Guide To Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

GUIDE TO TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Module
11
Evaluation of Teaching and Learning
in Higher Education
6

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.1

JUST BEFORE
YOU BEGIN
Reflect on the following as you work through this Module
On Evaluating Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
36. One consequence, as the Tokyo declaration mentions, is that it is not possible to arrive at one set
of quality standards applicable to all countries, and against which institutions can be assessed.
Quality embraces all the main functions and activities of higher education: teaching and academic
programmes, research and scholarship, staffing, students, infrastructure, community services and
the academic environment. The Arab States declarations consider that ‘all higher education
systems and institutions should give a high priority to ensuring the quality of programmes,
teaching and outcomes. Structures, procedures and standards for quality assurance should be
developed at the regional and national levels commensurate with international guidelines while
providing for variety according to the specificities of each country, institution or programme’.
37. The Dakar declaration includes the idea that quality ‘entails the operationalization of the
envisaged outcomes (a clear definition of goals and objectives), of the inputs the institutions will
work with (thus a review of admissions criteria) and the processes and procedures for working
with the inputs (the way the management system coordinates structures, resources and the
institutional culture to obtain the required products)’. The Arab States Conference states that
‘quality mechanisms are implemented through continuous assessments and comparisons
between observed and intended processes and constant search for the sources of dysfunctions to
correct them’.
65. Recommendations addressed to each higher education institution were approved by the Tokyo
Conference and seem also implicit in the Havana and Dakar Conferences. The Tokyo statement
says:
- Each higher education institution must define its mission in harmony with the overall goals of the
sector itself, translate this mission into observable indicators and allocate the required resources’.
In the same vein, the Beirut Conference states that the missions ‘should be translated into well-
defined objectives, with allocation of the required resources, and the establishment of concrete
mechanisms proper to ensure adequate monitoring and evaluation of progress and achievements
based on observable indicator’.

109. The Dakar Conference urges that each institution ‘create appropriate structures for evaluating
and controlling the quality of its curricula (including the performance of students) in keeping with
agreed guidelines’ and recommends that ‘each Member State establish a mechanism for
evaluating the quality of higher education institutions, building on existing practices in the region.
Such a body would be responsible for evaluating training, research and consultancy activities in
the light of institutional missions, national education programmes and the needs of changing
times. This should be a control rather than a punitive mechanism, and should use a
combination of external and internal evaluation strategies’.
110. The Tokyo Conference proposals are summarised through the affirmation that ‘each country of
the region should establish a mechanism for evaluating the quality of its higher education
institutions. Countries must introduce quality assurance methods at both institutional and
systemic levels. These may include academic accreditation, academic audits and institutional
evaluations, performance funding, review of disciplines and professional areas, qualification
frameworks and competency-based approaches to vocational education and training’.
113. The Dakar Conference proposes that institutions of higher education should be required to
establish minimum teaching-learning guidelines for each course model. It says that they should
be explicit about ‘entry and exit behaviours in terms of skills, values and attitudes, the teaching
and evaluation methods, all within a specific time frame’.
Article11. Qualitative evaluation

a. Quality in higher education is a multidimensional concept, which should
embrace all its functions, and activities: teaching and academic Extracted from the:
programmes, research and scholarship, staffing, students, building,
facilities, equipment, services to the community and the academic
environment Internal self-evaluation and external review, conducted
DECLARATION
openly by independent specialists, if possible with international expertise, OF THE UNESCO
are vital for enhancing quality. Independent national bodies should be WORLD
established and comparative standards of quality, recognised at CONFERENCE
international level, should be defined, Due attention should be paid to ON HIGHER
specific institutional, national and regional contexts in order to take into
account diversity and to avoid uniformity. Stakeholders should be an
EDUCATION
integral part of the institutional evaluation process. (1998)
b. Quality also requires that higher education should be characterised by its

international dimension: exchange of knowledge, interactive networking,
mobility of teachers and students, and international research projects,
while taking into account the national cultural values and circumstances.

11.0 Introduction and General Objectives
Introduction
“The Dakar Conference proposes that institutions of higher education should be

required to establish minimum teaching-learning guidelines for each course model.
It says that they should be explicit about ‘entry and exit behaviours in terms of skills,
values and attitudes, the teaching and evaluation methods, all within a specific time
frame”.
E
valuation is a core part of the educational delivery process. The Dakar
Conference endorses this view as can be seen in the Declaration quoted
above. Many practitioners in the higher education system are reasonably
skilled in the art (and science) of evaluating teaching and learning. Yet, many lack
essential skills of evaluation. This module is to provide learning experiences for the
“experts” and “novices” alike. Dison and De Groot (1999) have stressed the need for
compatibility between content, teaching methods and assessment procedures. It is
only when these are in tandem that learning can be appropriately assessed. The
outcome-based evaluation (OBE) model of student assessment in higher education
is now gaining wide acceptance.

After completing the module, you should be able to :
❐ explain concepts used in evaluation

❐ develop techniques for evaluating the performance of your student; GENERAL
OBJECTIVES
❐ analyse and interpret learner’s assessment results ; and
❐ conduct self evaluation of your teaching.
11.1 Clarification of Key Concepts
At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:
❐ define the following concepts - measurement, assessment and SPECIFIC

OBJECTIVES
evaluation; and
❐ differentiate between various types of evaluation.
Measurement, Test, Assessment and Evaluation
With regard to education, distinctions can be made between measurement, test,

assessment and evaluation as follows:

Measurement is a procedure for assigning numbers or specified attributes or

characteristics in a manner that conveys the real world nature of what is being
measured. Tests on the other hand are systematic procedures for observing
persons and describing them with either a numerical scale or a category system.
Thus, tests may give either qualitative or quantitative information. To arrive at an
evaluation, you use various means of assessment such as observation, interviews,
and administration of tests. Thus assessment is the process of judging the worth of a
person, programme or event using tests as tools. Evaluation goes beyond
measuring, testing or assessment. It involves judging the value or worth of a student,
of an instructional method, or of an educational programme and making decisions.
Such judgements and decisions made, may or may not be based on information
obtained from tests.
Tests are used regularly in relation to a number of classes of decision:

