2016, Cilt 6, Sayı 2, Sayfa(lar) 209-219
Students' Views About Pedagogical Competence of Lecturers
Hacı Bayram YILMAZ, Ayşe KAZANCI TINMAZ
Ondokuz Mayıs University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Samsun, Turkey
Keywords: Pedagogical competence, students' evaluations, evaluation of instructors
The purpose of this study is to examine the students' views about faculty members' pedagogical proficiencies and to determine if these
views differ in terms of selected variables. The sample of the study is composed of 792 third and fourth year university students and the
population of the study involves students at Faculties of Education, Engineering, Theology, and Economics and Administrative Sciences
of a university located in Turkey's Black Sea Region. The research data were collected by Pedagogical Competences Scale. Results revealed
that students think most of the lecturers are sufficient in Democratic Attitude; however, few of them found to be sufficient in Course
Process, and Measurement and Evaluation. While there were differences in Democratic Attitude and Measurement Assessment and
Evaluation between male and female students, in other proficiencies no significant differences were observed in terms of students' gender.
The views of the students differed in all four factors in terms of faculties and grades. However, their views in none of the four dimensions
differed significantly according to the attendance variable.
Higher education institutions play primary role in producing
information in scientific research to shape the future of society,
and in the training of highly qualified manpower required
by the age (Adem, 1977; Kaya, 2009). According to Humbolt,
the founder of the University of Berlin which is considered the
first example of modern research university, the university is
the institution at which all the education in the field of science
is implemented in a coherent way together with research
activities (Terzioğlu, 2003). To Reboul (1990), the teaching and
research are functions that can not be considered separately
by the university. Müftüoğlu parallel to this view (2004, p. 307)
expresses his thoughts as follows:
“University is the institution where ’the information related to
all areas of life is earned, and at all levels of the truth being
sought, so that the information is disseminated and taught
to the requester’. Although it said that production is the university’s
essential function; scientific knowledge generation
and teaching are two inseparable and chief functions ... But
in particular it should be noted that, neither research disrupts
the education nor the education disrupts research activities ...”
In above-mentioned opinion on the responsibility of teaching
and research undertaken by faculty members, it is emphasized
that the two tasks should be carried out effectively. Other
duties that faculty members are responsible should not lead to
supplant the task of teaching. To ensure effective teaching and
learning environment and the faculty should be conscious of
using appropriate pedagogical approaches (Higher Education
Council [HEC], 2007). The quality of university raises parellel to
the lecturers’ success in research and consulting (Korkut, 2001)
which raises the need to evaluate the lecturers in these areas.
While academic progress of lecturers is assessed by the help of
research performance, there is a lack of systematic assessment
systems to assess their teaching duties in Turkey. Only a small
number of faculties at universities have optional performance
Due to the fact that teaching has a multi-dimensional nature
and the effectiveness doesn’t have a single criterion, it is difficult
to be measured (Abrami, 1989; Abrami, d’Apollonia, &
Cohen, 1990; Abrami, Perry, & Leventhal, 1982; Algozzine et
al, 2004; Cashin, 1995; Gravestock & Gregor-Greenleaf, 2008;
Marsh, 1987; Wagenaar, 1995). Therefore, using a variety of
data sources is very important for a sound assessment practice
(Cashin, 1995). The effectiveness of teaching can be tested
utilizing data from different sources including but not limited
to students, colleagues, administrators and self-assessment
(Trans. Kalaycı, 2009). Student evaluations among those are
more widely used than others and considered as the reliable,
current and useful in evaluating the performance of teaching
faculty members (Abrami, 2001; Arubayi, 1987; Aleamoni,
1999, Baş Collins, 2002; Cashin, 1995; Cohen, 1981; Hoyt
& Pallett, 1999; Marsh, 1987; Wright, 2006). Esen and Esen
(2015) exploring attitudes of the faculty members towards
the performance evaluation systems, has come to the conclusion
that faculty members would like to see their students, sub-department heads, department heads and colleagues as
Student assessments provide information for lecturers to
improve their teaching practice, helps students in course
selection, and leads the managers’ accountability and the
promotion matters (Abrami et al., 1990; Marsh, 1987). While
the first two goals come in the scope of formal assessment,
the final objective used is within the scope of judicial evaluation
for decision-making on issues related to the lecturers
promotion, compensation and contract extension (Gravestock
& Gregor-Greenleaf, 2008). While the evaluation of teaching
performance is rather important in two respects, it is seen that
it is not used for judicial purposes in Turkey. In the assessments
made by formal purpose, it can be said that there are problems
in the application process of giving feedback to faculty members
There are discussions in the literature regarding the validity
and benefits as well as the reliability of students’ assessment
of the lecturers. The prevalence of judicial assessment has led
to contradicting results regarding the validity. The cause of this
may be more concerned about the the number of factors that
affect students’ assessment. Indeed, evaluation is affected
by factors like course features (class time, course load, class
size, undergraduate-graduate level), student characteristics
(gender, age, previous experiences, success), instructor characteristics
(gender, personality, charisma, experience), the
transaction process (application time, anonymous feedback ,
the presence of the instructor during practice) (Algozzine et
al., 2004; Cashin, 1995; Gravestock & Gregor-Greenleaf, 2008;
Marsh & Roche, 1997; Wright, 2006). While some of these
factors affect evaluation at very low level, some affects at a
medium or high level. However, if criteria are estavlished, the
feedback received about the effectiveness of teaching from
the students provides a very important source of information
about the quality of teaching in higher education institutions
(Baş Collins, 2002; Wagenaar, 1995; Wright, 2006).
