Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

ASSURING QUALITY IN TEACHING:

A PROFILE OF TEACHING PERFORMANCES AND EFFORTS TO UPGRADE


PEDAGOGICAL SKILLS AT MA CHUNG UNIVERSITY

Patrisius Istiarto Djiwandono


Universitas Ma Chung

Abstract

The paper reports a study on the teaching performances of lecturers at Ma Chung University.
More specifically, it draws a comparison between those lecturers who were taught pedagogical
skills in their previous education and those who did not have such training. Data were gathered
from the scores of teaching performances of 39 permanent lecturers during the academic year
2009/2010. It was hypothesized that the former should fare better than the latter. The scores were
submitted to ANOVA, which then turned out results that confirmed the hypothesis. The paper
then discusses some of the follow-up measures that were taken to improve the teaching qualities
of the lecturers. A special course named English For Teaching was administered to help the
lecturers refine their teaching skills. In addition, a sharing forum is held twice a year to let the
lecturers exchange good practices of teaching and classroom management.

Key words: teaching quality, pedagogical skills, teaching performances.

Background and research objectives

With the increased attention on the quality of education, the quality of teaching
performances has been taking on greater importance. As Biggs and Tang (2005) suggests, in the
era where education is perceived as an industry, students and parents are more increasingly aware
that they deserve high-quality education. Deming (cited in Felder and Brent, 1999, p.1), relating
educational sphere to Total Quality Management principles, asserts that “improvement of
education, and the management of education, require application of the same principles that must
be used for the improvement of any process, manufacturing or service”. The scheme of RSBI
(preparation for schools with international standard) and the nationwide interest in delivering
education with higher standard of qualities has spurred schools and colleges to strive for better
qualities in all aspects. Not only are teachers required to enhance their professional academic
knowledge and expertise through advanced degrees, but they are also expected to be able to
deliver good instructions that help their students learn in enjoyable and enriching classroom
atmosphere. Mortiboys (2005) even argues that good teaching means establishing and
maintaining high level of emotional intelligence on the part of the teacher, and that it can be
manifested in a wide variety of teaching techniques and by building good rapport with the
students. Idialu (2007) relates pedagogy with quality assurance and asserts that part of assuring
quality is ensuring that teachers are well- equipped with a wide range of teaching techniques.
Two most recent studies highlight the importance of good pedagogical skills. Miller (2009)
studies instructional features that assist students’ comprehension, and found that in terms of
language features, simplification, pronunciation, and specific content promote higher
understanding on the part of the learners. Under the category of pedagogical features, she found
that use of examples, lecture handout, mapping of lecture with handout, staging of lecture,

Page
1
preparing students in advance, humor, use of visual, attractive presentation and body language
contribute highly to learners’ comprehension. Nikitina and Furuoka (2009) contend on the basis
of their study that students, irrespective of their majors, favor teachers who are caring, patient,
interesting, friendly, have good teaching skills, creative and sincere.

At Ma Chung University, such effort has been initiated and constantly refined since its
birth in July 2007. In the spirit of setting and maintaining standard which essentially prepares the
students for global interaction, classes are conducted in the national language up to the fourth
semester, and continued to the subsequent semesters with English as the medium of instruction.
To ensure quality, the teaching performance is measured every semester through online
questionnaires that are presented for the students to fill out. The aspects measured include (1)
the clarity of information about the objectives, textbooks, and grading criteria of the course, (2)
the quality of the materials, (3) the lecturer’s punctual attendance and duration of the session
and, (4) the teaching techniques, and (5) the evaluation on the students’ progress. The bulk of the
measurement lies on the teaching techniques, which essentially measures how well the lecturer
delivers the materials and manages the learning activities in the classroom.

Despite such efforts, however, various constraints have impeded its success. It soon
became clear that what is needed is a gradual preparation and intensive studies that will help the
university implement the most suitable steps and policies to gear up for high-quality teaching
with English. This paper brings up a small-scale research on the quality of teaching
performances of Ma Chung lecturers. It highlights profiles of the lecturers’ performances in
some instructional areas. More specifically, it focuses on a comparison in terms of teaching
performances between lecturers whose educational background includes pedagogical courses and
those who did not take such courses. It is presumed that the former should excel better than the
latter, but as the study shows, there is much more to successful teaching than just getting
pedagogical courses.