• Selection decisions are made when it is necessary to accept some persons and
reject others.
• Placement decisions involve assigning persons to different levels of instruction
or work.
• Classification decisions involve the assignment of persons to one of several
categories, jobs, or programmes that are not necessarily thought of as levels of
work or instruction.
• Career counselling and guidance decisions are made by individuals as they
explore possible careers and the world of work. These are individual decisions
as contrasted with institutional decisions.
• Educational diagnostic and remediation decisions relate to the question, “what
learning activities will best adapt to this student’s individual requirements and
thereby maximise the student’s opportunities to attain chosen goals?” Diagnosis

implies that both the content and the nature of the instruction the student will
receive are known.
• Programme improvement and evaluation decisions are often improved by the
use of test information. It is frequently helpful to measure the instructional
process as well as the outcomes or products of instruction.
Tests serve other purposes, such as:

(a) providing information for grading students,
(b) giving feedback to students to facilitate learning,
(c) providing feedback about the effectiveness of learning,
(d) motivating students to study, and
(e) serving as scientific tools in research in education and the social sciences.
A teacher corrects exam papers handed in by his learners. He puts a grade

(figure) on each of the papers without adding any comments on
the learner’s work.
Activity 11.1 
a) Has the teacher evaluated the work of each of the learners ?
or
b) Has the teacher measured the performance level of each of the learners ?

In Yoloye’s (1998) view, a decision-making definition of evaluation is very

appropriate for higher education. Whatever definition of evaluation one uses
however, the following three components of the evaluation process remain valid:
• The entity to be evaluated which could be a product, a process or a performance.
• Measurement of the entity to arrive at a score, grade or other quantitative
representation.
• Evaluating the quantitative measure by putting a value on it. The value could
take various forms such as pass/fail, first class/second class/third class/pass/fail.
The nature of evaluation
Evaluation varies based on its nature, which may be quantitative or qualitative . In

the field of education, evaluation is usually of a quantitative nature. Grades (marks
in figures) and ordered categories (A,B,C,D) used to measure the scope of results
scored by learners relate to a quantitative type of evaluation. For example, the
quantitative evaluation of the internal efficiency of an academic year may be
quantitatively evaluated based on :
. the ratio between the number of degree holders and the number of registered
learners
. the ratio between the number of repeaters and the total enrollment figure.
Evaluation may also be qualitative. For instance, the internal efficiency of an

academic year may be qualitatively evaluated by :
. comparing skills acquired by the end of the school year with learners’ skills in the
beginning of the year,

. comparing targeted skills with acquired skills.
The method of evaluation
Depending on the goals aimed at, evaluation may be conducted based on various
methods. The method of evaluation may be:
a. diagnostic
b. normative
c. criterion-based
Evaluation is diagnostic when it aims at assessing the individual features of learners

in relation to the requirements of courses or curricula. Therefore, the goal of
diagnostic evaluation is to identify the distinguishing features of the subject targeted
by the evaluation as such features may determine the expected results.
Diagnostic evaluation may be conducted at the beginning of any new course or

curriculum. In such cases, its aim is to ascertain whether the learner has the skills
required to enrol for the course. Diagnostic evaluation may also be implemented
during or at the end of a particular course.
An evaluation is normative when it compares the performances of a particular

learner to the performances of the other learners of the same level or class taken as
the reference group. The merit-based listing of learners relates to such a normative
evaluation.
Evaluation is criterion-based when it seeks to assess a learner’s performance level
based on success criteria implicitly or explicitly defined according to the objectives. It
does not involve comparing a learner’s performance level with other learners’
performance levels. It seeks to determine the extent to which goals and objectives
targeted by a particular course have been reached.
Forms of Evaluation
The primary objective of evaluation in an educational context is to prepare the

ground for decisions to be made on educational activities. Activities to be evaluated
may relate to:
a. learners’ achievements
b. Courses
c. Teachers
d. Educational institutions
Applicants for enrolment in the first year of a particular higher

education institution have to take enrolment tests. Enrolment tests
Activity 11.2  are designed on the basis of subject content necessary for good
performance in the first-year courses. Applicants for enrolment in
the first year will be listed on a merit basis after taking the tests. Only the first 20
applicants will be authorised to enrol.
Which method or methods of evaluation are used by the higher education institutions
to select candidates for enrolment in the first year ?

A teacher has arranged the content of his annual courses in modules. He gives tests
at the end of each module. The teacher has in mind a
Activity 11.3  double objective: 1°. To compare all learners’
performance levels and to classify them based on their
achievements with each test ; 2°. To provide each learner with adequate information
to help him improve his performances. What is the type of tests organised by the
teacher at the conclusion of each module?
11.2
Tools and Techniques for Evaluating Learning
At the end of this Unit, you should be to:

. identify various evaluation tools;
. analyse data collected for evaluation; and
. interpret results of evaluation SPECIFIC
OBJECTIVES
Evaluation Tools in Higher Education
The major tools used to evaluate learning are :
a. Tests
b. Questionnaires

c. Observation Schedules
d. Interview Guides
Tests as Tools for Evaluation
The major tool of evaluation in higher institutions are tests. Tests can be of various
types. They can be classified on the following basis :
By Kind of item
• Choice items (true-false, multiple choice, matching)
• Completion items
• Short answer items
• Essay items
By how observations are scored

• Objectives tests
• Subjective tests
By degree of standardization
• Standardised tests
• Non standardised tests
By administrative conditions
• Individual tests

• Group tests
By language emphasis of response

• Verbal tests
• Performance tests
By emphasis on time
• Power tests
• Speed tests
By score-referencing scheme
• Norm-referencing
• Criterion-referencing
By what attribute is measured

• Achievement tests
• Survey batteries
• Specific subject tests
• Aptitude tests
• General scholastic aptitude tests
• Readiness tests
• Tests of specific aptitudes

• Personality and adjustment measures
• Projective techniques
• Structured tests
• Self-report questionnaires
• Interest inventories
• Vocational or career interests
• Other interest inventories
• Attitude and values questionnaires
Description of Tests
Tests can be described in a variety of ways:

