Tutor Evaluation Survey Report - University of South Africaheda.unisa.ac.za/filearchive/Tutor...

of 24

DEPARTMENT OF

INSTITUTIONAL STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS (DISA)

Tutor Evaluation Survey Report

Dr. Matseliso Molapo,

Senior Specialist: Institutional Research, DISA

&

Ms. Lerato S. Tladi

Specialist: Institutional Research, DISA

October 2012

of 24

Acknowledgements:

The following colleagues are acknowledged for their contribution, input and technical

support in compiling this report:

Mr. Glen Barnes, Acting Executive Director, DISA, for reviewing the final report

Ms. Yuraisha Chetty, Director: Institutional Research, DISA, for editing and reviewing

of the final report

Mr. Nelson Masindi, Information Analyst, DISA, for providing data support

Ms. Salome Mamadisa, Directorate: Institutional Support and Services, for providing

information support

Mrs. Nelisiwe Tshaka, Director: Institutional Support and Services, for providing

information support

Mr. Lesole Tsilo, Directorate: Institutional Support and Services, for logistical support

and data preparation

Mr. Reuben Legodi, Directorate: Institutional Support and Services, for logistical

support and data preparation

of 24

Table of Contents

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4

2. Study Limitations and Challenges ................................................................................... 5

3. Demographic Profile of Tutors ........................................................................................ 5

3.1 Types of Tutorial Services .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Tutorial Distribution by Region ............................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Regional Distribution of Tutorials by College ................................................................................... 8

4. Evaluation Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 9

4.1 Planning and Organisation ....................................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Knowledge of the Subject Matter ....................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Interaction and Participation ................................................................................................................ 12

4.4 Assignment and Examination Preparations..................................................................................... 14

4.5 Tutorial Attendance and Availability .................................................................................................. 16

4.6 Tutors’ Technical and Presentation Skills ......................................................................................... 17

4.7 Consolidated Section Ratings ............................................................................................................... 19

4.8 Overall Rating of the Tutor .................................................................................................................... 20

4.9 Reasons for Recommending or not Recommending the tutor ............................................... 22

5. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 23

of 24

1. Introduction

In 2011, the Department of Institutional Statistics and Analysis (DISA) conducted two

summative tutor evaluation surveys, one at the end of the first semester in April/May and the

other at the end of the second semester in October/November 2011. The narrative report for

the evaluation conducted at the end of the first semester in April/May 2011 was completed

and submitted. This report presents the results of the evaluations conducted at the end of

the second semester in October/November 2011. These evaluations assessed the

performance of the tutors and are central to Unisa's mission statement which is aimed at

addressing the "needs of the diverse learner profiles by offering relevant learner support,

facilitated by an appropriate information and communication technology” (2015 Strategic

Plan: An Agenda for Transformation).

For this purpose, the summative tutor evaluation instrument was developed and used with

the primary purpose of evaluating the performance of tutorials in the semester during which

the module was taught. The instrument was designed in such a way that students started by

providing tutorial information pertaining to the module and college the students attended

during that semester. The information required in this block included the following: the

name of the course and its code; the name of the tutor, college and department; the learning

centre; the region, the date and the relevant semester the course was offered.

The evaluation statements were structured under the following headings: planning and

organisation of tutorials; knowledge of the subject matter; the nature of interaction and

participation of the tutor with students; preparations for assignments and examinations;

tutorial attendance and availability; as well as tutorial techniques and presentations. These

are followed by the overall rating of the tutor, an inquiry of whether the student would

recommend the services of the tutor to future students as well as a concluding general

comment.

The methods used in conducting the evaluation involved the facilitation of a paper-based

survey in all the Unisa learning centres, data analysis using SPSS and SAS, as well as the

analysis of the HEMIS HR dataset to determine the demographic profile and regional

distribution of Unisa tutors. Data was captured by an external agency, and then cleaned and

verified by DISA. DISA and the agency conducted the analysis independently, using SPSS and

SAS, respectively; they both arrived at the same outcomes which are presented in this

report.