Secondly, the paper also suggests some efforts to upgrade the teaching skills of those
lecturers whose performances still fall below average. The efforts include a sharing session
among lecturers where teachers with good instructional performances share their successful ways
of conducting classes. This forum also gives opportunities for the lecturers to share their
problems and difficulties in their teaching. The outcome of this step is exchanges of ideas and
transfer of skills that supposedly improves the teaching performances of the lecturers with poor
teaching performances.

Method

In order to achieve the objectives outlined above, the research drew on a set of data on
teaching performances from the last two semesters of 2009/2010 Academic Year. The data were
culled from the Quality Assurance Department, which regularly measured the lecturers’ teaching
performances through questionnaires filled out by their students. The areas measured include
initial information about course objectives, course materials, teacher’s punctuality and duration
of session, teaching and learning process, evaluation on the students’ progress, and attitude

Page
2
toward students. A total of 39 lecturers were included in the study, and a comparison of teaching
performance scores was drawn between those who took pedagogical courses in their previous
education and those who did not. Nine out of 30 lecturers had such course in their undergraduate
and post-graduate education, and the rest came from educational background which did not
include such course. It was assumed that lecturers who once were taught how to teach a class
would perform better than their colleagues who were never taught that kind of pedagogical skills.
The scores given by the students were taken as the data, and were submitted to ANOVA for
analysis.

Findings

The first research objective was achieved by drawing a general profile of the lecturers’
teaching performances. The tables and the graph below sum up their scores in the six
instructional areas. First of all, a complete descriptive statistics are presented in the table below to
give a general overview of the two groups:

Table 1. The general descriptive statistics

N Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Minimum Maximum


Deviation Conf.
Interval
for Mean

Lower Upper
Bound Bound

INFO 1,00 9 77,0511 10,51901 3,50634 68,9655 85,1367 57,50 93,33

2,00 30 65,4663 14,20437 2,59335 60,1623 70,7703 32,62 90,00

Total 39 68,1397 14,20293 2,27429 63,5357 72,7438 32,62 93,33

MATERI 1,00 9 76,9044 9,60666 3,20222 69,5201 84,2888 62,92 90,00

2,00 30 62,9833 14,30971 2,61258 57,6400 68,3267 28,69 89,50

Total 39 66,1959 14,52606 2,32603 61,4871 70,9047 28,69 90,00

ATTEND 1,00 9 84,6089 10,56563 3,52188 76,4874 92,7304 73,33 99,17

2,00 30 73,0263 14,32509 2,61539 67,6773 78,3754 35,95 93,00

Total 39 75,6992 14,30207 2,29016 71,0630 80,3354 35,95 99,17

PROCESS 1,00 9 77,7789 9,24725 3,08242 70,6708 84,8870 63,89 90,70

2,00 30 64,1943 14,51136 2,64940 58,7757 69,6130 32,12 89,11

Page
3
Total 39 67,3292 14,57150 2,33331 62,6057 72,0528 32,12 90,70

EVAL 1,00 9 75,5456 9,66748 3,22249 68,1145 82,9766 61,67 88,33

2,00 30 63,8757 13,53664 2,47144 58,8210 68,9303 27,14 89,00

Total 39 66,5687 13,57677 2,17402 62,1676 70,9698 27,14 89,00

RAPPORT 1,00 9 89,1711 10,78965 3,59655 80,8774 97,4648 66,67 100,00

2,00 30 72,8240 13,95985 2,54871 67,6113 78,0367 35,95 97,00

Total 39 76,5964 14,89686 2,38541 71,7674 81,4254 35,95 100,00

The table below provides the detailed average scores of the lecturers in each performance area :

Table 2. General teaching performances

No Instructional areas evaluated Average


1 Preliminary information on lecture objectives, grading criteria, 68.14
materials and references
2 Quality of materials 66.20
3 Attendance (punctuality and duration of sessions) 75.70
4 Teaching and learning process 67.33
5 Evaluation on students’ progress 66.57
6 Rapport with students 76.60
7 Average 70.48

Page
4
Overall Teaching Performances of Lecturers
(N = 39)

76.60
75.70

70.48

68.14
67.33
66.20 66.57

Information Materials Attendance Learning process Evaluation Rapport Average

Figure 1. Overall teaching performances

It is obvious from the result above that most lecturers are generally good in keeping
punctual attendance and complying with the required teaching hours according to the designated
credit hours. They are also relatively close to their students and can build good relationships with
them. However, they obviously need to improve in the area of lesson materials, teaching and
learning activities, and evaluation on their students progress.