• Group and individual tests differ in the number of persons to whom they are
simultaneously administered as well as in the manner of their administration.
Group tests sacrifice maximum examinee-examiner interaction, personalised
testing conditions, and clinical observations for cost and efficiency.
• Tests differ in their objectivity – the extent to which every observer of the
examinee’s performance on the test will give exactly the same report of what was
observed. The scoring of a test is subjective if the report of the observed
performance varies a great deal from one observer to the next.
• Standardisation is the extent to which a test’s observational procedures,
equipment and materials, and scoring rules are pre-established so that exactly
the same testing procedure can be followed at different times and in different
places. This view of standardisation has nothing to do with whether norm-

referenced data are provided. It provides a way to improve a test’s objectivity

and the interpretation of the examinee’s performance on the test.
• Verbal tests focus on the verbal responses of examinees, while performance
tests focus on non-verbal responses. Verbal ability may be necessary to
understand the directions on performance tests and to mediate the non-verbal
responses.
• If a test is designed to measure speed of responding, then the items are
generally not difficult under unspeeded conditions. Many tests are concerned
with assessing the amount of knowledge or understanding an individual
possesses, independent of speed, and testing conditions are essentially untimed.
Such tests are called power tests. Many tests in education are partially speeded;
often this is unknown to both the examinee and examiner.
• Norm-referenced tests describe the examinee by stating where an examinee is
located in a specified group of persons. Criterion-referenced tests describe the
performance repertoire of an examinee, independent of group membership.
• The questions on a test are called items, and a test can be described in terms of
the types of items it contains. There are choice items: true-false, multiple-choice,
and matching exercises. There are also supply items: completion, short answer,
and essay. No item type has a uniformly distinct advantage under all
circumstances.
• Tests are described also in terms of the attributes they are designed to observe.
Among these attributes are academic achievements; scholastic – and other –
aptitudes; personality traits; and interests, attitudes, and values.
General Principles of Test Construction

Planning the test
To plan a test, you prepare a two-way table, called a test blueprint. The names of
the major categories of a taxonomy head the table columns while the row heading
indicates the major topics of the subject matter to be tested. In the body of the
table, the “cells”, formed by a combination of a particular taxonomy category and a
particular subject-matter topic, contain specific instructional objectives. Thus, the
blueprint serves as a double-entry classifying scheme for specific objectives. After
objectives are classified, the number of test items that will be used to test each
objective is recorded in the table. Thus, the test blueprint serves as a plan which
assures that all important objectives are included and that they receive the proper
emphasis on the test.
Hints for Constructing Essay-type Tests
♦ Define the behaviour the examinee is expected to exhibit or describe the process
to be exhibited before beginning to write the essay question.
♦ Ask questions that require the examinee to demonstrate the ability to use
essential knowledge and to do so in situations that are new or novel for the
examinee, rather than simply recalling information from a textbook or a
classroom.
♦ Ask questions that are relatively specific or focused, and which require relatively
brief responses.
♦ If a test includes several essay questions, be sure that they cover the appropriate
range of topics and complexity of behavior called for in the test blueprint, but be

sure that the complexity of the questions are within the educational maturity level
of the examinees.
♦ Require all examinees to answer the same questions; don’t give optional
questions.
♦ Word questions so that all examinees will interpret the task the way you intend.
♦ Word questions so that all examinees know the limits of the tasks, their purposes,
and can answer them in the time allotted.
♦ Word questions so that experts can agree on the correctness of an examinee’s
response.
♦ Word questions calling for examinee opinion on controversial matters so that they
ask the examinee to give evidence to support the opinion and evaluate the
examinee’s response in terms of the evidence presented rather than the opinion
or position taken.
♦ Word questions so the examinee can judge the approximate length of the answer
desired and knows the point-value of weight each will be given.
Phrasing Essay-type Questions
The following are some hints in phrasing essay-type questions
1. COMPARING:
Describe the similarities and differences between…….
Compare the following two methods for………
2. RELATING CAUSE AND EFFECT:
What are major causes of ….?
What would be the most likely effects of …?

3. JUSTIFYING:
Which of the following alternative would you favour and why?
Explain why you agree or disagree with the following statement:
4. SUMMARISING:
State the main points included in ….
Briefly summarise the contents of ….
5. GENERALISING:
Formulate several valid generalisations from the following data.
State a set of principles that can explain the following events.
6. INFERRING:
In light of the facts presented, what is most likely to happen, when…?
What deductions can you make from the statement of….?
7. CLASSIFYING:
Group the following items according to….
What do the following items have in common?
8. CREATING:
List as many ways as you can think of for….
Write a list of questions that should be answered before….
9. APPLYING:
Using the principle of…. As a guide, describe how you would solve the following
problem situation.
Describe a situation that illustrates the principle of…
10. ANALYSING:
Describe the reasoning errors in the following paragraph.
List and describe the main characteristics of…
Describe the relationship between the following parts of…
11. SYNTHESIZING:
Describe a plan for proving that…

Write a well-organised report that shows…
Write a set of specifications for building a…
12. EVALUATING:
Criticise or defend each of the following statements.
Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the following…
Using the criteria developed in class, write a critical evaluation of…
Hints for Scoring Essay-type Answers
1. Prepare some type of scoring guide (e.g., an outline, an “ideal” answer, or

“specimen” responses)
2. Grade all responses to one question before moving on to the next question.
3. Periodically re-score previously scored papers.
4. Score papers without reference to the identity (e.g. registration or matriculation
number or name) of the student.
5. Provide students with feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their
responses.
6. When the grading decision is crucial, have two or more readers score the essays
independently.
Hints for writing short-answer (completion) items
1. Use the question form of the short-answer variety if possible.

2. Word each item in specific terms with clear meanings so that the intended
answer is the only one possible, and so that the answer is a single word, brief
phrase, or number.
3. Word each item so that the blank or answer space is toward the end of the
sentence.
4. Avoid copying statements verbatim from texts or classroom materials.
5. Omit important rather than trivial words.
6. Avoid “butchered” or “mutilated” sentences; use only one or two blanks in a
completion sentence.
7. Keep the blanks of equal length and arrange the items so the answers are placed
in a column at the right or left of the sentences.
8. State the precision, numerical units, or degree of specificity expected of the
answer.
9. Word the items to avoid irrelevant clues or specific determiners.
Hints for writing true-false items
1. Make sure the item is either definitely true or definitely false.

2. Avoid verbal clues (specific determiners) that give away the answer.
3. Test important ideas, knowledge, or understanding (rather than trivia, general
knowledge, or common sense).
4. Keep the word-length of true statements about the same as that of false
statements.
5. Avoid copying sentences directly from textbook and other written materials.
6. Avoid presenting items in a repetitive or easily learned pattern.