The purpose of this report, therefore, is to present the results of the evaluation survey

conducted in November 2011. Also, included is the demographic profile and distribution of

of 24

tutors in Unisa’s learning centres. The results are intended to determine the performance of

Unisa tutorial services, with a view to improving and ensuring student success. Accordingly,

the outcome of this analysis will also become instrumental as Unisa colleges prepare to roll-

out the new tutor model1 in 2013. This model subscribes to a more interactive approach

which is intended to enhance student support and motivation. The key components to the

interactive approach are:

Student – content interaction

Student – student interaction

Student – instructor/tutor interaction

2. Study Limitations and Challenges

As with the previous evaluation, the survey conducted was 100% paper-based. For this

survey, 9 104 questionnaires were received, signalling a positive response rate from students.

The following challenges were experienced:

There were delays in the delivery of questionnaires from the regions (including

Ethiopia) to the central office. It took months to complete the process of delivery.

Due to incomplete information on tutor names, course names and/or codes, regions

and learning centres provided by the students in the open-ended section of the

evaluation forms, there were logistical delays in data preparation by the DISS before

capturing and analysis by DISA.

The incomplete information on the forms also prolonged data cleaning and made it

cumbersome as it made data verification difficult and in some instances impossible;

therefore resulting in some participants being excluded from the analysis.

There is no properly structured universal database from which information for the

profiling of tutors could be extracted. The demographic data captured in the HR, ICT

and DISS systems are irreconcilable thus presenting a challenge for analysis.

1 Tutor Model, a product of the Student Support and Student Success Frameworks developed under

the auspices of the ODL task team of 2009.

of 24

3. Demographic Profile of Tutors

According to HR records, Unisa had in November 2011 a total of 1 188 tutors serving all

the learning centres both within and outside of South Africa. Their methods for the

facilitation of learning included face-to-face, telephone and e-tutoring.

3.1 Types of Tutorial Services

Table 1 presents the type of tutorial services available at Unisa in the second semester of

November 2011, according to HR records.

Table 1: Types of Tutorial Services, Oct/Nov 20112

Description N %

E-tutor 98 8,3%

Tele-tutor 21 1,8%

Face-to-face tutor 1 069 89,9%

Total 1 118 100,0%

With a proportion of 89,9%, it is apparent that the majority of tutors are conducting face-

to-face tutorials. This outcome is consistent with the April 2011 evaluation report, with an

increase of 0,4% between April and November 2011.

2 Data supplied by HR on 28 August 2012

of 24

3.2 Tutorial Evaluations by Region

Table 2 shows the distribution of the completed number of evaluation forms included in the

analysis per region. The regions were indicated by the students on their respective evaluation

forms.

Table 2: Completed Evaluation Forms per Region, Oct/Nov 2011

Region N %

Cape Coastal3 3 753 41,2%

Ethiopia 36 0,4%

Gauteng 1 616 17,8%

KwaZulu-Natal 3 028 33,3%

Midlands 241 2,6%

North Eastern4 430 4,7%

Total 9 104 100,0

It is evident in the table above that the Cape Coastal region had the highest number

(3 753) and proportion (41,2%) of completed tutor evaluation forms followed by

KwaZulu-Natal (33,3%) and Gauteng (17,8%).

While the North Eastern region had the lowest proportion of completed evaluation

forms within South Africa (4,7%), Ethiopia had the lowest proportion (0,4%) when the

regions outside South Africa are included.

3 Cape Coastal includes the Western Cape and Eastern Cape sub-regions.

4 North Eastern includes Limpopo and Mpumalanga sub-regions.

of 24

3.3 Regional Distribution of Tutorials by College

Table 3 shows the regional distribution of completed evaluation forms by college in

October/November 2011.

Table 3: Regional Distribution of Completed Evaluation Forms by College

Based on the survey data, the highest number of completed evaluation forms were

from CEMS (4 784).

This was followed by CEDU (1 395), CHS (1 353), and CLAW (1 233) in second, third,

and fourth place, respectively.

The college with the least number of completed tutorial evaluation forms was CAES,

with only 63 completed evaluation forms, with the highest concentration in KwaZulu-

Natal (45).

It is not surprising that the larger colleges such as CEMS had more completed

surveys, given that they have larger student numbers.

Colleges

Cape

Coastal Ethiopia Gauteng

KwaZulu-

Natal Midlands

North

Eastern Total

CAES 6 0 0 45 0 12 63

CEDU 226 0 18 1 098 0 53 1 395

CEMS 1 934 5 1 315 1 126 183 221 4 784

CHS 669 31 129 392 24 108 1 353

CLAW 769 0 88 340 34 2 1 233

CSET 149 0 64 27 0 34 274

Unknown 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Total 3 753 36 1 616 3 028 241 430 9 104

of 24

4. Evaluation Outcomes

In total, 9 104 students across all colleges participated in the evaluation survey and they

rated tutors by using a five-point rating scale to indicate the extent to which they agree or

disagree with a given statement, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 4 being “strongly

agree” and 0 as either “I don’t know or “I’m not sure”.

