Students' Evaluation of Teaching Practices at Foreign Languages Department (FLD) in Taif University

,


Introduction
There is an uprising of concern for the educational process's significance in universities in general and college departments in particular (Chen & Hoshower, 2003;Slate et al., 2011). During the last century, much attention has been given to how teaching effectiveness can be assessed and appraised. It is known that teaching evaluation is a very complicated procedure. At the present time, multiple educational institutions use various student evaluation models and templates (Comm and Manthaisel 1998). In this regard, units of academic accreditation have become available in various university educational departments to improve the quality of academic experiences (Algozzine et al., 2004;Clayson, 2009;Wachtel, 1998). According to Penny (2003), feedback gained from STE has prominent advantages in modifying teaching styles, making decisions about the educational process, and selecting appropriate and relevant courses. This is absolutely achievable on the condition that students act honestly in their assessments (Spencer & Schmelkin, 2002). Not many studies have focused on the underlying causes of SET that have multiple reflections on whole components of the educational process (Chen & Hoshower, 2003). Teachers are increasingly being held accountable for the quality of educational services that they provide (Kwan, 1999;Seldin, 1997;Ting, 2000). As noted by Seldin (1997: 1), teachers "are being held accountable, as never before, to provide clear and concise evidence of the quality of teaching". However, just exactly what good teaching is and how to go about measuring it are contentious issues in education. Numerous educationalists would agree with this, recognizing that, as students are the only regular observers of their teachers, they are in a good position to assess their teachers' effectiveness (Aleamoni, 1981;Arreola, 1987;Frey, 1976;Hebden, 1993;Jackson et al., 1999;Scriven, 1995). For example, Arreola (1987: 43), maintains, "Students are the best sources concerning their own opinions and reactions to classroom teaching events and supporting materials prepared by the faculty member".
(SET) questionnaires as a means of evaluating teachers are extensively used in tertiary education. Seldin (1993) notes that (83%) of the (600) liberal arts colleges he surveyed required students to evaluate faculty. In one survey, Magner (1997) found that (98%) of four-year colleges in the US were using SET, and 2 percent were considering doing so. Similarly, Wilson (1998) estimated that whereas in 1973 only around thirty percent of educational institutions asked students to assess their teachers, by 1998 it was difficult to come up with any educational institution that did not implement SET. Given the broad usage of SET, coupled with the significant impact that it has on teachers' professional lives; it is understandable why SET is such a contentious and widely researched issue in educational management. However, if SET is to be a viable method of measuring teaching effectiveness, it needs to be established that teachers and students have favorable attitudes towards it. If teachers question the validity and reliability of SET and question whether learners are able to form objective assessments of their teaching practices, it is unlikely that they will take the results of student evaluations seriously and use the data to diagnose areas where they might improve their teaching techniques. Moreover, if students do not deal with SET honestly, administrators who are charged with interpreting SET data must call the data generated by it into question. The aim of this research, therefore, is to contribute to the small but growing investigation that has examined students' perceptions towards teaching practices and to propose how more favorable attitudes towards them might be generated. Specifically, these questions were raised: 1. To what degree do students think teaching practices are useful and effective at FLD? 2. Is there any statistically significant difference between students' responses to teaching practices at FLD due to gender?
3. Is there any statistically significant difference between students' responses to teaching practices at FLD due to course type?

Literature Review
Assessing the effectiveness of teaching by means of online questionnaires has become a trend in most higher educational institutions. Several studies have traced the capability of utilizing these types of questionnaires to rate the flow of teaching processes. These questionnaires should be reliable, valid, and practical in terms of their design and subject matter due to the visions and missions of the educational institutions (Braun & Leidner, 2009). Lattuca and Domagal-Goldman (2007) assume that standardized questionnaires, as used in the research, usually include both multiple-choice and open-ended questions provide beneficial feedback to all educational stakeholders: teachers, students, and departments as well (Richardson, 2005;Miller and Karakowsky, 2005). Further, this feedback enables course coordinators to adjust and modify course contents and objectives (Howell & Symbaluk, 2001;Wilhelm, 2004).
Several teachers have expressed concerns over the use of SET (Aleamoni, 1987;Costins et al., 1971;Mckeachie, 1996). According to Costins et al. (1971: 511), teachers think, "Students ratings are unreliable, and the ratings will favor an entertainer over the instructor who gets his or her material across effectively. Those ratings are highly correlated with expected grades (a hard grader would thus give poor ratings), and students are not competent judges of instruction since the long-term benefits of a course may not be clear at the time it is rated." However, as noted by Schmelkin et al. (1997), most of what has been written about attitudes that teachers and students have towards SET is largely anecdotal. Despite this, it should be noted that there is a modest but increasing body of research that has investigated what teachers and students actually think about SET.