Hints for constructing matching exercising
1. Within a single matching exercise, make the premises and responses

homogeneous.
2. Write directions that explain completely the intended basis for matching.
3. Check to see that all the responses function as plausible options to each
premise.
4. Keep the list of premises and responses within a single matching exercise
relatively short.
5. Avoid creating “perfect matching” in which each response matches only one
premise.
6. Place the longer phrases (sentences) in the premise list and the shorter phrases,
words, or symbols in the response list.
7. If at all possible, arrange the responses in a logical, meaningful order.
8. Use numbers to identify the premises and letters to identify the responses.
9. Avoid using incomplete sentences for premises.
10. Keep all the premises and responses belonging to a single matching exercise on
the same page.
Hints for constructing multiple-choice items (with emphasis on how to
formulate the stem of the item)
TO DO TO AVOID
If possible, write as a direction question. Avoid extraneous, superfluous, and non-
functioning words and phrases that are
mere “window dressing.”
If an incomplete sentence is used, be Avoid (or use sparingly) negatively
sure it implies a direct question. worded items.
The alternatives come at the end (rather
than in the middle) of the sentence.

Control the wording so that vocabulary Avoid phrasing the item so that the
and sentence structure are at a relatively personal opinion of the examinee is an
low and of non-technical level. option.
In items testing definitions, place the Avoid textbook wording and “textbookish”
word or item in the stem and use or stereotyped phraseology.
definitions or descriptions as alternatives
Avoid “clueing” and “linking” items (i.e.,

having the correct answer to one item be
clued or linked to the correctness of the
answer to a previous item
Hints for improving the quality of the alternatives in multiple-choice items
TO DO TO AVOID
1. In general strive to create three to five functional 1. Avoid overlapping alternatives.
Alternatives.
2. All alternatives should be homogeneous and appro- 2. Avoid making the alternatives a
priate to the stem collection of true-false items.
3. Put repeated words and phrases the stem. 3. Avoid using “not given”, “none of
the above”, etc, as an alternative
in best-answer type of items (use
only with correct-answer variety).
4. Use consistent and correct punctuation in relation 4. Avoid using “all of the above”; limit
to the stem. Its use to the correct-answer variety.
5. Arrange alternatives in a list format rather than in 5. Avoid using verbal clues in the
tandem. Alternatives.
6. Arrange alternatives in a logical or meaningful order. 6. Avoid using technical terms, unknown
words or names, and “silly” terms or
names
as distractors.
7. All distractors should be grammatically correct with 7. Avoid making it harder to eliminate a
respect to the stem. Distractor than to choose the keyed

alternative.
(a) Prepare a test blueprint for your end-of-semester

course examination
(b) Construct five each of the following types of
questions: essay, multi-choice, true/false and
MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
matching
Activity 11.3
11.22 
(c) Prepare a marking guide for the tests.
The requirements or criteria of evaluating tests
The ultimate goal of any evaluation should be to collect relevant valid, reliable and
economical information for decisions to be appropriately made. Relevance,
validity, reliability and the economical aspect are currently the most expected
requirements or criteria for any evaluation test.
The relevance of data collected implies that the subject under evaluation
precisely and specially corresponds to the objectives targeted by the evaluation. For
example, the relevance of examination tests at the end of a given curriculum makes
it necessary to differentiate between examinations meant to evaluate learners’
qualification for promotion to an upper class or to move into the job market and
active life.
The validity of data collected implies that the evaluation has actually been
focused on the subject initially targeted for evaluation. For instance, for the sake of
validity, learners’ written and oral skills cannot be evaluated with the same tests.
The reliability of data collected implies that they are not determined by the
free will and choice of the individual who collected them. For example, the double
grading of examination papers is meant to consolidate and further ascertain
reliability.
Data analysis and interpretation

Data analysis follows the administration or taking of tests. Data collected at the end
of a quantitative evaluation or a qualitative evaluation may nearly always be
amenable to statistical processing.
Distribution of scores: Scores of groups can be summarised and interpreted by

tabulating a frequency distribution and/or plotting a histogram or polygon. Special
terms describe the shapes of distributions including their symmetry, modality,
peakedness, and skewness. These graphs can also be used to compare two or
more distributions of scores.
Measures of central tendency: Among the summary numbers or statistics used
with test scores are those that reflect the average or typical score of the group.
Among these are the mode, median, and mean. These indices may be used jointly
as well as singly to describe a distribution of scores.
Score variability: Statistics describing the variability or spread of scores are
important in understanding a group’s score distribution. Of these, the standard
deviation has been the most frequently used with educational and psychological
tests. This index, a type of average of the deviations from the mean, measures the
extent to which persons’ scores differ from each other.
Relative location in a distribution of scores: Individuals’ scores can be
interpreted in terms of their relative location in a distribution. Scores which express
this relative standing directly are called norm-referenced scores. Among those
described are simple rank in the group; percentile rank, or percent of the group that
person’s score exceeded; and a linear standard score called the z-score.
The correlation coefficient: The degree of relationship between two sets of scores
is quantitatively described by the correlation coefficient. The correlation quantifies
the relationship between the z-score on two test. This relationship can be displayed
in a scatter diagram, also.
A group of 19 students scored the following grades :

15 ; 13 ;7 ;8 ;9 ;12 ;11 ;10 ;8 ;17 ;18 ;19 ;10 ;12 ;13 ;16 ;5 ;12 ;13
Activity 11.4  1. Give the frequency table of the 19 grades

2. What is or what are the modes of the 19 grades
3. What is the median of the 19 grades
4. What is the mean or average of the 19 grades
5. Calculate the typical gap of the 19 grades
6. Calculate the standardised grade of each of the 19 grades.
Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

E. A. Yoloye
 Reading 11.1
A decision-making definition of evaluation is very appropriate for higher education.

Whatever definition of evaluation one uses however, the following three components
of the evaluation process remain valid:
• The entity to be evaluated which could be a product, a process or a performance.
• Measurement of the entity to arrive at a score, grade or other quantitative
representation.
• Evaluating the quantitative measure by putting a value on it. The value could
take various forms such as pass/fail, first class/second class/third class/pass/fail.
THE FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION
Putting a value on a measure can be based on scores which are:

• Norm-referenced i.e in comparison with an identified reference group e.g. through
the use of percentile rank.

• Criterion-referenced i.e in comparison with stated absolute achievement levels

e.g. indicating level of mastery based on percentage score.
THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
Broadly speaking there are two purposes:
• Evaluation for accountability- usually at the end of a specified period for the
purpose of passing judgement on the extent to which what is expected to be
achieved has been achieved. This is sometimes referred to as summative
evaluation. It is often followed by reward for success e.g. promotion or award of
a certificate, or punishment for failure e.g. repetition of a course, expulsion from
the institution or witholding of a certificate.
• Evaluation for improvement of services or performance – usually at various
stages in the process of learning or teaching for the purpose of identifying areas
of weakness and strength which might influence success or failure at the end of
the course. This is sometimes called Formative evaluation and is usually
followed by feedback to the learner or performer and the initiation of corrective
action to improve the chances of success at the end of the course. In this sense
formative evaluation may be said to be diagnostic.
SCOPE OF EVALUATION
Broadly there are two levels as follows:
Micro level – which evaluates individual elements within a system eg.