The results of the survey are as follows:

4.1 Planning and Organisation

As is evident in Figure 1 below, 96,3% of the respondents were of the opinion that tutors

have good overall planning and organisational skills as opposed to only 3,0% who had an

opposing view and 0,7% who didn’t know.

Figure 1: Overall Planning and Organisation

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Agree Disagree Don't know

96,3%

3,0% 0,7%

Good in overall planning & organisation

of 24

The table below reflects the ratings on various statements related to the tutors’ planning and

organisational skills in the second semester in October/November 2011.

Table 4: Planning and Organisation of Tutorials Oct/Nov 2011

All the statements pertaining to planning and organisation scored above 90%, with the

lowest being that the tutor “states objectives and expected learning outcomes of each

tutorial session” (93,5%).

The vast majority of students agree that the tutors “always come to class well prepared”

(96,4%).

The second highest score (96,3%) reflects that students perceived the tutors overall

planning and organisation of tutorials, as good.

However, the fact that there are 461 (5,2%) students who disagree with the statement

that the tutors “state objectives and expected outcomes of the learning” cannot be

ignored.

It is also concerning that there are 357 (4,1%) students who feel that tutors fail to link the

course content with previous knowledge.

Agree Disagree

Don't

know Total

Good in overall planning & organisation 8 603 96,3% 268 3,0% 64 0,7% 8 935 100%

Always well prepared 8 602 96,4% 263 2,9% 58 0,7% 8 923 100%

Encourages students to prepare and read 8 483 95,5% 328 3,7% 71 0,8% 8 882 100%

Begins tutorials in an orderly way 8 416 95,2% 352 4,0% 69 0,8% 8 837 100%

States objectives and expected learning

outcomes 8 217 93,5% 461 5,2% 114 1,3% 8 792 100%

Clearly links course content to previous

knowledge 8 332 94,6% 357 4,1% 114 1,3% 8 803 100%

Stays focused on the theme of discussion 8 274 95,8% 312 3,6% 50 0,6% 8 636 100%

of 24

4.2 Knowledge of the Subject Matter

As is evident in Figure 2 below, 97,2% of the respondents were of the opinion that the tutors

have good overall knowledge compared to 2,1% who were in disagreement and 0,7% who

did not know.

Figure 2: Knowledge of the Subject Matter

Table 5 shows the rating scores of tutors in knowledge and experience of the subject matter

for the period October/November 2011.

Table 5: Knowledge of the Subject Matter, Oct/Nov 2011

The table shows that 8 725 students (constituting 97,2% of respondents) agree that

tutors have good overall knowledge of the subject matter.

The second highest score (96,3%) refers to the fact that the tutor “demonstrates

knowledge by using examples and scenarios to illustrate content”.

Agree Disagree

Don't

know Total

Has good overall knowledge and experience 8 725 97,2% 188 2,1% 63 0,7% 8 976 100%

Demonstrate sound knowledge of the subject

matter 8 531 95,9% 282 3,2% 79 0,9% 8 976 100%

Demonstrates knowledge by using examples

and scenarios to illustrate content 8 550 96,3% 272 3,1% 52 0,6% 8 874 100%

Explains difficult concepts of the subject well 8 280 94,6% 403 4,6% 71 0,8% 8 754 100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


97,2%

2,1% 0,7%

Has good overall knowledge and experience

of 24

However, close attention should be on improving the concerns of the current 403 (4,6%)

as well as 342 (4,9%) respondents in the April 2011 evaluation who disagree with the

statement that “the tutor explains difficult concepts and sections of the subject matter."

It reflects an increment of 61 respondents who support this view between April and

November 2011.

4.3 Interaction and Participation

While 96,4% of respondents were in agreement with the statement that tutors have good

overall interactive skills, 3,0% disagreed and 0,6% did not know. This is reflected in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Overall Interactive & Participation Skills

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


96,4%

3,0% 0,6%

Has good overall interactive skills

of 24

Table 6 below shows the students’ ratings on various statements relating to the tutors’

interactive skills with students during the period October/November 2011.