The results of a number of studies demonstrate that most faculty tend to have mixed attitudes towards SET as potentially useful (Hamdy et al., 2001;Mertler, 1999;Rich, 1976;Ryan et al., 1980;Schmelkin et al., 1997;Simpson and Siguaw, 2000). Other studies have revealed that teachers are concerned about the validity and reliability of data generated by SET (Carson, 2001;Dent and Nichcolas, 1980;Nasser and Fresko, 2002;Simpson and Siguaw, 2000;Sojka et al., 2002). Teachers have also expressed their concern over the ability of students to rate their teaching in a fair and objective manner (Av-Itzhak and Kremer, 1986;Hamdy et al., 2001;Nasser and Fresko, 2002;Ryan et al., 1980;Ahmed, 2019), although in one study (Dent and Nichcolas, 1980), over (70%) of faculty felt that their learners were able to rate their teaching practices. One disturbing finding from the previous research is that some faculty believed that other teachers lowered standards by giving less coursework and easier exams or engaging in other inappropriate behavior in order to raise their SET ratings (Nasser and Fresko, 2002;Ryan et al., 1980). Only a small minority of faculty indicated that they modified their teaching based on data generated by SET, and these modifications were generally minor (Hamdy et al., 2001;Ryan et al., 1980;Schmelkin et al., 1997;Sojka et al., 2002;Spencer and Flyr, 1992).
Studies examining students' attitudes towards SET indicate that students generally have a better constructive view of SET than faculty. The vast majority of students in numerous studies recognize the importance of SET. They think that it is useful and effective and take it seriously (Ahmadi, 1981;Ahmadi et al., 2001;Ballantyne, 1998;Costins et al., 1987;Dent and Nicolas, 1980;Dewinell and Hebden, 1993;Marlin, 1987;Martinson and Ryan, 1981;Miron and Segal, 1986;Penfield, 1978;Sojak et al., 2002;Supple, 1979;Tapp, 1985;Traugh and Duell, 1980;Wulff et al., 1985). A number of studies also demonstrate that students do not think they are biased in any way when they assess their teachers (Ahmadi et al., 2001;Crumbley et al., 1986;Dent and Nicolas, 1980;Sojak et al., 2002). Some students indicated that they used SET ratings to help them select courses (Coleman and McKeachie, 1981;Leventhal, 1975), and others indicated that SET results should be used on promotion and tenure decisions (Callahan, 1986;Gholamreza, 1981;Spencer and Schmelkin, 2002).
While students in some studies believed that teachers modified their behavior based on SET results (Costins et al., 1971;Dwinell and Higbee, 1993;Friedlander, 1978;Traugh and Duell, 1980), Students in more studies felt that their teachers did not modify their teaching, paying little attention to SET results (Ahmadi, 1981;Ballantyne, 1998;Marlin, 1987;Martison and Ryan, 1981;Miron and Segal, 1986;Penfield, 1978;Sojak et al., 2002;Tapp, 1985). Overwhelmingly, students felt that they were qualified and capable of rating their teachers in a fair and objective manner (Ahmadi, 1981;Ahmadi et al., 2001;Ballantyne, 1998;Callahan, 1986;Crumbley et al., 1986;Dent and Nicolas, 1980;Marlin, 1987;Martinson and Ryan, 1981;Miron and Segal, 1986;Tapp, 1985). One interesting finding from these studies is that if teachers discuss the results of SET with their students, the students are more likely to perceive that their feedback has effected positive change (Abbott et al., 1990;Friedlander, 1978). Another interesting finding is that students prefer small-group oral evaluation of teaching to standard written rating forms (Abbott et al., 1990;Wulff et al., 1985).
In brief, according to the various views mentioned above by several authors, online questionnaires play a prominent role in getting immediate feedback regarding teaching practices. If they are performed fairly, they can be considered a practical tool to validate teaching techniques, modify course content, and even increase learners' competency.

Method
This study used the online questionnaire of the Academic Accreditation and Evaluation Department at Taif University. It is a 24-item survey usually given to students at the end of each term with a 5-point Likert scale, which includes 'strongly agree', 'agree', 'true sometimes', 'disagree', and 'strongly disagree', in addition to four other open-ended items. Students used this questionnaire as a tool to assess the teachers' teaching strategies. In order to analyze the distribution of student ratings of their teachers, data from the Department of Foreign Languages at Taif University has been taken into consideration. The number of teachers and ratings in this department permit statistically notable outcomes. (1901) students at FLD at Taif University, KSA, evaluated total of (27) teachers. Data obtained through this online questionnaire for teachers with a minimum of five ratings corresponds to (43723) ratings. As mentioned earlier, the questionnaire aims to evaluate the course to ensure that there is a fit between the students and the curriculum and to assist teachers in identifying areas of weakness that they might work on to improve the course. The SET questionnaire is not used for summative data that teachers can use to determine how successful they have been in addressing areas of weakness ascertained but is used for formative assessment. The results of the questionnaires were tabulated, and the means were calculated. In addition, responses for each of the five options were calculated. They were also tallied and converted into percentages.  2) shows the reliability coefficients ranged from (0.95) to (0.96), and the grand reliability of the tool was (0.98), which indicates that the tool is highly reliable by referring to the three dimensions of the questionnaire statements. The Education Evaluation Commission has standardized the questionnaire, which makes it highly valid and reliable according to the statistical representation in tables (3.1) and (3.2).

Results
The statistical analysis of the SET indicated that the majority of students thought that the SET questionnaire used at FLD was an adequate method to measure the overall educational environment. The statistical representations are presented as follows:  (206). These students studied skills and specialized courses. The students of the 2 nd level represent (230) (males and females) together. As required at this level, they also studied skills and specialized courses. Students of the 3 rd and 4 th levels together (males and females) are (1465). They only took specialized courses. It is expected of junior and senior students to give practical, critical, and valuable insights into their teachers' teaching practices since they are at advanced levels. The data generated from the SET questionnaires for the first three statements was only moderately useful. The overall mean scores have different attitudes amongst the students because teachers made the course outline clear for them; they come in the first rank (3.611). Then, followed by the third statement with a mean of (3.6.2), teachers were more positive when they presented more sources and reference material during the course and made their office hours clear to the students. Clarification of assessment methods took the third position in the mean scales. The statements in this section present the students' responses related to what happened during the course. The last column shows the ranking of the statements according to their means. The statement that comes in first is number (14) that their teachers scored out their homework and tests in a limited period of time, and in relation to statement 16, they felt satisfied with their grades. The means of statements (10 and 11) indicate students were highly motivated to answer questions and to do better classwork and homework. Students' comments in response to statements (2 and 3) of the survey indicated they took the SET questionnaire seriously, were mature enough to evaluate teaching practice, and that their teachers were well experienced in teaching the course that they took in the second term. In addition, their teachers allowed them to come to their offices during their spare time for any inquiries concerning their studies. Statement (13) According to its ranking, students ascertain that there is a harmony between course credit hours and the number of activities assigned to the course. In statement (9), students express their views and opinions about the effective use of technology in their classes. Statement (12) presents the usefulness of the practical aspects of the course in developing their skills and widening their knowledge. It is expected that statement (6) will receive an advanced ranking since it places more emphasis on academic supervision in terms of tracing students' progression. Statement (8) opens the floor for the administration to help them by having authentic educational facilities. Statement (16) asks teachers to connect the objectives of the courses that they teach with the goals of the other courses. In statement (5), students respond that teachers were enthusiastic about what they were teaching. This statement got less importance compared to other statements in the ranking. According to the lowest rankings of statements (7), (2), and (1), students have negative views towards them that indicate less up-to-date course materials, late course delivery, and inconsistency in the course profile.  Vol. 16, No. 8;2023 According to table (3.4), it is important to note that approximately statement (1) emphasizes the usefulness and effectiveness of the course in giving immediate feedback. Statement (4) takes the second ranking, and its importance lies in improving students' communication skills. Statements (2) and (3) come in the third and fourth rankings, respectively. Students assume that the courses they take should develop their critical thinking skills and leadership in action.  Table (3.5) shows that male students mean scores are higher than female students mean scores, but these differences are not statistically significant (t = 1.107, sig =.272; t =.902, sig =.370; t =.460, sig =.647).  Table (3.6) demonstrates that there are statistically notable variations among students responses due to course type in favor of students who study skill courses (t = 3.435, sig. =.001; t = 3.369, sig. =.001; t = 3.662, sig. =.000), respectively.  Teaching Vol. 16, No. 8;2023 these differences, the Scheffe test was run. Evaluation of the course Freshman* Junior .3164 . 000 Table (3.8) describes that there were statistically notable variations among responses of the study sample due to the academic level difference between freshmen and junior students in all dimensions in favor of freshmen (sig=.000).This analysis reveals a major disparity in the perceptions of students regarding the quality of ratings generated by the SET questionnaire. It seems that students took the SET questionnaires seriously and were mature enough to evaluate teaching. The analysis indicated that teachers need to work on improving their weak areas as identified by the students, such as giving more help to individual students, making explanations clearer, and paying more attention to the pace of their lessons and tests (Davidson and Coombe, 2019). The students in this study have significantly more favorable attitudes towards their ratings of instruction than students in other studies (Avi-Itzhak and Kremer, 1986;Dent and Nicholas, 1980;Hamdy et al., 2001;Mertler, 1999;Nasser and Fresko, 2002;Ryan et al., 1980;Schmelkin et al., 1997;Simpson and Siguaw, 2000;Sojka et al., 2002). In addition, the SET questionnaire may be too long, too time-consuming to complete by students, too time-consuming to collate and analyze by teachers, and it may be implemented too often. Students are not trained on how to complete the SEL questionnaires, nor are they trained to identify what effective teaching actually is, and they are not informed of the purpose of SET unless their teacher tells them. Students do not understand the meaning of all the questions, especially those that contain meta-language, which they are not likely to know. Hamdy et al.'s (2001) study, conducted in the Gulf, felt that students were objective when rating teachers. The generally positive attitudes of the majority of students towards SET in this research are in harmony with the outcomes of other research (Constins et al., 1971;Supple, 1979;Traogh and Durell, 1980;Wulff, 1985). The negative attitudes that some students have toward SET may be a consequence of having to complete such long questionnaires so often and not seeing their feedback being acted upon in terms of curricular change or the modification of teaching behavior (Abbott et al. 1990). It is possible that a cycle of negativity is perpetuating itself as teachers have negative attitudes towards SET because they believe students do not take it seriously because they perceive that their teachers have negative attitudes towards it.

Conclusion
The Academic Accreditation and Evaluation Program bears great responsibilities towards educational progress, mainly when the top missions stand behind reinforcing teaching practices. It is necessary for the educational process to function efficiently. This will be achieved if much effort is paid to have the course file include the essential information about course specifications and, accordingly, the particular method of assessment (Wright 2006;Zabaleta 2007). SET has the potential to be an effective tool to assist administrators in evaluating teaching effectiveness, but only if it is valued by teachers and students. Data generated by SET reflects students' ability to rate their teaching in a fair and objective manner; they are more predisposed to SET than the anecdotal evidence would suggest, generally finding SET to be reasonably effective and useful. Based on the findings of this study and an examination of the results of earlier research, the following factors affect students' attitudes toward SET: -students' attitudes towards teachers -students' a attitudes towards evaluation in general -the quality of the SET questionnaire that is administered -the purpose of SET  Vol. 16, No. 8;2023 In order for students to have more favorable attitudes towards SET, they need to be convinced that they take it seriously. In addition, students need to be informed of the purpose of the SET questionnaires and trained on how to complete them. Once more favorable attitudes towards SET are evident, the potential of using it to measure teaching effectiveness can be more fully realized. In general, the great advantage of SET is the rehabilitation of teaching practices in terms of diagnosing weaknesses and reinforcing strengths (Bolivar, 2000;Chen & Hoshower, 2003). On the other hand, SET feedback is used for administrative purposes, specifically when taking decisions about the educational process as a whole (Penny & Coe, 2004). SET demonstrated in this study confined itself to a particular department; therefore, its sample does not have a valid representativeness. The study could have given generalized results if it had involved more departments from varied colleges. In this sense, there will be more reliable data so that its consequences can be accomplished for the college as a whole. Despite the contention surrounding student evaluations of teaching, they will continue to be used for personnel decisions. For this reason, research-based methods for improving the process and addressing areas of concern are still needed. Further studies of whether or not students are inclined to take written rating forms seriously (whether or not they are formally instructed to do so) would be worthwhile. Perhaps it might also be worthwhile to do further surveys of faculty to determine how often and what types of changes they make in their instruction based on the results of student ratings. This will have significant pedagogical implications for EFL teaching and learning. Student assessments of teaching will still be utilized for hiring decisions, despite the controversy surrounding them. Therefore, there is still a need for research-based approaches to process improvement and problem-solving. It might be useful to do further research to see whether or not students are inclined to take written rating forms seriously (whether or not they are explicitly trained to do so). It could also be beneficial to conduct further faculty surveys to see how often and what kinds of modifications they make to their education in response to student evaluations. For EFL teaching and learning, this will have substantial pedagogical ramifications.