• Learner achievement
• Teacher performance
• Instructional materials, within a particular institution.
Macro level – which evaluates the entire system to assess its performance e.g.
• Internal efficiency of the system using such indicators as transition rate, drop-out
rate, proportion graduating.
• External efficiency using such indicators as percentage of graduate securing
employment, performance of the graduates on the job, relevance of knowledge or
skills acquired by the graduates to available jobs.

METHODS/TOOLS OF EVALUATING LEARNING
• Written tests
• Oral tests.
• Practical tests in laboratories.
• Projects.
• Term papers.
• Theses.
DESIRED QUALITIES IN THE TOOLS FOR EVALUATION
• Reliability, especially scorer reliability.

• Validity.
• Manageability within available time, manpower and finance especially
considering large classes.
DATA ANALYSIS FOR NORM-REFERENCED EVALUATION
Mainly descriptive statistics as follows:

• Measures of central tendency- Mode, Median, Mean.
• Measures of dispersion – Range, semi-interquartile range, variance, standard
deviation.
STANDARDISATION OF SCORES
For the purpose of making scores from different tests and other measuring tools
comparable, the raw scores need to be converted to standard scores using the mean
and standard deviation, e.g. stanines, t-scores, z-scores. WAEC uses reversed
stanines for reporting scores in SSCE while JAMB uses modified Z-scores for
reporting UME scores.
EVALUATION OF TEACHING
Evaluation of teaching of individual teachers may be based on

• The extent to which he or she displays expected teacher behaviour
• The extent to which achievement of his or her pupils attain expected levels.

• Expected teacher behaviour includes such things as punctuality to class,

regularity of attendance to give lectures, adequacy of preparation of lectures
given, appropriateness of classroom interaction with students, efficiency;
promptness and reliability in grading students’ tests and examinations.
• Student achievement may be measured by the various tools listed in section 5.0.
• If we regard the raw scores as being criterion-referenced and plot the frequency
curves for each course taken, three basic curves may be obtained.
i. Positively skewed ii. Normal iii. Negatively skewed
The most commonly obtained curve with traditional teaching especially with large
classes is the normal curve.
Bloom (1971) in his exposition of Mastery learning says:
“There is nothing sacred about the normal curve. It is the distribution most
appropriate to chance and random activity. Education is a purposeful activity, and
we seek to have the students learn what we have to teach. If we are effective in our
instruction, the distribution of achievement should be very different from the normal
curve. In fact, we may even insist that our educational efforts have been
unsuccessful to the extent that the distribution of achievement approximates the
normal distribution.”
If we accept this assertion, we may regard the three curve shapes in a hierarchical
order indicating effectiveness of instruction. Thus, a positive skew would indicate the
lowest level, the normal curve an average level and a negative skew the highest
level.
Excerpted from
Yoloye, E.A. (1998, September). Evaluation in higher Education. Presented at the UNESCO
Workshop on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. University of Ibadan, Nigeria
EVALUATION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Ezra Maritim
 Reading 11.2

Introduction
The aim of this presentation is to introduce the basic guidelines and pertinent issues
in evaluation practices in higher education, with special reference to Kenya. In the
area of teaching and learning, the UNESCO regional workshop held in Dakar,
Senegal, in March 1999 provided useful basic evaluation concepts, the various forms
of evaluation and the qualities of good evaluation tools. The forms of evaluation
identified by the Dakar workshop included: coursework, written examinations
(essays, multiple choice, etc) oral and aural examinations, project work, laboratory
reports, class tests, direct observations (clinical education, teaching practice,
practicum), term papers and theses. The features and the qualities of a good
evaluation tool are as follows: validity, reliability, fairness, practicability, relevance
and economical.
Highlights of the Presentation
This paper approaches evaluation in four ways. First, what is evaluation? Although
in the institutions of higher education, evaluation is a household work, it might be
helpful to consider just what it is. I define an evaluation as a measure of getting to
know the quality of learning and teaching in higher education. Second, what is the
institutional mission and philosophy? In what philosophical context does evaluation
take place? The mission of the institution guide the process of evaluation. In some
ways, the mission statements specify the measurable and qualitative attributes the
graduates should achieve in their course of their learning which make the institution
unique. These attributes are reflected at the teaching/subject matter level in the form
of course major and minor objectives. In this context, the mission statement should
be known by all the teaching members of staff for operational translation and
interpretation. Third of what internal use is evaluation? That is, what use is
evaluation to the institution and the student? The rationale for evaluation is for the
internal management of teaching and learning in the institution. In a teaching and
learning situation, evaluation has accrued benefits to both the teacher and the
learner in that it enables:
• the teacher to identify what the learners know or do not know in order to facilitate
him/her to teach more effectively, and
• the learner to learn more effectively.

In addition to the above benefits, evaluation enables the institutions to make

summative judgement about the adequacy of the learner’s performance in the form
of:
• grading
• classification
• certification
Fourth, what are the hurdles in evaluation in the institutions of higher learning? A
major problem for approximately 95% of the Kenya universities and middle level
college staff, other than those in the faculties of education, is that they have no
pedagogical training and therefore lack skills in the development of evaluation items.
These deficiencies lead to the following negative effects:
• teachers’ misconception of both the purpose of evaluation and the various forms
of evaluation;
• teachers’ setting of cognitively less demanding tasks that encourage students to
reproduce subject matter;
• teachers’ misuse of examinations to instil fear among students.
In addition, given the current large class sizes, lecturers have not been effective in:
• giving students feedback on their performance ,

• indicating to students what they could have done to improve their performance,
• providing adequate face -to-face interaction
• Some possible solutions to these deficiencies could be found for example
through:
• provision of in -service training on theories and practices in education;
• In-building quality in evaluation the provision of in-service training on item
writing , moderation and marking system;
• Utilizing group evaluation facilitates acquisition on interpersonal skills, teamwork
skills;
• Using a mix of different tasks would give students the best opportunity to
demonstrate the quality of their learning, and
• Making students know what is expected of them.
Excerpted from:
Maritim, E. (1999). Evaluation in higher education. Presentation at the Regional Workshop
on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, University of Witwatersrand, Johannseburg, South
Africa, September.