To Shulman (1987), the knowledge base of the profession can
be divided in seven categories of information that forms the
basis of the teaching: content knowledge, general pedagogical
knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content
knowledge (educational field information), knowledge about
learner characteristics, educational content knowledge (education
environment and conditions information), educational
goals, values, and historical and philosophical basis knowledge.
Pedagogical knowledge is related to how the teacher teach and
covers the knowledge and skills such as getting to know students,
learning theories, principles and strategies in classroom
management, material development and use, measurement
and evaluation. Shulman (1986) suggests that, it is not enough
for a teacher to have only knowledge of a subject, but he/she
also have to know and explain the source of knowledge, its
causes, its interaction with other areas, and why the students
should learn that information.
According to Mishra and Koehler (2006) pedagogical knowledge
is a general information form including in-depth knowledge about learning methods or methods and practices covering
student learning, classroom management, lesson plan
development and execution, and assessment. A teacher having
a deep pedagogical knowledge understands how the student
develop the knowledge, how he/she gains the skills, how he/
she develops a positive tendency towards learning. Pedagogical
knowledge requires developmental, social and cognitive
learning theories and to know how to apply those in classroom
Pedagogical content knowledge need of academic staff is
described in two aspects. The first covers pedagogical applications
of the lecturer. The second is related to the quality
of the lecturer as a role model in terms of students’ professional
development. Quality of their education can enrich and
strengthen the life of the students who will become a teacher
or an instructor in the future. The lecturers are said not only
the ones making academic studies but also excellent teachers
(Fernandez-Balboa & Stiehl, 1995).
It is expressed that lecturer should understand what the
students know about a topic; they should think about how
students can learn and what kind of difficulties they will come
across in learning process. They also have to give answers to
the differences arising from individual characteristics and
students’ needs in addition to learning continuously about the
factors that affect student learning and to improve their knowledge
(Major & Palmer, 2002). Entering and leaving the class on
time, not distrupting the courses, compensating if distrupting
occurs, giving the opportunity to review the exam papers and
listening to the objections, not discriminating students, considering
students as adults, being sensitive to students’ problems,
creating an atmosphere where any thought can be articulated
in class, are also responsibilities of the lecturers given in this
context (HEC, 2007). Helterbran (2008) insists that effective
lecturer who trains instructors should have competent in three
areas: information and presentation, personality traits, and
professional charecteristics. In a different study Okoye (2008),
found that students pay attention to teaching methods, course
plan and management of the lecturer, in addition to the easiness
of understanding the staffs’ (lecturers’) expressions. They
give less value to the features such as research capability and
In another study investigating the characteristics of effective
teaching of instructors; general culture, knowledge of the
subject matter, course planing and preparation, the teachinglearning
strategies, teaching materials, classroom management,
measurement and assessment, and communication
skills are considerd important for students (Şen and Erişen,
2002). Açan and Saydan (2009) indicated that teaching skills,
measurement and assessment skills, empathy skills, professional
responsibility, personal dignity, raising interest to the
subject and kindness are considered important caharacteristics
of teaching faculty members.
Özbek and Yeşil (2010) examined lecturers’ classroom teaching
activities in four dimensions as input, activity, the result stages,
and classroom climate. Students rated their lecturers at «good level» in creating a positive classroom climate. They perceived
the lecturers at «medium level» in other dimensions. Köseoğlu
(1994) reported that faculty memebers perceived themselves
more positive compared with the students’ views. In Kumral’s
study (2009) study, students provided negative analogies
more than positive ones. In a similar study, very few of faculty
members working at a Faculty of Education were found to be
proficient in in-class educational activities (Murat, Aslantaş, &
Literature shows that faculty members give deep information,
but they do not provide enough general and main information
about the subject they teach; they do not establish healthy
relationships with students; they can not make an effective
assessment (Ergün, 2001); Yeşil and Özbek (2008) adds that
lecturers have trouble in preparing questions, asking questions
and giving feedback. In a different study by Beşoluk and
Horzum (2011), students expressed that lecturers do not give
importance to the courses, courses are carried out by students,
rote learning is applied and courses are delivered through oral
presentations which lead to ineffective instruction.
It is stated that lecturer greatly makes information transmiting,
gives very little space to learn through research and discovery,
uses the simplest narrative technique, and makes only summative
evaluations most of the time (Senemoğlu, 1994). In a
similar study, the students generally have a negative perception
regarding academic staffs’ behaviours, course applications
and measurement and assessment applications. It is concluded
that lecturers are not empathetic enough to communicate with
students, and they exhibit insufficient democratic attitudes. In
addition, students do not have a strong conviction in that the
instructors are fair and objective enough when measuring and
evaluating student success (Aksu, Çivitçi, & Duy, 2008).
In another study conducted by Ergün, Duman, Kıncal, & Arıbaş
(1999) students stated that they are disturbed by the political
behavior of the lecturer and their discrimination when giving
grades. Students want their instructors show respect for their
ideas, listen to them, act kindly and friendly, and be reliable.
Students also demand instructors to whom they can communicate
and ask questions. As for education, students paint a
portrait of an instructor who lectures well, relaxes the course
with humor, makes it attractive, exemplifying, and teach the
subject matter considering what learnsers already know, as
well as using language effectively when giving lectures.
