5.0051 26 -.47143 1.40995 1.000 -6.9480 6.0051 30 -1.72143 1.01074 .996 -6.3642 2.9214 18 15 -.47845 .99985 1.000 -5.0712 4.1143 16 .33155 .33262 1.000 -1.1963 1.8594 17 .24298 .29756 1.000 -1.1239 1.6098 19 -.23707 .25816 1.000 -1.4229 .9488 20 -.15860 .24849 1.000 -1.3000 .9828 21 -.03678 .25600 1.000 -1.2127 1.1391 22 .29276 .28316 1.000 -1.0079 1.5934 23 .00072 .29498 1.000 -1.3542 1.3557 24 -.00623 .49807 1.000 -2.2941 2.2816 14 9 25 -1.22845 1.40217 1.000 -7.6692 5.2123 26 -.22845 1.40217 1.000 -6.6692 6.2123 30 -1.47845 .99985 .999 -6.0712 3.1143 19 15 -.24138 .99985 1.000 -4.8341 4.3514 16 .56862 .33262 .996 -.9592 2.0965 17 .48005 .29756 .998 -.8868 1.8469 18 .23707 .25816 1.000 -.9488 1.4229 20 .07847 .24849 1.000 -1.0629 1.2199 21 .20029 .25600 1.000 -.9756 1.3762 22 .52983 .28316 .991 -.7708 1.8305 23 .23779 .29498 1.000 -1.1172 1.5927 24 .23084 .49807 1.000 -2.0570 2.5187 25 -.99138 1.40217 1.000 -7.4322 5.4494 26 .00862 1.40217 1.000 -6.4322 6.4494 30 -1.24138 .99985 1.000 -5.8341 3.3514 20 15 -.31985 .99739 1.000 -4.9013 4.2616 16 .49015 .32517 .999 -1.0035 1.9838 17 .40158 .28921 1.000 -.9269 1.7301 18 .15860 .24849 1.000 -.9828 1.3000 19 -.07847 .24849 1.000 -1.2199 1.0629 21 .12181 .24624 1.000 -1.0093 1.2529 22 .45136 .27437 .997 -.8089 1.7117 23 .15931 .28655 1.000 -1.1569 1.4756 24 .15237 .49312 1.000 -2.1128 2.4175 25 -1.06985 1.40042 1.000 -7.5026 5.3629 26 -.06985 1.40042 1.000 -6.5026 6.3629 30 -1.31985 .99739 1.000 -5.9013 3.2616 21 15 -.44167 .99929 1.000 -5.0319 4.1485 16 .36833 .33094 1.000 -1.1518 1.8885 17 .27976 .29569 1.000 -1.0785 1.6380 18 .03678 .25600 1.000 -1.1391 1.2127 19 -.20029 .25600 1.000 -1.3762 .9756 20 -.12181 .24624 1.000 -1.2529 1.0093 22 .32955 .28119 1.000 -.9621 1.6212 23 .03750 .29309 1.000 -1.3088 1.3838 15 0 24 .03056 .49695 1.000 -2.2522 2.3133 25 -1.19167 1.40177 1.000 -7.6306 5.2473 26 -.19167 1.40177 1.000 -6.6306 6.2473 30 -1.44167 .99929 .999 -6.0319 3.1485 22 15 -.77121 1.00659 1.000 -5.3949 3.8525 16 .03879 .35237 1.000 -1.5798 1.6574 17 -.04978 .31949 1.000 -1.5174 1.4178 18 -.29276 .28316 1.000 -1.5934 1.0079 19 -.52983 .28316 .991 -1.8305 .7708 20 -.45136 .27437 .997 -1.7117 .8089 21 -.32955 .28119 1.000 -1.6212 .9621 23 -.29205 .31708 1.000 -1.7486 1.1645 24 -.29899 .51147 1.000 -2.6484 2.0504 25 -1.52121 1.40698 1.000 -7.9841 4.9417 26 -.52121 1.40698 1.000 -6.9841 5.9417 30 -1.77121 1.00659 .995 -6.3949 2.8525 23 15 -.47917 1.00998 1.000 -5.1185 4.1601 16 .33083 .36194 1.000 -1.3317 1.9934 17 .24226 .33001 1.000 -1.2736 1.7582 18 -.00072 .29498 1.000 -1.3557 1.3542 19 -.23779 .29498 1.000 -1.5927 1.1172 20 -.15931 .28655 1.000 -1.4756 1.1569 21 -.03750 .29309 1.000 -1.3838 1.3088 22 .29205 .31708 1.000 -1.1645 1.7486 24 -.00694 .51811 1.000 -2.3869 2.3730 25 -1.22917 1.40941 1.000 -7.7032 5.2449 26 -.22917 1.40941 1.000 -6.7032 6.2449 30 -1.47917 1.00998 .999 -6.1185 3.1601 24 15 -.47222 1.08679 1.000 -5.4644 4.5199 16 .33778 .54042 1.000 -2.1446 2.8202 17 .24921 .51959 1.000 -2.1375 2.6359 18 .00623 .49807 1.000 -2.2816 2.2941 19 -.23084 .49807 1.000 -2.5187 2.0570 20 -.15237 .49312 1.000 -2.4175 2.1128 21 -.03056 .49695 1.000 -2.3133 2.2522 15 1 22 .29899 .51147 1.000 -2.0504 2.6484 23 .00694 .51811 1.000 -2.3730 2.3869 25 -1.22222 1.46543 1.000 -7.9536 5.5092 26 -.22222 1.46543 1.000 -6.9536 6.5092 30 -1.47222 1.08679 1.000 -6.4644 3.5199 25 15 .75000 1.70268 1.000 -7.0712 8.5712 16 1.56000 1.41776 1.000 -4.9524 8.0724 17 1.47143 1.40995 1.000 -5.0051 7.9480 18 1.22845 1.40217 1.000 -5.2123 7.6692 19 .99138 1.40217 1.000 -5.4494 7.4322 20 1.06985 1.40042 1.000 -5.3629 7.5026 21 1.19167 1.40177 1.000 -5.2473 7.6306 22 1.52121 1.40698 1.000 -4.9417 7.9841 23 1.22917 1.40941 1.000 -5.2449 7.7032 24 1.22222 1.46543 1.000 -5.5092 7.9536 26 1.00000 1.96608 1.000 -8.0311 10.0311 30 -.25000 1.70268 1.000 -8.0712 7.5712 26 15 -.25000 1.70268 1.000 -8.0712 7.5712 16 .56000 1.41776 1.000 -5.9524 7.0724 17 .47143 1.40995 1.000 -6.0051 6.9480 18 .22845 1.40217 1.000 -6.2123 6.6692 19 -.00862 1.40217 1.000 -6.4494 6.4322 20 .06985 1.40042 1.000 -6.3629 6.5026 21 .19167 1.40177 1.000 -6.2473 6.6306 22 .52121 1.40698 1.000 -5.9417 6.9841 23 .22917 1.40941 1.000 -6.2449 6.7032 24 .22222 1.46543 1.000 -6.5092 6.9536 25 -1.00000 1.96608 1.000 -10.0311 8.0311 30 -1.25000 1.70268 1.000 -9.0712 6.5712 30 15 1.00000 1.39023 1.000 -5.3860 7.3860 16 1.81000 1.02161 .994 -2.8827 6.5027 17 1.72143 1.01074 .996 -2.9214 6.3642 18 1.47845 .99985 .999 -3.1143 6.0712 19 1.24138 .99985 1.000 -3.3514 5.8341 20 1.31985 .99739 1.000 -3.2616 5.9013 15 2 21 1.44167 .99929 .999 -3.1485 6.0319 22 1.77121 1.00659 .995 -2.8525 6.3949 23 1.47917 1.00998 .999 -3.1601 6.1185 24 1.47222 1.08679 1.000 -3.5199 6.4644 25 .25000 1.70268 1.000 -7.5712 8.0712 26 1.25000 1.70268 1.000 -6.5712 9.0712 15 3 Appendix 7 Scheffe Post- Hoc Analysis of Components of Teaching Effectiveness Based on Rank of Lecturers. Multiple Comparisons Scheffe 95% Confidence Mean Interval (I) rank of Difference Lower Upper Dependent Variable lecturer (J) rank of lecturer (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound Classroom Interaction assistant lecturer lecturer iii 1.45333 .98051 .901 -2.0307 4.9373 lecturer ii .57000 1.07410 1.000 -3.2465 4.3865 lecturer i -.27500 1.07410 1.000 -4.0915 3.5415 senior lecturer .65333 .98051 .998 -2.8307 4.1373 principal lecturer 2.02500 1.07410 .737 -1.7915 5.8415 chief lecturer 1.17000 1.07410 .977 -2.6465 4.9865 lecturer iii assistant lecturer -1.45333 .98051 .901 -4.9373 2.0307 lecturer ii -.88333 .98051 .992 -4.3673 2.6007 lecturer i -1.72833 .98051 .795 -5.2123 1.7557 senior lecturer -.80000 .87700 .991 -3.9162 2.3162 principal lecturer .57167 .98051 .999 -2.9123 4.0557 chief lecturer -.28333 .98051 1.000 -3.7673 3.2007 lecturer ii assistant lecturer -.57000 1.07410 1.000 -4.3865 3.2465 lecturer iii .88333 .98051 .992 -2.6007 4.3673 lecturer i -.84500 1.07410 .996 -4.6615 2.9715 senior lecturer .08333 .98051 1.000 -3.4007 3.5673 principal lecturer 1.45500 1.07410 .934 -2.3615 5.2715 chief lecturer .60000 1.07410 .999 -3.2165 4.4165 lecturer i assistant lecturer .27500 1.07410 1.000 -3.5415 4.0915 lecturer iii 1.72833 .98051 .795 -1.7557 5.2123 lecturer ii .84500 1.07410 .996 -2.9715 4.6615 senior lecturer .92833 .98051 .989 -2.5557 4.4123 principal lecturer 2.30000 1.07410 .598 -1.5165 6.1165 chief lecturer 1.44500 1.07410 .936 -2.3715 5.2615 15 4 senior lecturer assistant lecturer -.65333 .98051 .998 -4.1373 2.8307 lecturer iii .80000 .87700 .991 -2.3162 3.9162 lecturer ii -.08333 .98051 1.000 -3.5673 3.4007 lecturer i -.92833 .98051 .989 -4.4123 2.5557 principal lecturer 1.37167 .98051 .923 -2.1123 4.8557 chief lecturer .51667 .98051 1.000 -2.9673 4.0007 principal lecturer assistant lecturer -2.02500 1.07410 .737 -5.8415 1.7915 lecturer iii -.57167 .98051 .999 -4.0557 2.9123 lecturer ii -1.45500 1.07410 .934 -5.2715 2.3615 lecturer i -2.30000 1.07410 .598 -6.1165 1.5165 senior lecturer -1.37167 .98051 .923 -4.8557 2.1123 chief lecturer -.85500 1.07410 .996 -4.6715 2.9615 chief lecturer assistant lecturer -1.17000 1.07410 .977 -4.9865 2.6465 lecturer iii .28333 .98051 1.000 -3.2007 3.7673 lecturer ii -.60000 1.07410 .999 -4.4165 3.2165 lecturer i -1.44500 1.07410 .936 -5.2615 2.3715 senior lecturer -.51667 .98051 1.000 -4.0007 2.9673 principal lecturer .85500 1.07410 .996 -2.9615 4.6715 Evaluation assistant lecturer lecturer iii -.45781 .35391 .947 -1.7153 .7997 lecturer ii -.33000 .38690 .994 -1.7048 1.0448 lecturer i -.34000 .38690 .993 -1.7148 1.0348 senior lecturer -.18114 .35367 1.000 -1.4378 1.0755 principal lecturer .05091 .38838 1.000 -1.3291 1.4309 chief lecturer .38594 .38838 .986 -.9941 1.7659 lecturer iii assistant lecturer .45781 .35391 .947 -.7997 1.7153 lecturer ii .12781 .35391 1.000 -1.1297 1.3853 lecturer i .11781 .35391 1.000 -1.1397 1.3753 senior lecturer .27667 .31723 .993 -.8505 1.4039 principal lecturer .50873 .35551 .915 -.7545 1.7720 chief lecturer .84375 .35551 .466 -.4195 2.1070 lecturer ii assistant lecturer .33000 .38690 .994 -1.0448 1.7048 lecturer iii -.12781 .35391 1.000 -1.3853 1.1297 lecturer i -.01000 .38690 1.000 -1.3848 1.3648 senior lecturer .14886 .35367 1.000 -1.1078 1.4055 15 5 principal lecturer .38091 .38838 .987 -.9991 1.7609 chief lecturer .71594 .38838 .757 -.6641 2.0959 lecturer i assistant lecturer .34000 .38690 .993 -1.0348 1.7148 lecturer