Evaluation of Teaching
11.3
After completing this Unit, you should be able to
❐ use relatively simple indicators for evaluation teaching; and

SPECIFIC
❐ prepare tools for evaluating teachers. OBJECTIVES
Evaluation of teaching
Evaluation in Higher Education in Francophone Africa

Ousseynou DIA
 Reading 11.3
EVALUATING TEACHING
As regards the evaluation of teaching, it can at least be done at two levels: that of
content (development and evaluation of curricula and syllabi), and methods. Given
the specific goals which the institutions should henceforth pursue, we have to ask
ourselves certain questions before preparing curricula. What links should they
(institutions) maintain with those of developed countries? In other words, is any
development work done if one is contented with teaching in the former the same
course contents as in the latter? The question of standards seems to us to be all the
more relevant as the neutrality and universality of scientific and technical knowledge
appear to be more and more pseudo-evident. Scientific and technical knowledge
has, as a matter of fact, a cultural impact in the sense that they more or less
explicitly internalize a global vision, a mode of analysis and perception of reality.

This interrogation therefore leads to a reflection on the universal and specific aspects
and on their complex relationships. If learning can more or less be considered
universal, its linkages are enhanced by culture.
It is advisable to examine our students’ basic scientific knowledge and consider the
appropriate course content they need to make up for the inadequacies. If this
preliminary survey is not carried out, the education we are providing could end up as
a duplication of the knowledge already acquired by our student (formal knowledge,
empirical personal and social knowledge); besides, one might wonder if the scientific
and technical knowledge that we impart to them still address the issues that actually
arise from their relationship with their environment.
ASSESSING ACADEMIC STAFF
The problem connected with evaluating teaching methods is less attributed to the
lack or inadequacy of appropriate pedagogic techniques than to the negative
attitudes of certain teachers in this respect. Such evaluation can inevitably be done
by observing the performance of teachers because an objective assessment can be
made only on the basis of their conduct. With regard to the objectives of training,
qualification and assessment of lessons taught and their feed-back, the evaluation
can induce the academic staff to improve their performance and thus enhance the
quality of teaching; it also helps to ascertain whether the objectives of a coure or a
study programme have been attained or to discover the discrepancies between the
students’ expectations, the teacher’s intentions and the demands of the discipline.
All the same, with what tools can one make an objective assessment of a teacher’s
performance? There is in the first place the video technique which not only allows
for the observation of the teacher’s performance by a third person, but also
encourages self-observation. There is also the practice of course inspection by a
high-ranking professor or expert, analysis of syllabi by an administrative body and
course evaluation by students.
The assessment of teachers’ performance has often been resisted by some teachers
and this deserves attention. The refusal can be explained as a resistance to
pedagogic innovation, a mean of averting the risks of upsetting the “master” image
which the teacher enjoys and the established monopoly of learning power which the
master arrogates to himself in the classroom. However, this lack of conformity to the
pedagogic practice of evaluation seems to be linked to the cultural context,
educational system, the manner in which institutions and their teachers have been
made to consider the notions of learning, knowledge and teaching in terms of

aptitude, competence and training, the last element being a measurable product of
planning. It is also linked to the level of students’ participation in managing their
studies and in running their school, the quality of instructional information given to
teachers which underscores the significance of evaluating their services and skills.
The inherited educational system actually allows for the assessment of teachers in
tertiary institutions only on the basis of their research works. Such evaluation has
the merit of trying to define certain objective criteria for assessment such as
publications and theses, and forcing young graduate assistants or assistant lecturers
to distinguish themselves in a discipline before occupying positions of responsibility.
On the other hand, it accounts for the preference given to scientific research to the
detriment of teaching. Most of the teacher who took part in the debate on scientific
research and teaching reached a consensus on the need for training through and for
research even though some of them wondered about the place of educational
research in the training institutions.
This explains the fact that, in the countries where teachers’ performance is
assessed, the practice is attributed to the search for the institutions’ internal
efficiency on account of the economic crisis and/or the phenomenon of student
unrest. The revival of educational practices as well as the evaluation of teachers
and teaching derives from this situation. That is why students now indulge in making
a quasi-systematic evaluation of their teachers. If it more or less provides
information on the quality of the pedagogic relationship (criteria for teaching and
research: characteristics of a course), it scarcely helps to evaluate the contents and
their level of assimilation – at least because the assessments are based on human
relations, the sole guarantee, in the eyes of the learners, for efficient teaching. This
experience now reveals that students’ assessments can measure the level of
conviviality and human warmth!
However, the assessment that students make of the instruction received is a source
of vital information for every lecturer who cares about improving his course. This
practice is fruitful because it is rare to find instances where no deductions are made
from the remarks given or from the analysis of their comments for improvement. A
policy on this type of evaluation can only be incorporated into a comprehensive effort
by an institution determined to provide quality education. This practice indeed goes
beyond the questionnaires filled by students to take into account all the other
pedagogic parameters. With all precautions taken (agreement on the validity of
questionnaires, objectiveness in data gathering), it is possible to ask the teachers

deserving promotion to submit an evaluation report on their performance in order to

reinforce the pedagogic judgement or opinion of his peers, which cannot be ignored.
Excerpted from:
Dia, O (1998). Quality of Higher Education in Francophone Africa. In J. Shabani (Ed.). Higher
Education in Africa: Achievements, Challenges and Prospects. Dakar: UNESCO BREDA.
Quality of Higher Education in South Africa: Conceptions, Contestations and

Comments
Nico Cloete
 Reading 11.4
In South Africa, quality assurance mechanisms have varied across the three higher
education sectors. In the college sectors, the dominant form has been nationally,
provincially or departmentally set examinations for the certificate and diploma
programmes. In the technikon sector, the Certification Council for Technikon
Education (SERTEC) has performed an important programme accreditation function
that incorporates many of the international common features outlined earlier. (An
important contextual factor is that technikon programmes are all offered in terms of
broad curriculum guidelines agreed upon nationally by the technikon sector in
conjuction with the relevant industry/professional/employer grouping).
In the university sector, quality has been assured via professional accreditation
(where applicable) and through a peer-based system of external examination,
although in the latter case not uniformly so. A recent development is the
establishment by the Committee of University Principals (CUP) of a Quality
Promotion Unit. Overall , in the previous system quality assurance was erratic, the
use of external examiners inspired little confidence and quality was largely
determined by reputation.
Drawing from international experience, the Commission on the Higher Education