Table 6: Interaction and Participation, Oct/Nov 2011

Agree Disagree

Don't

know Total

Has good overall interactive skills 8 678 96,4% 267 3,0% 57 0,6% 9 002 100%

Creates a friendly atmosphere 8 561 95,8% 306 3,4% 66 0,7% 8 933 100%

Encourages students to actively participate 8 392 94,4% 401 4,5% 97 1,1% 8 890 100%

Engages with less outspoken students 7 468 84,4% 1079 12,2% 306 3,5% 8 853 100%

Respects students and treats them fairly 8 628 96,8% 216 2,4% 67 0,8% 8 911 100%

Encourages critical thinking 8 111 93,5% 437 5,0% 126 1,5% 8 674 100%

Allows enough time for student feedback 8 057 92,9% 510 5,9% 109 1,3% 8 676 100%

Responds constructively to students'

opinions 8 245 95,4% 324 3,8% 70 0,8% 8 639 100%

Is confident and handles challenging

questions well 8 286 95,7% 288 3,3% 87 1,0% 8 661 100%

Is approachable when students need help 8260 95,4% 279 3,2% 122 1,4% 8 661 100%

Gives prompt attention to individual

problems 7 911 91,9% 479 5,6% 216 2,5% 8 606 100%

Is sensitive to the needs of slower and

faster learners 7 607 88,6% 672 7,8% 302 3,5% 8 581 100%

Consults students on topics to be dealt

with… 7 759 91,5% 496 5,9% 223 2,6% 8 478 100%

As is evident above, the majority of respondents agreed with the view that tutors have

good interactive skills, with most statements scoring more than 90% – except for two

which scored 88,6% and 84,4%, respectively.

The highest number 8 628 (96,8%) of respondents agree with the statement that tutors

“respect students and treat them fairly.”

The second highest score (96,4%) alludes to the fact that tutors have good overall

interactive skills.

The lowest scoring statement in this section is at 84,4%, and is for those that agree that

the “tutor engages students who are less outspoken in class”.

Similarly, 1 079 (12,2%) respondents disagree with the statement that the “tutor engages

students who are less outspoken in class,” while 672 (7,8%) disagree with the related

statement that the tutor is “sensitive to the needs of both slower and faster learners.”

These outcomes are consistent with the previous results.

Interestingly, there were a higher number of students who indicated that they were “not

sure” or “don’t know” for the statements the “tutor engages students who are less

outspoken in class” (3,5%) and “the tutor is sensitive to the needs of both slower and

faster learners” (3,5%), the highest proportions of “don’t know” across the statements.

of 24

4.4 Assignment and Examination Preparations

When asked to rate the tutors’ overall ability to prepare students for assignments and

examinations, 91,7% were of the opinion that tutors have an overall ability to prepare

students for examinations and assignments as opposed to 6,1% who were in disagreement

and 2,2% who did not know. This is reflected in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Overall Ability to Prepare Students for Assignments and Examinations

Table 7 shows the rating scores of the various statements relating to the tutors’ skills in the

facilitation of preparations for assignments and examinations during the period

October/November 2011.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


91,7%

6,1% 2,2%

Has overall ability to prepare students for assignments and exams

of 24

Table 7: Preparations for Assignments and Examinations, Oct/Nov 2011

Agree Disagree

Don't

know Total

Has overall ability to prepare students for

assignments and exams

7 888

91,7%

525

6,1%

185

2,2%

8 598

100%

Clarifies how students' performance is assessed…

7 246

86,0%

763

9,1%

418

5,0%

8 427

100%

Adequately discusses assignment guidelines before

submission date

6 748

80,7%

117 5

14,0%

444

5,3%

8 367

100%

Discusses assignments after they've been marked

5 847

72,1%

1319

16,3%

938

11,6%

8 104

100%

Conducts review sessions in preparation for the exam

6 865

84,6%

611

7,5%

639

7,9%

8 115

100%

From the Table 7 above, it is evident that there is general agreement that tutors have the

ability and provide assistance towards assignment and examination preparations. This is

evidenced by 91,7% of the students being in agreement with the statement: “Tutor has

overall ability to prepare students for assignments and examinations”.

Similarly, the lowest score (72,1%) is still an agreement with the statement that tutors

“discuss assignments after they’ve been marked”.