Students criticize the instructors for humiliating some students
when making jokes, dealing with the students taking their
gender into account, giving lectures reading from textbooks
during the course, exaggerating trivial errors of the students,
giving examples from ignorance of students while highlighting
the importance of what they have said (Anık, 2007). In a
similar study, being hard and nervous, not communicating with
students, not contributing students in regard to course topic,
creating a tense learning environment, giving low grades were
stated among unpopular behaviors (Özdemir & Üzel, 2010).
According to results of a related study, it is seen that some
faculty members are trying to activate their students; very few of them exhibit course entry activities such as drawing attention,
increasing motivation, relating the previous course. Yet
again a few use teaching strategies that help students learn,
relate the topic with real life, and give feedback (Evran Acar,
Kılıç, Ay, Kuyumcu Vardar, & Kara, 2010). Due to the problems
stated above, it is expressed in many studies that the instructors
need training in relevant areas (Arslantaş, 2011; Ergin &
Dursun, 2005; Evran Acar et al., 2010; Tonbul, 2008). Whitin
the framework of the research results mentioned above it is
clear that some of thefaculty members lack important characteristics
when fulfilling their responsibilities and there is a
need to integrate student evaluations of lecturers in evaluation
system of faculty staff in Turkey.
The overall objective of this study is to assess the pedagogical
competence of instructors according to the opinion of the
students. For this purpose, answers to the following questions
• What are the university students’ views on the pedagogical
competence of the lecturers?
• Is there a significant difference between male and female
university students’ views about pedagogical competence
of faculty members?
• Are there significant differences in students’ perception of
their faculty members’ pedagogical competence in terms
of the faculty they attend?
• Is there a significant difference in students’ perception of
their faculty members’ pedagogical competence in terms
of their attendance level?
• Is there a significant difference in students’ perception of
their faculty members’ pedagogical competence in terms
of their grade level?
A descriptive / exploratory design is utilized to answer the
research questions introduced above. Therefore, the study is
focused to describe and measure independent and dependent
variables and relationship among them. As a non experimental
research, findings of the current study does not suggest causality.
Population and Sample
The research was carried out at one of the major universities in
the Black Sea region of Turkey. Being one of the largest universities
in Turkey, this institution attracts students from different
socio-economic status and different geographical regions. The
population of the study consists of students studying in 2011-
2012 academic year at university’s Faculty of Education (FE1),
Faculty of Engineering (FE2), Faculty of Theology (FT), Faculty
of Economic and Administrative Sciences (FEAS) and study’s
sample includes a total of 792 junior and senior students. The
reason why the students of the third and fourth year is the
thought that these students have to interact with the instructors
more as compared to the freshmen and sophomores. 57.2% of students who participated in the study (n = 453) were
female and 42.8% (n = 339) were male. 38% of respondents (n
= 298) attended FE1, 34.7% (n = 275) attended FE2, 14.6% (n =
116) attended FT and, 12.8% (n = 101) attended FEAS.
Data Collection Tool
The data used in this research were collected using “Pedagogical
Competences Scale (PCS)” developed by Kazancı Tınmaz
(2013). The scale consists of 20 items representing four
dimensions. All the items were four-option Likert type items
having the options of ’all’, ’most’, ’few’, ’none’ of the lecturers.
For the validity of the PCS, exploratory and confirmatory for
factor analyses were conducted, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
was calculated. The four factors were named as “Democratic
Attitude”, “Course Introduction”, “Course Process” and
“Measurement and Evaluation” Competencies. These factors
explained 58.70% of the total variance. Cronbach’s alpha internal
consistency coefficient for the whole scale was 0.906. The
internal consistency of each factor is calculated respectively
as; 0.73, 0.77, 086, and 0.73. Fit indices obtained as a result
of confirmatory factor analysis were as follows: X2 / df = 5.09;
RMSEA = 0.072; RMR = 0.032; SRM R = 0.065; GFI = 0.90; AGFI
= 0.88; NNF = 0.87, and CFI = 0.89. These results shows that
four-factor scale structure is acceptable. Each item was scored
between 1 and 4. Higher scores have been interpreted as students
give more favorable opinion of the report. Scale’s highest
overall score is 80, and the lowest score is 20. While 4 is the
lowest and 20 is the highest scores that could be obtaained on
the first, second and fourth dimensions, they were 8 and 32
respectively for the thisd dimension.
Collection of Data and Analysis
The data were collected during class time after obtaining the
necessary permissions. Students were instructed to think
about the faculty members that they had taken course with
and consider the faculty members working at their own faculty.
For data analysis SPSS 17 software package was used. Due to
the data collected using PCS was quantitative data, parametric
tests has been envisaged for analysis; in line with the implementation
to determine if the views of the students differ
according to selected variables. Firstly if the assumptions of
the analysis methods proposed were met or not. Based on the
assumption check, t-test, variance analysis and Mann-Whitney
U tests were performed.
For the purpose of evaluating pedagogical competency of lecturers,
descriptive statistics cited in the methods section of the
scale were used. In this context, the mean score obtained from
the whole (x̅ = 48.96) shows that the students perceive that
“few” of the faculty members can be considered as competent.
While the highest score that can be obtained from the “Democratic
Attitude”, “Course Introduction” and “Measurement and
Evaluation” Competencies of PCS is 16; the highest possible
score on dimension of “Course Process Competency” is 32. In
this context, the mean score (x̅ = 11.98) obtained on “Democratic
Attitudes Competence” and the mean score (x̅ = 10.22) obtained on ”Course Introduction Competence” indicate that
most of the faculty members are considered as competent.