(NCHE Report, 1996) concluded that there are certain commonalities among more
established systems. Firstly, most include an initial self-evaluation process followed
by an external (typically peer) assessment of the results and process of self-
evaluation. Secondly, through self-evaluation and the role of peers in the external
evaluation, higher education largely “owns” the quality system. Thirdly, an
independent body usually coordinates the external evaluation which is conducted in

terms of more or less standardized criteria ranging from detailed norms to more
flexible checklists. Fourthly, the results of evaluation are in most cases made public.
Finally, in nearly all countries, negative sanctions can be a consequence of the
assessment procedure.
The commission proposed that a developmentally based quality assurance system

should include three functions: institutional auditing, programme accreditation and
quality promotion. Firstly, a Higher Education Quality Committee should be
established, as a committee of the Higher Education Council. The Higher Education
Council should be recognized by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA)
as the umbrella coordinating body for quality assurance in higher education
programmes. The Higher Education Council should exercise this authority via the
quality committee. The Higher Education Quality Committee should be responsible
for institutional auditing and programme accreditation, and should be managed by a
board made up of individuals drawn from inside and outside the higher education
system. The Higher Education Quality Committee should encourage and monitor
quality promotion activities within higher education, but not undertake such activities
itself. The Commission has recommended that the Quality Promotion Unit of the
Committee of University Principals, with an expanded mandate, be considered as a
possible body to undertake this function on an agency basis.
It is integral to this quality assurance system that a single qualifications framework

should be developed for all higher education qualifications, as part of the National
Qualifications Framework. The framework should include intermediate exit
qualification within multiple-year qualifications and should consist of a laddered set of
qualifications at higher education certificate, diploma and degree levels. All higher
education programmes should be registered on the NQF, at minimum at the exit
level of whole qualifications, with National Standard Setting Bodies determining the
appropriate form of registration in terms of the use of unit standards within
qualifications. National Standard Setting Bodies should also be charged with
ensuring that a coherent laddered set of qualifications is developed and registered in
each field, and is responsible for developing effective articulation mechanisms
between the different qualifications. It is vital that this be done in all professional
fields where problems of articulation have often been most acute. The Higher
Education Council should ensure that the decisions taken by SAQA and its National
Standard Setting Bodies on how the registration of qualifications is to occur provide
an effective basis for incorporating higher education programmes into the National
Quality Framework. The fields and levels should be compatible with the subject
categories and levels used in the higher education information and planning
systems. Higher Education Programmes should be registered as either “national”

programmes offered by a number of providers or “institutional” programmes that are
relatively unique to the provide institution or partner institutions. (NCHE Report,
1996)
Programme accreditation will be pursued through a combination of self-evaluation

and independent assessment. The purpose of the evaluation is to grant or maintain
accreditation to programmes that have met the minimum acceptable standards as
determined by the relevant National Standard Setting Bodies and ensure the
enhancement of the quality of programmes.
The evaluation procedures for institutions and programmes will include: an

institutional/programme self-evaluation process, and an evaluation by independent
assessors including, where appropriate, professional bodies and visits by teams of
experts. In addition, the Commission also proposed that a new national information
system be established that will include a set of performance indicators that are
sensitive to redress, quality and developmental indicators.
The Green Paper on higher education released by the government in December,

1996 broadly endorses the Commission’s position by stating that “the Ministry
agrees that quality assurance of programmes has been a priority within higher
education internationally in recent years as a way of ensuring accountability and
value for money (p.32). The Ministry also agreed that the primary responsibility for
quality assurance rests within higher education and proposes that a Higher
Education Quality Committee be established as an independent umbrella body.
Excerpted from:
Cloete, N. (1998). Quality of Higher Education in South Africa: Conceptions, Contestations and
Comments. In J. Shabani (Ed.). Higher Education in Africa: Achievements, Challenges and Prospects.
Dakar: UNESCO BREDA.
Evaluation of teaching as we can glean from Readings 5.2. and 5.3, can be carried
out at the internal level and at the external level.
The internal or external evaluation of studies may be implemented by :

• each teacher concerned about giving information on the results of his or her own
work
• each institution wishing to better control the quality of its performance
• the local or national authority organising and funding educational systems
• international agencies specially for comparison of the performances of
educational systems in various countries
independent scholars and researchers.
Internal evaluation does not target the same objectives as external evaluation.
Ordinarily, internal evaluation seeks to measure and assess the pedagogical quality
and the costs of studies. Conversely, external evaluation focusses on the impact of
studies outside educational systems in connection with social, cultural, religious and
economic factors etc. Generally speaking, the internal evaluation of studies seeks to
measure and assess :
• the number of students to be moved to the next higher level of the course
• the number of students repeating the classes
• the number of students who drop out
• the number of students who successfully complete their studies
The external evaluation of studies deals with issues relating to :

• the number of degree holders who find a job or create a business
• the adequacy of courses taken with the jobs and positions held
• the relevance of school and university curricula to needs in the community
• the impact of studies on the level and quality of economic production.

Some indicators for the evaluation of teaching
Studies may be evaluated based on their internal or external efficiency. Some

relatively simple indicators for the evaluation of internal efficiency include:
• percentage of students promoted to a higher level at the end of the academic
year
• percentage of students repeating the class
• percentage of students who drop out of school in the course of, or at the end of
the year
• percentage of students who pass their school and university examinations.
These percentages may be calculated by taking into account the students who
started classes in the same year. In this case, they are gross rates of internal
efficiency. The percentages may be established by taking into account all the
students attending the same classes but who did not start their studies at the same
time. In this case, we have net rates of internal efficiency.
Example:
In 1998-99, there were 20 students in the first year of medical school. Among these
152 had enrolled for the first time in 1998-99 in the first year of medical studies. At
the end of the same year, 167 students had passed their exams, including 134 of the
152 students enrolled for the first time in 1998-99 and 33 among the 53 repeaters.
The gross rate of internal efficiency for promotion to the second year of studies in
1999-2000 is, in this case, equal to = (134/152)* 1OO = 88.15 %
The net rate of internal efficiency for promotion to the second year in 1999-2000 is
here equal to = (167/2O5)* 1OO = 81.46 %

Some relatively simple indicators of the internal efficiency:
• the percentage of degree holders (or fully trained students) who secure jobs
• the percentage of degree holders (or fully trained students) who have secured
jobs corresponding with their qualifications.
Examples :
At the end of the 1996-97 academic year, 37 students had completed their medical
doctorate dissertations. Of these, 29 found jobs but only 15 of the 29 got jobs in the
field of medicine in 1997-98.
The overall percentage of medical degree holders who secured jobs in 1997-98 is :
(29/37)* 100 = 78.37 %
The percentage of medical degree holders who found jobs in the health sector in
1997-98 is : (15/37)* 100 = 40.05 %
In 1991-1992, there were 585 students in the second year of economics. Among
these, 399 had enrolled for the first time in the second
year of studies in 1991-92. By the end of the year, 377 Activity 11.5 
students among the 585 had qualified to enroll in the
third-year of studies in 1992-93. They included 77 of the 339 students enrolled for
the first time in 1991-92.