The second research objective was achieved by submitting the data to ANOVA analysis.
Since the number of respondents in the two groups was not equal, it was deemed necessary to
run a test of homogeneity of variances, a statistical prerequisite that should be met before a
calculation with ANOVA could proceed. As the table below shows, the data variances of the two
groups do not differ significantly, which means that they meet the requirement.

Page
5
Table 3. Result of Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene df1 df2 Sig.


Statistic

INFO 2,194 1 37 ,147

MATERI 2,456 1 37 ,126

ATTEND 1,138 1 37 ,293

PROCESS 3,651 1 37 ,064

EVAL 1,186 1 37 ,283

RAPPORT ,814 1 37 ,373

ANOVA was then carried out on the data, and the following table sums up the results:

Table 4. Result of ANOVA

Sum of df Mean F Sig.


Squares Square

INFO Between 929,126 1 929,126 5,103 ,030


Groups

Within 6736,359 37 182,064


Groups

Total 7665,485 38

MATERI Between 1341,674 1 1341,674 7,435 ,010


Groups

Within 6676,565 37 180,448


Groups

Total 8018,239 38

ATTEND Between 928,769 1 928,769 5,021 ,031


Groups

Within 6844,098 37 184,976


Groups

Total 7772,867 38

Page
6
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square

PROCESS Between 1277,586 1 1277,586 6,961 ,012


Groups

Within 6790,900 37 183,538


Groups

Total 8068,485 38

EVAL Between 942,828 1 942,828 5,755 ,022


Groups

Within 6061,662 37 163,829


Groups

Total 7004,490 38

RAPPORT Between 1850,040 1 1850,040 10,399 ,003


Groups

Within 6582,782 37 177,913


Groups

Total 8432,822 38

The F’s in the above table are all significant as indicated by the last column ( p < 0.05). The
table below further clarifies the comparison between the groups on all instructional areas:

Table 4. Comparison between the two groups of lecturers in all areas

No Instructional areas evaluated Scores of lecturers with Scores of lecturers


pedagogical background with no pedagogical
(N = 9) background (N = 30)
1 Preliminary information on 77.571 65.310
lecture objectives, grading
criteria, materials and references
2 Quality of materials 77.470 62.813
3 Attendance (punctuality and 86.004 72.608
duration of sessions)
4 Teaching and learning process 79.308 63.818
5 Evaluation on students’ progress 76.739 63.517
6 Rapport with students 90.492 72.427
7 Average 81.948 67.036

Note: all differences are significant, p < 0.05

Page
7
Discussion

The results displayed above also suggest that the assumption regarding the difference
between the lecturers with pedagogical background and those without such background holds true
across all aspects measured. The results corroborate the notion that pedagogical education may
account for the differences in teaching skills. Lecturers with pedagogical background in their
previous education indeed fare better than their counterparts who do not have pedagogical
background.

A closer look at the components that make up teaching-learning process reveals more
detailed skills which are rated by the students as follows:

1. The lecturer masters the materials

2. The lecturer explains systematically, clearly, and understandably

3. The lecturer teaches according to the syllabus.

4. The lecturer employs a variety of teaching techniques

5. The lecturer answers questions clearly

6. The lecturer teaches enthusiastically

7. The lecturer creates disciplined and serious but enjoyable learning atmosphere.

8. The lecturer balances between one-way lecturing and more interactive learning (through
discussion, group work, etc)

9. The lecturer utilizes the teaching aids well.

Apparently, lecturers with pedagogical skills that they learned during their previous
education may have been more sensitive to the atmosphere in the classroom. They seem to know
how to deliver the lessons at a pace that suits their students’ progress, and structure their
presentation to facilitate their students’ understanding. They also seem more adept at employing a
wide variety of teaching techniques. Taken as a whole, lecturers with ‘pedagogical intuition’ may
have promoted an informative and enjoyable learning atmosphere in the classrooms better than
those without such pedagogical education.

Follow-up actions

The follow-up of such evaluation result on teaching performances is in line with what
Poole, M., Harman, E., & Deden, A (1998, p.25) state

Page
8
The best universities will invest in their staff and reward them for making improvements
in their teaching skills and knowledge about their particular subject. They will also have
to ensure that their students are well prepared for learning.