Average scores (x̅ = 9.45) obtained on “Measurement and
Evaluation Competence” and “Course Process Competence” (x̅
= 17.31) show that only few of the lecturers are perceived as
competent by their students.
Findings on the Difference Between Male and Female
University Students’ Views About Pedagogical Competence
of Faculty Members
To inestigate the difference between male and female university
students’ views about pedagogical competence of faculty
members an independent samples t test was used. For the
purpose of checking if each factor variance is equal or not in
independent variable categories that are the assumptions of
t-test, Levene test results were checked and it was seen that
the assumption of the equality of variance was ensured for each factor (for first factor p=.464>.05; for second
factor p= .162>.05; for third factor p=.232>.05; for fourth factor
p=.651>.05). This result suggests that t-test can be used for
the second research question.
The t-test results revealed that mean of the “Course Introduction”
[t (787) = -.960; p> .05] and “Course Process” Competences
[t (789) = .286; p> .05] does not differ in terms of student
gender. However, “ Democratic Attitude” [t (788) = -3.558;
p <.05] and “Measurement and Evaluation” Competencies
[t (790) = -2.561; p <.05] differ based on based on students’
gender. Female students’ views( x̅ = 12.23) on the democratic
attitude of the lecturer are more positive than that of males (x̅
= 11.65). Similarly, as regarding measurement and evaluation
competencies female students’ views (x̅ = 9.61) are more positive
compared with male students (x̅ = 9.22). The results of the
analysis are given In Table 1.
Click Here to Zoom
|Table 1: t-test Results Comparing Females and Males on Their Views about Faculty Members
Findings on the Differences in Students’ Perception of Their
Faculty Members’ Pedagogical Competence in Terms of the
Faculty They Attend
To compare the students’ perception of faculty members’ competence
based on the faculty they attend, Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was chosen as the analysis method. An investigation
of homogeneity of variances among groups indicated that
although the first and fourth dimensions met the assumption,
other two dimensions had unequal variances. Since each
group can be considered large it was decided to run ANOVA on
the data as this method provides robost statistics (Field, 2005).
As seen in Table 2, in each four factors students’ views also
differ significantly: for the first factor F (3, 786) = 7.16; p <.05;
for the second factor F (3, 785) = 24.85; p <.05; for the third
factor F (3, 787) = 25.28; p <.05; for the fourth factor F (3, 787)
= 17.93; p <.05).
Click Here to Zoom
|Table 2: Anova Results Comparing Students Attending Different Faculties on Their Views about Faculty Members
For detecting variations among faculties, post-hoc test statistics
were calculated. In the second and fourth factors, due to
the fact that the variances of the dependent variable are not
equal across groups, and the number of samples in groups are
not equal, Dunnett-C test has been preferred. In cases where
variances are equal but sample sizes are not, Bonferroni test
was used. Students views about lecturers “Democratic Attitude
Competence” of FT (x̅ = 12. 59) is found to be more positive
compared to the students studying in FEAS (x̅ = 12.58), FE1
(x̅ = 11.78) and FE2 (x̅= 11.73). Students ’views about lecturers’
“Course Introduction Competence” of FEAS (x̅ = 11: 43) is
found to be more positive compared to FT (x̅ = 11. 07), FE1 (x̅
= 10. 03) and FE2 (x̅ = 9.63). When the views of the students
about “Course Process Competence” are examined, FT (x̅ = 19.
43) students’ views are found to be more positive compared
to the students of FEAS (x̅ = 18.68), F1 (x̅ = 16.92) and FE2
(x̅ = 16. 33). Like in the dimension of “Democratic Attitudes
Competence”, in this dimension while the students of FT have the most positive views on lecturers, the studets of FE2 have
the most negative views. In dimension of “Measurement and
Evaluation Competency” the views of the students of TF (x̅ =
10. 48) were concluded to be more positive compared to the
students of FE1 (x̅ = 9. 28), FEAS (x̅ = 10.11) and FE2 (x̅ = 8.97).
Findings on the Differences in Students’ Perception of Their
Faculty Members’ Pedagogical Competence in Terms of Their
For data analysis of the differentiation of the views of the students
according to the students’ status of attendance variables
regarding on pedagogical proficiency of the lecturers, independent
samples t test and Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted.
Reasults of Levene Test conducted in order to check if
each factor has equal variances across the categories of independent
variable showed that for the factor of “Democratic
Attitude Competence” equality of variance (p = .423> .05) the
assumption was met, but for other three factors (P = .040 <.05,
p = .002 <.05, p = .030 <.05, respectively) the assumption of
variances equality was not (p <.05) observed.
According to t-test results in Table 3; the views of students
about “Democratic Attitude Competence”of lecturers do no
differ according to the attendance status t (788) = 0.16; p> .05.
The results of The Mann-Whitney U Test conducted for other
dimensions can be seen in table 4. Accordingly, in all three
dimensions students’ views do not differ in terms of their
Click Here to Zoom
|Table 3: t-test Results Comparing Students on Their Views about Faculty Members Based on Course Attandence Status
Click Here to Zoom
|Table 4: Mann-Whitney U Test Results Comparing Students on Their Views about Faculty Members Based on Course Attandence Status
Findings on The Differences in Students’ Perception of Their
Faculty Members’ Pedagogical Competence in Terms of Their
In analysis of findings on differentiation of students’ views
according to the grade level variable, as in previous variables,
Levene Test results was analyzed and it was seen that “Democratic
Attitude Competence” factor met the equality of variances
(p = .483> .05) assumption; other factors (p = .014 <. 05;
p = .038 <.05, p = .001 <.05, respectively) the assumption of
the equality of variance (p <.05) was not observed. Therefore,
for the first factor t-test, for other factors Mann-Whitney U test
“Democratic Attitude Competence” varies according to grade
level, [t(788) = 5,936; p <.05]. The Mann-Whitney U-test results
for the other three factors are presented in Table 6. According
to the analysis results:
Click Here to Zoom
|Table 5: t-test Results Comparing Junior and Senior Students on Their Views about Faculty Members
Click Here to Zoom
|Table 6: Mann Whitney U Test Results Comparing Junior and Senior Students on Their Views about Faculty Members
• The views of students on “Course Introduction Competence”
vary according to grade level (U= 66486.50; p <.05);
third year (Mean Rank = 412.44) students express more
positive views than fourth year ones (Mean Rank = 368.90).
• The views of students in “Course Process Competence”
vary significantly according to grade level, (U = 67510.50; p
<.05). These differences are in favor of third year students.
Third year (Mean Rank = 411.87) students display more
positive views compared to fourth year students (Mean
Rank = 372.14).
• In dimension regarding “Measurement and Evaluation
Competence”, the results were similar. The views of students
differ according to the grade levels, (U= 67677.50; p<
.05). In this dimension also, third year students (Mean Rank
= 411.52) made more positive views than that of fourth
year (Mean Rank = 372.67) students.
In this study aiming to explore the views of university students
on pedagogical competencies of lecturers, the conclusion has
been reached that students believe that few of the lecturers
have pedagogical competence in general. While lecturers have
seen to have democratic attitude and competence regarding
course introduction according to the subsacles of pedagogical competences, few of the lecturers are perceived as competent
in proficiencies related to course process and measurement
In current research, while interacting with students caring
about them as they are human beings and not discriminating
based on students’ characteristics (gender, appearance,
religion) and not transmitting their own ideology to students
and respecting the views of the students, can be considered as
an indication that most of the lecturers have democratic attitude
in classrooms. While these results are supported by Teyin
(2009), Erdem and Sarıtaş’s (2006) studies, they contrasts with
the results obtained by Duman and Koç (2004). Contrary to the
findings of this study, Duman and Koç (2004) have expressed
that university students believed that faculty members’ democratic attitudes and behaviors were in the middle and lower
Contrary to the the results related to “Course Introduction
Competence” obtained by this study Şen and Erişen (2002)
claimed that very few of the lecturers has been found satisfactory.
Köseoğlu’s (1994) study also indicated parallel results
with Şen and Erişen. On the other hand, Özbek and Yeşil (2010)
found that the faculty members competency level was “moderate”.
The reason of conflicting results in studies is thought to
come from the differences in study samples. It can be told that
the university students included in this study probably thought
that the lecturers plan the entrance of the course well or their
motivation is high. Other possible reasons could be that the
lecturers’ quality is getting better, or students’ expectations
from faculty members are declining. The reason for conflicting
results needs to be addressed by new studies.
Unlike the previous two dimensions, in “Course Process Competence”,
only few of the lecturers were found competent
by the participants. The studies of Şen and Erişen (2002) and
Arslantaş’s (2011) support this conclusion. Özbek and Yeşil
(2010) have found the lecturers were moderately competent
at this dimension. The reason why few of the lecturer in this
dimension is sufficient could be that that student expectations
regarding planning the course process are not met and that
lecturers may have difficulty in teaching the subject matter.
Another reason could be that the motivation level of the lecturers
declines during the class time. Decline in motivation of
the lecturer might result from their own troubles and may also
be caused by the behavior of the students. If the lecturer could
not plan how to transfer the subject and how to handle it, his/
her motivation may decline. Furthermore, though in “Course
Introduction Competency” most of the lecturers are found to
be competent, if during the course process contrary exists, it
suggests that there may be troubles arising from students (i.e.,
class apathy, impairment of cognitive proficiencies, disruptive
behavior) or the physical conditions (technical problems and
Similar to the above explanations, few of the lecturers are considered
competent at measurement and evaluation endeavors.
That means while the students expect the lecturers to select
suitable measurement tool and to give information on their
exam results if they ask for it, few of lecturers are found to be
meeting the expectation. These results are parallel to Şen and
Erişen’s (2002) and Arslantaş’s (2011) findings. The results of
Aksu et al. (2008) are quite remarkable in this regard. In their
research, 20.3% of students state that lecturer did not make
a fair evaluation, 53% of students reported that lecturer have
left some students in their courses unduly. In addition, one out
of every four students noted that they had been threatened by
the lecturers for exam results and they lack objectivity when
measureing and evaluating student success.
Conclusions on the difference between male and female
university students’ views about pedagogical competence of
Views of female students on the Democratic Attitude Com petence of lecturer is more positive than that of males. In
contrast to these results, Erdem and Sarıtaş (2006) have found
that perception of students regarding lecturers’ behaviours
shows differentiation in terms of democratization. This can be
said that female students’ views are more positive than male
students may arise from that “democratization” criterion is
perceived by the two groups in a different way. Besides the
differences in the perception, this result can be interpreted as
an indication of the lecturer gained consciousness for positive
discrimination in favor of females.