1. Calculate the gross rate of internal efficiency for the second year of studies in
economics
2. Calculate the net rate of internal efficiency for the same second year of studies in
economics.
Evaluation of teachers
The evaluation of teachers is becoming more and more popular as a practice. It is

conducted in many anglophone universities with the participation of students. In
francophone countries, the evaluation of teachers by their peers or by trainee
teachers is not a common practice. However, some francophone universities are
members of international cooperation agencies such as CAMES (Africa and
Madagascar Council for Higher Education) whose rating is a determining factor in
the professional promotion of academics and researchers in member universities.
There are several tools for the evaluation of teachers by learners. The tools involve
several areas including :
• the academic background of teachers
• their professional skills
Many research studies have focussed on the evaluation of teachers by learners.

People have always challenged the validity and reliability of the evaluation of
teachers by their own students. It is believed that students are not able to make valid
and relevant comments on course contents. In the same way, comments vary

depending on students’ ages or their contacts and connections which the teachers to
be evaluated.
The most promising results of research in education may probably come from the
different contents of the evaluation of teachers by their students based on the
ultimate purpose of the results of such evaluation. An evaluation conducted for
administrative purposes should not have the same content as a pedagogical
evaluation. It is generally admitted that students’ opinions are very useful to make
teachers aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their teaching as well as of the
methods and strategies used by the teachers etc.
Presented below is the summary of discussions of a group at the Regional

Workshop on Teaching and Learning in Higher
Activity 11.4  Education held in Eldoret, Kenya. Critically review
the conclusions of the group and discuss your views
with a colleague in your department.
In discussing the place and the role of evaluation in teaching and learning in higher
education, the discussion groups identified several issues and observations. These
can be summarised as follows:
• Despite the cost implications, external examiners system be retained and their
roles be expanded to include evaluation of the marking schemes, the type of
questions set, the curriculum and the teaching facilities including laboratory and
textbooks.
• Moderation of examinations be strengthened through the establishment of
external moderation system and departmental moderation committee.
• The Commission for Higher Education (CHE) should strengthen quality control
and quality assurance of the academic departments through frequent visitation.
• As part of the course assignment, students be required to carry out research
projects.
• At least two continuous Assessment Tests (CAT) be offered per semester.

• the final examination system be retained.
• Lecturers as internal examiners be trained on item construction; and the
departments establish item banks.
• Pre-determined grading system be discouraged in favour of performance-based
system. This will take into account the examination difficulty level.
• Periodic curriculum review be carried out.
• Students and departmental colleagues be involved in the evaluation of teaching.
• Evaluation of teaching be made easy, specific, anonymous and continuous.
• Large classes have led to heavy teaching workload and poor and erratic marking.
• The students rampant cheating in examinations reduces reliability and this act
should be heavily punished.
• Examination system should be used to improve learning by identifying the
strengths and weaknesses of the learner.
• The secrecy of examination results be reviewed. The policy of denying students
to know their marks should be reviewed.
Recommendations
Expand external examiners’ role to include evaluation of teaching/learning facilities,
course textbooks, course syllabuses.
2. The Commission for Higher Education carries out visitation and academic
audit of the academic departments for quality assurance.
3. Departments recommend external examiners.
4. Use a variety of assessment tools to evaluate students.
5. Train lecturers on evaluation skills.
6. In-service lecturers on educational theories and practices.
7. Minimise examination cheating.
Summary and Conclusion
Evaluation in schools and universities is geared towards decision making. The

evaluation of students is useful to measure the level of understanding and mastery of
pedagogical objectives. Evaluation of students is also important in making
administrative decisions such as the promotion, and the awarding or denying of a

degree. The evaluation of teachers involves an administrative aspect when it is used

for appointments or promotion. The evaluation of teachers by their own students may
serve as a warning and a signal on the pedagogical quality of the teacher’s teaching
strategies and his interactions with students.
References

Guide To Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide To Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide To Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUIDE TO TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.1

Reflect on the following as you work through this Module

On Evaluating Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.2

Article11. Qualitative evaluation

b. Quality also requires that higher education should be characterised by its

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.3

11.0 Introduction and General Objectives

“The Dakar Conference proposes that institutions of higher education should be

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.4

After completing the module, you should be able to :

❐ explain concepts used in evaluation

11.1 Clarification of Key Concepts

At the end of this Unit, you should be able to:

❐ define the following concepts - measurement, assessment and SPECIFIC

Measurement, Test, Assessment and Evaluation

With regard to education, distinctions can be made between measurement, test,

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.5

Measurement is a procedure for assigning numbers or specified attributes or

Tests are used regularly in relation to a number of classes of decision:

thereby maximise the student’s opportunities to attain chosen goals?” Diagnosis

Tests serve other purposes, such as:

A teacher corrects exam papers handed in by his learners. He puts a grade

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.7

In Yoloye’s (1998) view, a decision-making definition of evaluation is very

The nature of evaluation

Evaluation varies based on its nature, which may be quantitative or qualitative . In

Evaluation may also be qualitative. For instance, the internal efficiency of an

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.8

. comparing targeted skills with acquired skills.

The method of evaluation

Evaluation is diagnostic when it aims at assessing the individual features of learners

Diagnostic evaluation may be conducted at the beginning of any new course or

An evaluation is normative when it compares the performances of a particular

The primary objective of evaluation in an educational context is to prepare the

Applicants for enrolment in the first year of a particular higher

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.10

At the end of this Unit, you should be to:

Evaluation Tools in Higher Education

The major tools used to evaluate learning are :

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.11

Tests as Tools for Evaluation

By how observations are scored

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.12

By language emphasis of response

By what attribute is measured

• Tests of specific aptitudes

• Other interest inventories

• Attitude and values questionnaires

Tests can be described in a variety of ways:

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.14

referenced data are provided. It provides a way to improve a test’s objectivity

General Principles of Test Construction

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.15

Planning the test

Hints for Constructing Essay-type Tests

MODULE 11: Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 11.16

Phrasing Essay-type Questions