Abstract
It is claimed that MEQ is multidimensional and it is complex to agree on what those dimensions are and how they interrelate. The main objective of this study is to investigate the culture and Pedagogy of MEQs. Using four dimensions of cultural framework, the underlying pedagogies for the MEQ was identified. The results of the literature reviews show that the cultures of the MEQ are individualist, weak uncertainty avoidance and small power distance, which indicates the Western concept. It has also uncovered that MEQs interrelates to the concept of motivation and enjoyment. The recommendation is for university to have a permanent MEQ staff to give staff development opportunity on the MEQ pedagogy and culture to improve their quality assurance and accountability. It is also recommended to create MEQ software which incorporates additional quantitative data such as class attendance rates and other descriptive statistics which describe the class (i.e. minimum, maximum and average) to minimise the bias effect of the teaching staff and students and increase validity and reliability of MEQs. This paper may be of use for MEQ designers, teaching staff, quality assurance staff, student experience staff, HR staff and executive board members.
Highlights
Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) measures teaching performance in higher educational institutions
Research findings suggest that students sometimes interpret a teacher’s ‘creativeness’ as a positive character (Costin et al, 1971), which demonstrates that MEQ culture has been weak Uncertainty avoidance (UA)
The purpose of this study is to identify the culture and pedagogy of MEQ
Summary
Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) measures teaching performance in higher educational institutions. Several thousands of research studies regarding SETs (Spooren et al, 2013) have been conducted and SET’s multiple dimensions (Marsh, 2007; Ching, 2018) have been claimed. SET stakeholders include students, staff, politicians, alumni, funding bodies and the general public (Kearns, 1998). Specific example of staff may include teaching staff, SET designers, quality assurance staff, student experience staff, HR staff and executive board members. With regards to the validity and reliability of SET results, SETs remain a controversial topic in higher educational research hand practice questioning (Ory, 2001). Spooren et al (2013) claim that research on SETs have so far failed to provide a clear answer concerning validity of SET. It is imperative to consider “validity, reliability and bias” from students’, staff, and University and try to meet those requirements
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