However, the number of respondents who disagree with all statements pertaining to

tutor assistance towards assignments and examinations ranges from 525 to 1 319. Of

concern is the disagreement by 1 319 (16,3%) respondents with the view that the “tutor

discusses assignments after they have been marked.” This is consistent with the finding

that 1 175 (14,0%) respondents do not concur with the statement that the “tutor

adequately discusses the assignment guidelines before the date of submission.” It is

basic practice in a learning environment to remind or alert students to be cognisant of

the assignment guidelines and to discuss the assignment after it has been marked.

It is also a matter of concern that there are 763 (91%) respondents who disagree with the

statement that the tutor “clarifies how students’ performance is assessed.”

of 24

4.5 Tutorial Attendance and Availability

As is evident in Figure 5 below, 94,5% of the respondents displayed satisfaction with the

tutors’ overall ability to manage time and meet with the students compared to 3,9% who

were dissatisfied and 1,7% who did not know.

Figure 5: Overall Tutorial Attendance and Availability

Table 8 reflects the ratings by students on various statements regarding the tutors’

attendance of tutorials and availability during the period October/November 2011.

Table 8: Tutorial Attendance and Availability, Oct/Nov 2011

Agree Disagree Don't know Total

Has good overall ability to

manage time and meet students 8 177 94,5% 334 3,9% 144 1,7% 8 655 100%

Comes to tutorials regularly 8 291 96,3% 228 2,6% 95 1,1% 8 614 100%

Is punctual for tutorials 8 186 95,3% 300 3,5% 104 1,2% 8 590 100%

Informs students in advance if

he/she will be absent 7 507 89,1% 382 4,5% 540 6,4% 8 429 100%

Is accessible when needed 7 537 89,5% 417 4,9% 471 5,6% 8 425 100%

It is evident that 96,3% of students agree that the tutor “comes to tutorials regularly” and

this is followed by 95,3% who agree that the tutor“ is punctual for tutorials".

It is encouraging that the overall performance of tutors in managing time for tutorials as

well as availing themselves to students is highly recognised with 94,5% of students in

agreement.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


94,5%

3,9% 1,7%

Has good overall ability to manage time and meet students

of 24

However, there are 417 (4,9%) and 382 (4,5%) students who contradict the views,

respectively, that tutors are accessible when needed and that they inform students in

advance in the event of their absence.

Interestingly, there are 540 (6,4%) respondents who have no knowledge or are not sure

that tutors inform students in advance when they will be absent for tutorials.

4.6 Tutors’ Technical and Presentation Skills

As is evident in Figure 6 below, 96,9% of the respondents were satisfied with the tutors’

overall presentation skills as opposed to 2,4% who were not and 0,6% who did not know.

Figure 6: Tutor’s Overall Presentation Skills

0,0%

20,0%

40,0%

60,0%

80,0%

100,0%

Agree Disagree Don’t know

96,9%

2,4% 0,6%

Has good overall tutorial presentation skills

of 24

Table 9 shows the ratings to various statements relating to the tutors’ methodological and

presentation skills during the period October/November 2011.

Table 9: Tutor’s Presentation Skills, Oct/Nov 2011

Agree Disagree Don't know Total

Has good overall tutorial

presentation skills 8 440 96,9% 213 2,4% 53 0,6% 8 706 100%

Speaks audibly and clearly 8 383 96,7% 244 2,8% 40 0,5% 8 667 100%

Captures the attention of students 8 234 96,1% 271 3,2% 65 0,8% 8 570 100%

Integrates study guide info and

prescribed reading… 8 151 96,0% 271 3,2% 65 0,8% 8 487 100%

Uses exercises to assess the

understanding of material 7 966 92,6% 483 5,6% 155 1,8% 8 604 100%

Encourages students to solve

problems themselves… 7 972 92,9% 446 5,2% 162 1,9% 8 580 100%

Applies different tutorial techniques 7 378 86,4% 834 9,8% 328 3,8% 8 540 100%

Utilises classroom equipment

effectively 7 855 92,5% 471 5,5% 163 1,9% 8 489 100%

In general, respondents agree with the view that tutors have good overall tutorial

presentation skills, with the overarching statement reflecting and agreement of 96,9%.

Furthermore, 96,7% agree that tutors “speak audibly and clearly”, 96,1% agree that the

tutor “captures the attention of students” and 96,0% agree that the tutor “integrates

study guide information and prescribed reading”.

By comparison, there are 834 (9, 8%) respondents who disagree with the statement that

the tutor “applies different tutorial techniques”.

