Teaching evaluation 

Since I began teaching over thirteen years ago, my evaluations have been consistently above average. Here, I discuss only the evaluations I have received at UWC.

Students’ evaluations have helped me to manage their learning expectations, balance my interdisciplinary comparisons, and meet learning outcomes. In 2019, I revised the standard (bloated) UWC end of term evaluation questions by making them concise and answerable in two minutes. The evaluations were administered at the end of lectures but before the examinations. They concern Legal and Cultural Pluralism (LEG431), a 4th year module of 11 students and Customary Law (CUS 121), a compulsory 1st year module of 509 students. The questions and responses for CUS 121 are as follows:

1.      The lecturer shows concern over students’ understanding of learning materials — Only 17.3% of students disagreed with this question.

2.      The lecturer has created a stimulating online/blended learning environment for module — 47.1% of students affirmed this question, while a disturbing 28.3% were neutral. This is obviously an area for me to improve on.

3.      The lecturer encourages students to think independently and critically — 79.2% of students affirmed this important graduate attribute, 13.2% were nuetral, while only 1.9% disagreed.

4.      You are able to consult with the lecturer — 50.9% of students agreed with this question, while 43.4% gave a nuetral response. Only 1.9% disagreed.

5.      Considering time-table scheduling, the lecturer is punctual to classes — 75.4% of students agreed, while an astonishing 13.2% disagreed. I commented on this question below.

6.      The lecturer expects a reasonable amount of work from students — 79.3% of students agreed, while 3.8% disagreed.

7.      The lecturer creates opportunities for student involvement and participation — 83% of students agreed; 13.2% were nuetral.

8.      The lecturer gives a clear indication of material prescribed for assessments — 66.1% of students agreed; 24.5% disagreed.

9.      The lecturer returns test scripts, assignments, etc. within a reasonable time bearing the size of the class in mind — 56.6% of students agreed, while 15% disagreed. This is an area for remedial action, even though colleagues handled the tests and assignments.

10.  The reading/learning material enhances my understanding of the module — 68% of students agreed; 18.9% of them were nuetral, while 5.7% disagreed.

11.  The amount of study expected in the module is reasonable — 52.8% of students agreed with this question. A disappointing 34% were nuetral, while 13.2% students disagreed.

12.  The tests can be completed within the allocated time — Worryingly, only 39.6% of students agreed with this question. A depressing 37.8% disagreed, thereby displaying their poor preparation for assessments.

13.  The feedback from tests and assignments enables me to assess how I am performing in the module — 54.7% of students agreed with this question and 18.8% disagreed. This critical evaluation requires me to improve my delivery of feedback from formative assessments.

Lessons learned

As shown in this link and the attached PDF document below, students' evaluation of LEG 431 is overwhelmingly positive (average of 90%). This is probably because the small size of the class fits my pastoral style of teaching. I noted a few points about the evaluations for CUS 121 and LEG 431. 

Aside from the low response ratio (n=53/509), the responses to some of the questions in CUS 121 reveal that students tend to evaluate modules based on their ‘likeness’ or ‘dislike’ for the lecturer. For example, the first two respondents in CUS 121 were negative, and were probably students who hated my strict stance on punctuality to class. Despite my meticulous punctuality, they ‘strongly disagreed’ with question 5! They also strongly disagreed with questions 5 and 9, even though they never attempted to consult me and ought to know that my colleague handled their continuous assessment tests. Conversely, some students ‘strongly agreed’ with question 9 when they should have chosen the ‘neutral’ option. 

 The response of CUS 121 students to question 13 demonstrate the poverty of our assessment feedback mechanisms. Even though the class is large, I need to remedy this deficiency. However, majority of students acknowledged my pastoral care and legal revisionist approaches, as evident in their positive responses to questions on critical thinking, learning materials, blended learning, independent reasoning and student engagement.

 My students always perform very well in end of term examinations. From their performance, as well as the positive feedback I receive on my numerous paper presentations in local and international conferences, I am satisfied with my ability to convey knowledge across varying knowledge levels.