Ma Chung University ensures that concerted efforts coordinated by the Quality


Assurance Department are continually carried out to refine the lecturers’ teaching skills. It is
evident that such an effort to upgrade the teaching qualities is not a simple task. An observation
by Djiwandono, Ginting and Setyaningsih (2009) prior to the launching of EFT course reveals
major weaknesses that seem persistent among lecturers without pedagogical education. Even
when they teach in the national language, they are still prone to very much teacher-centered class
through lengthy one-way lecture that eventually bores the students. Classroom management is
poor, with some students begin disrupting the session after the first half an hour by talking to
each other, accessing their cell phones, or simply losing their attention to the lecturers. Classroom
activities lack variation; the common pattern that these lecturers follow is a forty-five minute one-
way speech, followed by group discussion, and then the conclusion of the session. When the
lecturers shift to English, the problem gets worse. Lecturers grapple with their English; their
pronunciation is faulty, their delivery is halting, and the grammatical errors in their speech make
them more incomprehensible. As a result, students complain that they can hardly get the
messages from the lecturers. The classes become frustratingly confusing.

The area of evaluation skills needs equal attention. Lecturers often have a vague idea how
to grade the complexity of their tasks and tests. Following Felder and Brent (1999), evaluation by
teachers should run along the notion of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The first
few quizzes and tests should measure knowledge, comprehension and application, while
subsequent tests which come near the end of the course should gauge the students’ cognitive
level of analysis, synthesis and evaluation. In an attempt to overcome this, the Quality Assurance
Department has been drawing up a set of standards for evaluation on students’ progress. The
standards are designed to guide the lecturers in setting the appropriate complexity level of their
tests. Thus, a test early in the course should present questions which require paraphrasing of ideas
or recalling main points of the lecture, while a test given much later through the course should
call for the ability to combine principles and theories to design something or create something
new.

Earlier in the paper the problem of inadequate English proficiency among lecturers has
been addressed. In response to the problem, the university set up a language training center called
ELTISI, whose main task is to improve the lecturers’ performances in teaching their subject
matters using English. The effort to upgrade the lecturers’ teaching qualities is made through a
course called English for Teaching. The course aims to enhance the skills of opening a class,
delivering the materials, assigning tasks, and evaluating the students’ progress. Totaling 12
meetings with each lasting 90 minutes, the course teaches the participants a few principles of
each aspect, and then gives them opportunities to put the principles in practice in micro-teaching
sessions. A few video clips from YouTube are occasionally shown to provide them with models
of good teaching practices. The following table gives a rough course outline of English for
Teaching:

Page
9
Meeting Topic Activities
1, 2 Opening a class: ice-breaking, i.e. simple games, Learning the values of ice-
simple contest, jokes, stories breaking; practicing ice-
breaking; gaining feedback
about the use of English in the
practice
3, 4, 5, 6 Delivering the materials: segmenting, giving mid- Learning how to segment
lecture tasks; engaging the class in varied learning lecture; practicing; gaining
activities. feedback about the use of
English in the practice
7, 8, 9 Assigning tasks: scaffolding; setting the standard; Learning types of tasks;
grading tasks from easy to complex. practicing ; gaining feedback
about the use of English in the
practice
10, 11 Evaluating students’ progress: simple ask-and- Making questions, quiz and
answer, post-class quizzes, formative tests, tests; gaining feedback about
summative tests; encouraging students the use of English in the
practice
12 Wrapping up: presenting highlights of the lecture Gaining feedback about the
use of English in the practice

The bulk of the EFT course lies on the skill that is deemed most critical by the university,
that is, teaching-learning process in the classroom. Such decision reflects a prevailing concern in
education about students’ attention, an issue that is addressed by McKeachie below:

Most students cannot stay focused throughout a lecture. After about 10 minutes their
attention begins to drift, first for brief moments and then for longer intervals, and by the
end of the lecture they are taking in very little and retaining even less. A classroom
research study showed that immediately after a lecture students recalled 70 percent of the
information presented in the first 10 minutes of the lecture and only 20 percent from the
last 10 minutes (McKeachie, 1999, p.7).

The response to such concern manifests in the above course outline which allocates the highest
number of meetings for the topic of delivering the materials. The center sees to it that
participants of this course are adequately trained to deliver their subjects with a variety of
techniques and activities that will sustain students’ attention and interest.