There are also 412 (6, 0%) respondents who disagree with the statement that the tutor

“uses exercises to assess the understanding of the material.”

While the tutors’ presentation skills are rated highly, more attention should be directed

toward the diversity of teaching techniques, teaching aids, as well as the need to provide

some level of encouragement to students to learn how to solve problems independently.

The outcomes above are consistent with those of the April/May 2011 evaluation report.

of 24

4.7 Consolidated Section Ratings

Figure 7 shows the difference in the ratings of all overall statements representing the

sections evaluated in the period October/November 2011.

Figure 7: Consolidated Section Rating Scores Oct/Nov 2011

The table above presents consolidated scores of all the overall key statements representing

each section.

Agreement on all the key statements in the six sections was higher than 90,0%.

“Knowledge of the subject matter” attained the highest score (97,2%) of all sections with

respondents feeling very strongly that the tutors know what they are doing in their

respective disciplines.

This is followed by agreement ratings on the tutors’ overall tutorial presentation skills

(96,9%), interactive skills (96,4%) and overall planning and organisational skills (96,3%).

Although high, the section with the lowest agreement rating (91,7%) refers to the

preparation for assignments and examinations. This is consistent with the results of the

previous report. Similarly, the overall disagreement regarding the tutors’ skills in

preparing students for assignments and examinations was higher at 6,1%.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Good inoverall

planning &organisation

Has goodoverall

knowledgeand

experience

Has goodoverall

interactiveskills

Has overallability toprepare

students forassignmentsand exams

Has goodoverall ability

to managetime and

meetstudents

Has goodoveralltutorial

presentationskills

Agree 96,3% 97,2% 96,4% 91,7% 94,5% 96,9%

Disagree 3,0% 2,1% 3,0% 6,1% 3,9% 2,4%

Don't know 0,7% 0,7% 0,6% 2,2% 1,7% 0,6%

of 24

When undertaking a comparative analysis of the overall section ratings for 2011 (April/May

and October/November), it is evident from Table 10 below that there was consistency in how

the various sections were scored, in that all sections were scored positively and there was

little variation in the scoring between the 2 evaluation periods in 2011.

Table 10: Comparative Overall Section Ratings, 2011

Period Agree Disagree

Don't know

Good in overall planning & organisation

Apr/May 96,0% 3,3% 0,6%

Oct/Nov 96,3% 3,0% 0,7%

Has good overall knowledge and experience

Apr/May 97,1% 2,2% 0,7%

Oct/Nov 97,2% 2,1% 0,7%

Has good overall interactive skills

Apr/May 96,0% 3,4% 0,6%

Oct/Nov 96,4% 3,0% 0,6%

Has overall ability to prepare students for assignments and exams

Apr/May 91,7% 6,0% 2,3%

Oct/Nov 91,7% 6,1% 2,2%

Has good overall ability to manage time and meet students

Apr/May 93,8% 4,7% 1,5%

Oct/Nov 94,5% 3,9% 1,7%

Has good overall tutorial presentation skills

Apr/May 96,1% 3,4% 0,5%

Oct/Nov 96,9% 2,4% 0,6%

of 24

4.8 Overall Rating of the Tutor

Figure 8 below represents the overall rating of the tutors’ performance in its entirety for the

period October/November 2011.

Figure 8: Overall Rating of the Tutor

The outcome is representative of the general evaluation outcome of all the various sections

of the survey. The overwhelming majority (98,0%) rated the tutors positively, compared to

2,0% who disagreed. Furthermore, the positive ratings represent a 0,5% improvement in

ratings from the previous evaluation.

98%

2% 0%

Overall Tutor Rating

Good Poor Don’t know

of 24

4.9 Reasons Whether or not to recommend the Tutor5

Table 10 show some of the verbatim excerpts from open-ended comments by the

respondents reflecting their reasons for either recommending or not recommending the

tutor to current/and future students.

5 Few examples extracted from open-ended section of the questionnaire where students made comments to

express their views about the tutor who taught the module they took during the semester in question.

Yes No Tutor1

He knows his subject matter and is very

approachable and friendly

Very good teacher that makes you understand

the theory

He is good at what he's doing and he knows

his job. I can recommend him to other

students.

He gives prompt attention to individuals is

punctual for tutorials.

He is very well informed of the modules and is

able to answer questions, for students to

clearly understand

Clear and slow enough to grasp concepts,.