iii -.11781 .35391 1.000 -1.3753 1.1397 lecturer ii .01000 .38690 1.000 -1.3648 1.3848 senior lecturer .15886 .35367 1.000 -1.0978 1.4155 principal lecturer .39091 .38838 .985 -.9891 1.7709 chief lecturer .72594 .38838 .745 -.6541 2.1059 senior lecturer assistant lecturer .18114 .35367 1.000 -1.0755 1.4378 lecturer iii -.27667 .31723 .993 -1.4039 .8505 lecturer ii -.14886 .35367 1.000 -1.4055 1.1078 lecturer i -.15886 .35367 1.000 -1.4155 1.0978 principal lecturer .23205 .35528 .999 -1.0303 1.4945 chief lecturer .56708 .35528 .863 -.6953 1.8295 principal lecturer assistant lecturer -.05091 .38838 1.000 -1.4309 1.3291 lecturer iii -.50873 .35551 .915 -1.7720 .7545 lecturer ii -.38091 .38838 .987 -1.7609 .9991 lecturer i -.39091 .38838 .985 -1.7709 .9891 senior lecturer -.23205 .35528 .999 -1.4945 1.0303 chief lecturer .33503 .38984 .994 -1.0502 1.7202 chief lecturer assistant lecturer -.38594 .38838 .986 -1.7659 .9941 lecturer iii -.84375 .35551 .466 -2.1070 .4195 lecturer ii -.71594 .38838 .757 -2.0959 .6641 lecturer i -.72594 .38838 .745 -2.1059 .6541 senior lecturer -.56708 .35528 .863 -1.8295 .6953 principal lecturer -.33503 .38984 .994 -1.7202 1.0502 Personality assistant lecturer lecturer iii .42365 .34878 .961 -.8157 1.6630 lecturer ii .34500 .38104 .992 -1.0089 1.6989 lecturer i -.27000 .38104 .998 -1.6239 1.0839 senior lecturer .34360 .34854 .987 -.8949 1.5821 principal lecturer -.05918 .38298 1.000 -1.4200 1.3017 chief lecturer .39490 .38298 .983 -.9659 1.7557 lecturer iii assistant lecturer -.42365 .34878 .961 -1.6630 .8157 lecturer ii -.07865 .34878 1.000 -1.3180 1.1607 15 6 lecturer i -.69365 .34878 .683 -1.9330 .5457 senior lecturer -.08005 .31295 1.000 -1.1920 1.0320 principal lecturer -.48283 .35090 .929 -1.7297 .7640 chief lecturer -.02875 .35090 1.000 -1.2756 1.2181 lecturer ii assistant lecturer -.34500 .38104 .992 -1.6989 1.0089 lecturer iii .07865 .34878 1.000 -1.1607 1.3180 lecturer i -.61500 .38104 .856 -1.9689 .7389 senior lecturer -.00140 .34854 1.000 -1.2399 1.2371 principal lecturer -.40418 .38298 .981 -1.7650 .9567 chief lecturer .04990 .38298 1.000 -1.3109 1.4107 lecturer i assistant lecturer .27000 .38104 .998 -1.0839 1.6239 lecturer iii .69365 .34878 .683 -.5457 1.9330 lecturer ii .61500 .38104 .856 -.7389 1.9689 senior lecturer .61360 .34854 .796 -.6249 1.8521 principal lecturer .21082 .38298 .999 -1.1500 1.5717 chief lecturer .66490 .38298 .807 -.6959 2.0257 senior lecturer assistant lecturer -.34360 .34854 .987 -1.5821 .8949 lecturer iii .08005 .31295 1.000 -1.0320 1.1920 lecturer ii .00140 .34854 1.000 -1.2371 1.2399 lecturer i -.61360 .34854 .796 -1.8521 .6249 principal lecturer -.40279 .35066 .971 -1.6488 .8432 chief lecturer .05130 .35066 1.000 -1.1947 1.2973 principal lecturer assistant lecturer .05918 .38298 