In dimensions of course introduction and course process
competences it was found that no significant difference exists
in the views of students based on thier gender. When the relevant
research are analyzed, results supporting the findings
of this study can be reached. Studies indicating male students
reported more positive views than the female students has
also been found. For example, Arslantaş (2011) states that
students’ views on competences of using teaching strategies,
methods and techniques of lecturer is not significantly different
according to gender, Marsh and Roche (1997) state that
there is no relationship between students’ gender and student
evaluations. In Özbek and Yeşil (2010) and Murat et al.’s (2006)
studies the views of students were found to differ according
to the gender of the students. In Özbek and Yeşil’s (2010)
research, male students evaluated the proficiencies of lecturer
during the entry and process of the course at a better level
compared to the female students, Mura et al.’s (2006) research
reached the conclusion that in educational activities within the
class again female students compared to male students see
their lecturer more competetent.
In dimension of “Measurement and Evaluation Competence”,
the conclusion reached is that there is a significant difference
in views by gender. That is, female students’ views regarding
proficiencies of lecturers’ measurement and evaluation proficiency
is more positive compared to male students. In contrast
to these result, Kalaycı and Çimen’s (2010) findings implied
that there is not a significant difference between the views of
female and male students’view; however, the rate of male students’
evaluation of lecturers is higher ’descriptively’ than the
rate of female students. Arslantaş (2011) identified that there
is not significant difference in students’ views regarding measurement
and evaluation competences of lecturers in terms of
gender variable. As a result of current research, the reason why
female students have more positive views on measurement
and evaluation competence than male students, is possible to
be due to the fact that female students are more successful
or hardworking than male students. Male students may also
think that lecturers give higher notes for females’ exam papers,
which also requires further research.
Conclusions on the differences in students’ perception of
their faculty members’ pedagogical competence in terms of
the faculty they attend
When examining the results of student opinion regarding the
differentiation status by the faculty the study shows that in all
four dimensions student views differ. Concerning democratic attitude, course process and measurement and evaluation
proficiencies FT students have the most positive views. When
the views of the students in dimension of “Course Introduction
Competence” are examined, it is observed that the students
of FEAS have the most positive view compared to the other
faculties. The reason for the differing views in this way can be
the due to their area of expertise. It can be said that students
attending different faculties and their faculty members develop
specific attitudes and behavior according to their cultural
setting. The results coming in this way may arised from the differentiation
in perceptions and expectations of students. For
example, FE1 students can expect more perfection from the
lecturer compared to the students in other faculties.
The fact that FT students have most positive views in three of
the factors may be coming from the reason that the approaches
of lecturers satisfy the students. It is also possible that those
students have more optimistic. Another reason may be due to
the fact that the number of students in the FT in academic year
when the research was carried out and therefore the number
of students per lecturer can be fewer than other faculties.
The reason why the students at FAES also have positive views
on the factors emerged may be that their faculty members percieve
their teaching job as bussiness as their professional track
suggests. As a result, they may try to satisfy their students’
expectations in providing quality education with the motion of
business-like culture. In a reseach done in FAES, the satisfaction
levels of students conducted and it was seen that most of
the students surveyed (53.9%) were somewhat satisfied with
lecturers’ performance; 28.7% of them were satisfied, and
remaining 17.4% stated that they were is not satisfied (Açan
& Saydan, 2009).
While the majority of lecturers in FE1 are expected to be sufficient
it is remarkable that in each four dimensions the students’
views at the third rank. The reason for this could be that the
lecturer are not at expected level of proficiency or students’
pedagogical awareness and expectations at this point may be
higher than students in other faculties.
Conclusions on the differences in students’ perception of
their faculty members’ pedagogical competence in terms of
their attendance level
In each of four dimensions of pedagogical proficiency, it is seen
that the variable of attendance status does not affect the views
of students regarding the pedagogical competence of lecturers.
According to Davidovitch and Soen’s (2006) research results, it
is observed that the students’ attendance status influences the
lecturers’ evaluation. The lack of difference in students’ views
brings mind the possibility that students with less attendance
status are influenced by the views of the students who attend
Conclusion on the differences in students’ perception of their
faculty members’ pedagogical competence in terms of their
Considering the views of students according to grade level,
“Democratic Attitude Competence” of lecturers are seen to be diffing. In this dimension, juniors report more positive opinion
compared to the seniors. In parallel, Erdem and Sarıtaş (2006)
state that students’ perception regarding democratization of
the lecturers’ behaviors differ according to the grade levels,
and first garde students perceive lecturers’ behaviours as more
democratic compared to other grades. Duman and Koç (2004)
also found that the perceptions of freshmen’s are higher than
The views of students on proficiencies of course introduction,
course process and measurement and evaluation of the lecturers
differ in terms of grade levels. In all four dimensions third
year students have more positive views compared to fourth
year students. Kalaycı and Çimen (2010)’s “descriptive findings”
support this result. In Neumann and Neumann (1985)’s
research results, it was seen that the marks given to lecturers’
holistic evaluation questions by the students decreased as the
grade level increased. Contrary to these results, Aksu et al.’s
(2008) findings are that especially third garde students have
more negative views on lecturers. When it comes to the findings
of the current study, the reason why fourth year students
had more negative views compared to the third year students
may be that these students are at the end of the school year.
With reasons such as worrying about finding a job and preparation
for professional exams caused difficulty in participation
of the courses resulting in more negative views on lecturers.