Interacts well with students.

He is very well informed of the modules and is

able to answer questions, for students to

clearly understand.

As much as I like Mr … as a tutor he is very

slow, talks slowly & is not always audible.

He speaks softly and can’t hear him

properly

He is a very nice person but doesn’t

demonstrate his learning effectively.

He has problems with explaining clearly

audibly, despite being an expert beyond

doubt, I suspect he's old.

Tutor2

He's a good tutor.

Very committed, time conscious, good

listening skills. Give students ample time to

questions & allows other students to respond

to make sure that all students are on the same

page.

The tutor gives himself time to explain until

we understand.

He’s coming to class every now and then

but I don’t understand what he’s saying.

I feel like the tutor is less prepared as he

reads the book with us in the class and try

to make sense of it. It will be better if he

comes prepared to avoid more boredom in

the class.

Tutor3

Yes but she must stick to the topic the day.

Even now she is not finish even first chapter.

I would say she's good but at the same time

for me I will prefer her to change the way of

teaching

Because she is good at everything. And she is

well organised.

She is always prepared she is clarify students

performance.

The tutor can teach but she spends half of

her time making jokes, But the other half

she do the job but time it was already lost.

No because sometimes she doesn’t do

what she’s supposed to do. She spends the

whole hour talking about irrelevant things.

Because she always make jokes when you

Table 10: Responses Whether or not to Recommend the Tutor

of 24

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

At the request of DISS, DISA conducted two summative tutor evaluations. One was carried

out in June 2011 and the other in November 2011. The same instrument used in June to

conduct the evaluation was also used in November 2011. The purpose of the survey was to

evaluate the performance of tutors in all Unisa regional centres. Methods of data collection

and analysis involved the administration of a paper-based survey among students registered

for tutorial services. The students participated by filling out their responses about the

performance of the tutor on the course that he/she attended during the particular

semester.

In total, 9 104 responses were received, with a total of 386 tutors being evaluated. The results

of the evaluation show an overwhelmingly positive view of tutors and the work they do.

In specific areas within sections, there is general satisfaction about Unisa’s tutorial services,

particularly the preparations for tutorials, the tutors ability to stay focused on the theme of

discussion, the conduct of tutors towards students in terms of fairness, respect, as well as

being approachable, their regular attendance of tutorials, punctuality and presentation skills.

However, there are problem areas that require some attention or intervention:

The need to improve tutors' skills in involving less outspoken students and to be more

attentive to the needs of slower learners. For instance, 1 079 students (12,2%) disagree

with the fact that the “tutor engages students who are less outspoken in class”. Likewise,

672 (7,8%) disagreed with the related statement that the tutor is “sensitive to the needs

of both slower and faster learners".

The fact that there are 1 319 (16,3%) respondents who disagree with the view that the

“tutor discusses assignments after they have been marked” and 1 175 (14,0%)

respondents who do not concur with the statement that the “tutor adequately discusses

the assignment guidelines before the date of submission, is concerning. It is best

practice in a learning environment to remind or alert students of assignment guidelines

and to discuss the assignments after they have been mark. The tutors’ active involvement

in guiding students during and after assignments will assist in improving students’

examination performance.

She can explain very. Of you ask a question,

she explains. Give us a chance to work in

group and do presentation.

She has all the qualification that a student

wants for a lecture.

are at the class.

She is old and uncertain she changes from

topic midway. Very confusing when you

leave the class you don’t feel as if you

learned anything, doesn’t explain well.

of 24

As stated in the previous report, in order to enhance interest and to ensure good

performance in the subject matter, tutors should apply different tutorial techniques (e.g.,

mini-lectures, question-and-answer sessions, group work, debates, and student

presentations). There are 834 (9,8%) students who feel that these techniques are not

used effectively.

From time to time, it might be necessary to conduct spot assessments (pop quizzes) to

ensure clarity and understanding of the module. There are 412 (6,0%) students who

disagree with the view that tutors “use exercises to assess the understanding of the

course material.”

In conclusion the tutors’ overall performance is once more, viewed satisfactorily by the

students although there is always room for continuous improvement.

Tutor Evaluation Survey Report - University of South Africaheda.unisa.ac.za/filearchive/Tutor...

Documents

Transcript of Tutor Evaluation Survey Report - University of South Africaheda.unisa.ac.za/filearchive/Tutor...