In addition to offering English for Teaching as a means to upgrade the lecturers’ teaching
performances, the university also holds a sharing forum for lecturers. At this forum, held
regularly once every semester, skillful, experienced lecturers who score high on their teaching
performance share their tips on effective teaching with their colleagues. The first forum presented
techniques for attractive delivery of teaching materials, while the second one centered on using
technology to enhance classroom instruction.

Page
10
Finally, the university implements a reward system in the form of annual bonuses for
outstanding teaching performances in one academic year. This non-academic approach is
believed to foster motivation on the lecturers’ part to enhance their instructional performances.

Conclusion

The paper sets out to attain two research objectives. First, it intends to describe the
overall teaching performances of Ma Chung lecturers. Second, it aims to find out whether
lecturers who learned pedagogical skills in their previous education perform better than those
without pedagogical skills. The data of teaching performances are in the form of the lecturers’
scores given by their students. ANOVA shows that in general, the lecturers need to improve their
teaching-learning process and evaluation technique. Secondly, the lecturers with pedagogical
skills do perform better than their colleagues who come from educational background that did not
teach them teaching skills.

In the spirit of continuous quality improvement, a concerted effort has been made. First, a
special course designated English for Teaching is given to lecturers to enhance their abilities to
deliver content subjects in English language. The course is tailored to meet the needs of Ma
Chung lecturer and prevalent situations that they often have to face in their classes. As such, the
course guides the participants through five main stages, namely, opening the class, delivering
the contents, assigning tasks, evaluating students’ progress, and closing. The course has been
underway under the coordination of Language Training Center, and has shown results which call
for further attention and increased intensity. The second step comprises sharing forum for
lecturers in which highly-trained lecturers shared their teaching methods with their colleagues.
Last but not least, a bonus is awarded to those with excellent records of teaching performances..

The implication of the finding concerns the follow-up steps that are deemed necessary to
refine the teaching qualities of the lecturers’ performance. It is obvious that pedagogical skill is a
component that needs to be continually enhanced through regular upgrading, workshop sessions,
and training. It is equally clear that the majority of the lecturers are in need for enhancement of
their teaching techniques. In addition to these, skills in assessing the students’ learning
achievements also need to be improved. In essence, the paper maintains that there is more to
successful teaching than sound knowledge of the content domain.

Page
11
References

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does.
Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University.

Djiwandono, P.I., Ginting, D., & Setyaningsih, Y. (2009). Instructional aspects and test
design for measuring teaching ability in content-based instruction: A case study at
Ma Chung University. Unpublished research report. Lembaga Penelitian dan
Pengabdian Masyarakat Universitas Ma Chung.

Felder, R.M, and Brent, R. (1999). How to improve teaching quality.

Idialu, E. E. (Sept 2007). Quality assurance in the teaching and examination of Vocational and
Technical Education in Nigeria. College Student Journal, 41, 3. p.649(8).

McKeachie, W. (1999). Teaching tips. 10th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Meyers, C., and T. B. Jones. (1993). Promoting active learning.

Miller, L. (2009). Engineering lectures in second language: what factors facilitate students’
listening comprehension?. Asian EFL Journal, 11, 2, pp. 8 – 30.

Mortiboys, A. (2005). Teaching with emotional intelligence: a step-by-step guide for higher and
further education professionals. Routledge.

Nikitina, L., and Furuoka, F. (2009). Teacher-student relationship and the conceptualization of
the good language teacher: does culture matter. Asian EFL Journal, 11, 2, pp. 163 – 187.

Poole, M., Harman, E., & Deden, A. (Nov 1998). Managing the quality of teaching in higher
education institutions in the 21st century. Australian Journal of Education, 42, 3.
p.271(1). Retrieved June 21, 2010, from Gale Arts, Humanities and Education Standard
Package via Gale:

http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=SPJ.SP01&userGroupName=kpt07071

Biodata

Page
12
Patrisius Istiarto Djiwandono was born in Malang, 16 March 1967. He holds degrees in Language
Education from Universitas Negeri Malang. He has published 6 books, mostly on language
learning strategies and language testing. He teaches TEFL, Research Methods, Discourse
Analysis and Writing. Currently, he is Director of Quality Assurance Department, head of
Language Training Center, and Dean of Faculty of Language and Arts at Universitas Ma Chung,
Malang. Recently he has earned his Professorship in Teaching Methodology and Language
Education. He can be contacted via patrisius.istiarto@machung.ac.id

Page
13

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen