Good Teaching: Aligning Student and Administrator Perceptions and Expectations
Literature attests to limited systematic inquiry into students’ conceptions of good teaching in higher education. Resultantly, there have been calls for engaging students in construing what makes good university teaching and in developing a richer conception of teaching excellence. This interpretivist study that is based on views of final year university students from six academic disciplines investigated students’ conceptions of good teaching at Makerere University in Uganda. Students conceived good teaching as being student-centred, demonstrating strong subject and pedagogical knowledge, being approachable, being responsive, being organised, and being able to communicate well. Most of the conceptions of good teaching hinge on what the teacher does (the means) rather than affording high quality student learning (an end). It can therefore been concluded that good teaching is a multi-dimensional construct that defies a single definition and cannot be assured and assessed using a single indicator.
Al-Hinai, N.S. (2011). Implications for policy and practice in teaching quality assurance and control in higher education in Oman. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Durham University, UK
Barrie, S., Ginn, P., & Prosser, M. (2005). Early impacts and outcomes of an institutionally aligned student focused learning perspective on teaching quality assurance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(6), 641-656.
Brown, S. (2004). Assessment for Learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 81-89.
Duarte, F. P (2013). Conceptions of Good Teaching by Good Teachers: Case Studies from an Australian University, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 10(1), 2013.
Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2004), Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31.
Hassan, S & Wium, W. (2014). Quality lies in the eyes of the beholder: A mismatch between student evaluation and peer observation of teaching. African Education Review, 11(4), 491-511. DOI: 10.1080/18146627.2014.935000
Hativa, N. (2000). Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hѐnard, F., & Leprince-Ringuet, S. (2008). The path to quality teaching in Higher Education, unpublished paper.
Higgins, R., Hartley, P & Skelton, A. (2010). The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53-64.
Jonsson, A. (2012). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 63-67.
Kandiko, C.B & Mawer, M., (2013). Student expectations and perceptions of higher education. London: King’s Learning Institute.
Mckeachie, W.J. (1986). Teaching Tips. Lexington, MA, D.C: Health
Maniku, A. (2008). Higher Education Quality Assurance Policy and Practice in Maldives: A case study from a small developing nation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Massey University, New Zealand.
Marshall, M.N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-525.
Okpala, C. O & Ellis, R. (2005). The perceptions of college students on teacher quality: A focus on teacher qualifications. Education, 126, 374–378.
Price, M., Handley K., Millar, J, et al (2010).Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289.
Prosser, D.D.(2013). Quality teaching quality learning. In D.J Salter (Ed), Cases on quality teaching practices in higher education (pp.26-38). Hershey: IGI Global.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Reid, D., & Johnston, M. (1999). Improving teaching in higher education: Student and teacher perspectives. Educational Studies, 25(3), 269-281
Ross, K.N. (2005). Sample design for educational survey. Paris: UNESCO.
Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on learning: How can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment practices? Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145-158.
Sajjad, S.(2010). Effective teaching methods at higher educational level. Pakistan Journal of Special Education, 11, pp. 29-43.
Spencer, K. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2002). Students’ perspectives on teaching and its evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 397-408.
Su F & Wood, M. (2012). What makes a good university lecturer? Students’ perceptions of teaching excellence. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 4(2), 142-155.
Williams, J & Kaine, D.(2009). Assessment and feedback: Institutional experiences of student feedback,1996-1997. Higher Education Quarterly, 63(3), 264-186
Yates, G. (2005). How obvious: Personal reflections on the database of educational psychological and effective teaching research. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 681-700
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods,( Third Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zachariah, S. (2007).Managing Quality in Higher Education: A Stakeholder Perspective. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Leicester, UK.
Zenawi, Z. (2012). Evaluating Teaching Quality in Higher Education: A Focus on Students’ Learning Experiences. Published doctoral thesis, Centre for Educational Training and Assessment Research, Netherlands .
Zenawi, Z., Beishiuzen, J., & Van Os, W. (2012). Student learning experience as indicator of teaching quality. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 24, 99-111.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with HLRC agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and publishing rights without restrictions and grant the journal right of first publication. Authors grant Laureate Education, Inc. a license to publish and distribute the work under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in HLRC.
- Authors who submit manuscripts are to declare that their submission to HLRC is not simultaneously under consideration for publication in another journal and has not been published elsewhere previously.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the HLRC's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in HLRC.
- Pre-refereeing and pre-publication: To ensure consistency in the information available to researchers and to safeguard the blind peer-review process, authors are asked to abstain from self-archiving or posting online the submitted manuscript before the review process is complete.
- Post-refereeing and post-publication: Authors are free to self-archive and distribute the peer-reviewed and editorially reviewed version of their work. As a full open access journal, there is no embargo period. Authors are encouraged to archive the published PDF version, which includes a suggested citation with all pertinent information, including a digital object identifier (DOI). If the author decides to self-archive or distribute the work in a format other than the published PDF, the author must include the assigned DOI and acknowledge the work was first published in HLRC.