1.000 -1.3017 1.4200 lecturer iii .48283 .35090 .929 -.7640 1.7297 lecturer ii .40418 .38298 .981 -.9567 1.7650 lecturer i -.21082 .38298 .999 -1.5717 1.1500 senior lecturer .40279 .35066 .971 -.8432 1.6488 chief lecturer .45408 .38491 .966 -.9136 1.8218 chief lecturer assistant lecturer -.39490 .38298 .983 -1.7557 .9659 lecturer iii .02875 .35090 1.000 -1.2181 1.2756 lecturer ii -.04990 .38298 1.000 -1.4107 1.3109 lecturer i -.66490 .38298 .807 -2.0257 .6959 senior lecturer -.05130 .35066 1.000 -1.2973 1.1947 principal lecturer -.45408 .38491 .966 -1.8218 .9136 15 7 Preparation assistant lecturer lecturer iii .03392 .25347 1.000 -.8667 .9346 lecturer ii .33000 .27691 .965 -.6540 1.3140 lecturer i -.42000 .27691 .890 -1.4040 .5640 senior lecturer .01652 .25330 1.000 -.8835 .9165 principal lecturer .66092 .27832 .465 -.3280 1.6499 chief lecturer .04357 .27832 1.000 -.9454 1.0325 lecturer iii assistant lecturer -.03392 .25347 1.000 -.9346 .8667 lecturer ii .29608 .25347 .968 -.6046 1.1967 lecturer i -.45392 .25347 .782 -1.3546 .4467 senior lecturer -.01740 .22743 1.000 -.8255 .7907 principal lecturer .62700 .25501 .419 -.2791 1.5331 chief lecturer .00965 .25501 1.000 -.8965 .9158 lecturer ii assistant lecturer -.33000 .27691 .965 -1.3140 .6540 lecturer iii -.29608 .25347 .968 -1.1967 .6046 lecturer i -.75000 .27691 .292 -1.7340 .2340 senior lecturer -.31348 .25330 .957 -1.2135 .5865 principal lecturer .33092 .27832 .965 -.6580 1.3199 chief lecturer -.28643 .27832 .983 -1.2754 .7025 lecturer i assistant lecturer .42000 .27691 .890 -.5640 1.4040 lecturer iii .45392 .25347 .782 -.4467 1.3546 lecturer ii .75000 .27691 .292 -.2340 1.7340 senior lecturer .43652 .25330 .812 -.4635 1.3365 * principal lecturer 1.08092 .27832 .020 .0920 2.0699 chief lecturer .46357 .27832 .836 -.5254 1.4525 senior lecturer assistant lecturer -.01652 .25330 1.000 -.9165 .8835 lecturer iii .01740 .22743 1.000 -.7907 .8255 lecturer ii .31348 .25330 .957 -.5865 1.2135 lecturer i -.43652 .25330 .812 -1.3365 .4635 principal lecturer .64440 .25484 .381 -.2611 1.5499 chief lecturer .02706 .25484 1.000 -.8784 .9326 principal lecturer assistant lecturer -.66092 .27832 .465 -1.6499 .3280 lecturer iii -.62700 .25501 .419 -1.5331 .2791 lecturer ii -.33092 .27832 .965 -1.3199 .6580 * lecturer i -1.08092 .27832 .020 -2.0699 -.0920 senior lecturer -.64440 .25484 .381 -1.5499 .2611 15 8 chief lecturer -.61735 .27972 .561 -1.6113 .3766 chief lecturer assistant lecturer -.04357 .27832 1.000 -1.0325 .9454 lecturer iii -.00965 .25501 1.000 -.9158 .8965 lecturer ii .28643 .27832 .983 -.7025 1.2754 lecturer i -.46357 .27832 .836 -1.4525 .5254 senior lecturer -.02706 .25484 1.000 -.9326 .8784 principal lecturer .61735 .27972 .561 -.3766 1.6113 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 15 9