Another reason imaginable is that since the graduation of
fourthgrade students’ is close, they are thought to develop
more objective views about lecturers.
According to the results of this study, it can be said that lecturers’
pedagogical competence is not at a satisfying level accorfing
to their students. Because of this reason, it is expected
that the study results provide faculty members an opportunity
for self critique and willl help them to think about both their
relationships with their students and their behaviour in education
process. In this context, it is possible to make following
The fact that in dimension of proficiencies regarding course
process, few lecturers are percieved to be competent. This
raises questions regarding their proficiencies. Therefore, faculty
members’ experience could be treaed as dependent variable
to explore if there is difference in competencies of novice
and experienced lecturers.
In studies in the literature and in this study one of the factors
being common is mesurement and evaluation. In almost every
study this factor has appeared and it has been concluded that
the lecturers usually were not seen as sufficient. Therefore,
further studies on measurement and evaluation competence is
needed. And also there can be made a number of innovations
in the institutional sense. For example, assessment consulting
unit can be installed in universities. In this sense, the lecturers
can be trained and helped on developing reliable and valid
According to results of the reseach, the least satisfied students
about their faculty members are the ones attending Engineering
and Education Faculties. At these two faculties, studies can
be designed and the reasons could be explored. To illustrate,
research can be done both with students and lecturers by
doing interviews. Also due to the fact that the students of FT
and FAES have more positive views, qualitative studies can be
done to investigate the cause of these views.
The differences in the students’ perceptions and expectations
of the lecturers may have originated from the distinctive culture
of each faculty. Therefore, the scale can be developed
specific to faculties and research may be conduct. These studies
can be performed by scientists; the governing bodies of the
universities can follow the process of establishing units related
at each faculty. These units may conduct systematic studies
and they may also provide training opportunities shouls the
For continuing this research or supporting it different studies
can be done in different universities and the results can be
compared. Comparisons between departments, private and
state universities can be done. Comparisons can be done by
adding the freshmen and sophomores.
In line with the perious research, current study results imply
that lecturers experience problems in some dimensions of
competences and therefore they are in need of education
on these issues. Today, doctoral students take “Learning and
Development” and “Measurement Assessment” courses.
However, how much this practice is efficient is a debatable
question. These courses can be useful to offer within each
department. It is thought that future faculty members should
get pedagogical training that is specific to the faculties they
work at for providing more qualified education.
To establish a faculty member evaluation system on solid
foundations, there is a need for systematic and periodic data
collection. Evaluation results should be sent to the lecturers.
In addition, students also should be informed about the
results. During the implementation of this research some of
the students opt-out since they thought their opinion will not
be taken into consideration. Therefore by making necessary
explanations, students should be provided to feel a part of
faculty evaluation and improvement process. Student evaluations
are of the most effective ones among lecturers’ assessment
techniques. Besides it is an important attempt in order
to meet student expectations. However, in order to assess the
holistic performance of lecturers other methods should also
1) Abrami, P. C. (1989). How should we use student ratings to evaluate
teaching? Research in Higher Education, 30(2), 221-227.
2) Abrami, P. C. (2001). Improving judgments about teaching
effectiveness using teacher rating forms. In M. Theall, P. C.
Abrami, and L. A. Mets (Eds.). The student ratings debate: Are
they valid? How can we best use them? [Special issue]. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 109, 59-87.
3) Abrami, P. C., d’Apollonia, S., & Cohen, P. A. (1990). The validity of
student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do
not. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 219-231.
4) Abrami, P. C., Perry, R. P., & Leventhal, L. (1982). The relationship
between student personality characteristics, teacher ratings,
and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
5) Açan, B., & Saydan, R. (2009). Öğretim elemanlarının akademik
kalite özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi: Kafkas Üniversitesi İİBF
örneği. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi,
6) Adem, M. (1977). Yükseköğretim planlaması. Ankara Üniversitesi
Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 336-337.
7) Aksu, M. B., Çivitçi, A., & Duy, B. (2008). Yükseköğretim
öğrencilerinin öğretim elemanlarının ders uygulamaları ve sınıf
içi davranışlarına ilişkin görüşleri. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(16), 17-42.
8) Algozzine, B., Beattie, J., Bray, M., Flowers, C., Gretes, J., Howley,
L., Mohanty, G., & Spooner, F. (2004). Student evaluation of
college teaching: A practice in search of principles. College
Teaching, 52(4), 134–141.
9) Anık, C. (2007). Eğiticinin performansını niteleyen faktörler. Bilig,
10) Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research
facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 13(2), 153-166.
11) Arslantaş, İ. (2011). Öğretim elemanlarının öğretim strateji-yöntem
ve teknikleri, iletişim ve ölçme değerlendirme yeterliklerine
yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(15), 487-506.
12) Arubayi, A. E. (1987). Improvement of ınstruction and teacher
effectiveness: Are student ratings reliable and valid? Higher
Education, 16, 267-278.
13) Baş Collins, A. (2002). Üniversite öğrencileri öğretim elemanlarının
başarısını değerlendirebilir mi? İkilemler ve problemler. Ankara
Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1-2), 81-91.
14) Beşoluk, Ş., & Horzum, M. B. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının meslek
bilgisi, alan bilgisi dersleri ve öğretmen olma isteğine ilişkin
görüşleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi,
15) Cashin, W. E. (1995). Student ratings of teaching: The research
revisited (IDEA Paper No. 32). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State
University Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.
16) Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student
achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies.
Review of Educational Research, 51, 281-309.
17) Davidovitch, N., & Soen, D. (2006). Class attandance and students’
evaluation of their college instructors. College Student Journal,
18) Duman, T., & Koç, G. (2004). Eğitim Fakültesi öğrencilerinin
öğretim elemanlarının demokratik tutum ve davranışlarına
ilişkin görüşleri. XIII. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kurultayı, İnönü
19) Erginer, E., & Dursun F. (2005). Öğretim elemanlarının etkili
öğretim becerilerinin geliştirilmesine yönelik görüşleri. Eğitim
ve Bilim, 30(135), 11-22.
20) Ergün, M., Duman, T., Kıncal, R. Y., & Arıbaş, S. (1999). İdeal bir
öğretim elemanının özellikleri. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3, 1-11.
21) Ergün, M. (2001). Üniversitelerde öğretim etkinliğinin geliştirilmesi.
2000 Yılında Türk Milli Eğitim Örgütü ve Yönetimi Ulusal
Sempozyumu. Ankara: Öğretmen Hüseyin Hüsnü Tekışık Eğitim
Araştırma Geliştirme Vakfı Yayınları.
22) Erdem, A. R., & Sarıtaş, E. (2006). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin
öğretim elemanlarının davranışlarının demokratikliğine
ilişkin algıları (PAÜ örneği). Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16, 525–538.
23) Esen, M., & Esen, D. (2015). Öğretim üyelerinin performans
değerlendirme sistemine yönelik tutumlarının araştırılması.
Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 5(1), 52-67.
24) Evran Acar, F., Kılıç, A., Ay, Ş., Kuyumcu Vardar, A., & Kara, R.
(2010). Öğretim elemanlarının pedagojik formasyon ihtiyacı.
International Conference on New Trends in Education and
Their Implications, Antalya.
25) Fernández Balboa, J. M., & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature
of pedagogical content knowledge among college professors.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 293- 306.
26) Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2. Edition).
London: Sage Publications.
27) Gravestock, P., & Gregor-Greenleaf, E. (2008). Student course
evaluations: Research, models and trends. Toronto: Higher
Education Quality Council of Ontario.
28) Helterbran, V. R. (2008). The ideal professor: Student perceptions
of effective instructor practices, attitudes, and skills. Education,
29) Higher Education Council (HEC). (2007). Türkiye’nin yükseköğretim
stratejisi. Ankara: Meteksan.
30) Hoyt, D.P., & Pallett, W.H. (1999). Appraising teaching effectiveness:
Beyond student ratings (IDEA Paper No. 36). Manhattan, KS:
Kansas State University Center for Faculty Evaluation and
31) Kalaycı, N. (2009). Yükseköğretim Kurumlarında Akademisyenlerin
Öğretim Performansını Değerlendirme Sürecinde Kullanılan
Yöntemler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 15(60),
32) Kalaycı, N., & Çimen, O. (2011). Öğretim elemanı ve ders
değerlendirme (ÖEDD) anketlerine verilen puanların bazı
değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. Uluslararası Yükseköğretim
Kongresi: Yeni Yönelişler ve Sorunlar, 2(IX), 925-934.
33) Kaya, Y. K. (2009). İnsan yetiştirme düzenimiz (5. Baskı). Ankara:
34) Kazancı Tınmaz, A. (2013). Öğrenci görüşlerine göre öğretim
elemanlarının pedagojik yeterlikleri. Yüksek lisans tezi,
Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Samsun.
35) Korkut, H. (2001). Sorgulanan yükseköğretim. Ankara: Nobel.
36) Köseoğlu, K. (1994). İlköğretime öğretmen yetiştiren kurumlarda
yüksek lisans tezi öğretim elemanı yeterliklerinin
değerlendirilmesi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara
37) Kumral, O. (2009). Öğretmen adaylarının öğretim elemanlarının
davranışlarına yönelik algıları. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1) 92-102.
38) Major, C., & Palmer, B. (2002). Faculty knowledge of influences
on student learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(3), 138-
39) Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching:
Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research,
40) Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations
of teaching effectiveness effective. American Psychologist,
41) Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical
content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
42) Murat, M., Aslantaş, H. İ., & Özgan, H. (2006). Öğretim elemanlarının
sınıf içi eğitim-öğretim etkinlikleri açısından değerlendirilmesi.
Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(3), 263-278.
43) Müftüoğlu, F. (2004). Maarif meseleleri. İstanbul: Ötüken.
44) Neumann, L., & Neumann, Y. (1985). Determinants of student’s
ınstructional evaluation: A comparison of four levels of
academic areas. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 152-158.
45) Okoye, N. S. (2008). The Nigerian university teachers’ effectiveness
as perceived by their students. College Student Journal, 42(2),
46) Özbek, R., & Yeşil, R. (2010). Ortaöğretim alan öğretim
elemanlarının sınıf içi öğretim yeterliklerinin değerlendirilmesi
(Fırat Üniversitesi örneği). İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 10(2), 111-128.
47) Özdemir, E., & Üzel, D. (2010). İlköğretim matematik öğretmen
adaylarının öğretim elemanı özelliklerine yönelik görüşlerinin
incelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 10(20), 122-152.
48) Reboul, O. (1990). Eğitim felsefesi. (I. Gürbüz, Çev.). İstanbul:
49) Senemoğlu, N. (1994). Üniversite mezunu öğrencilerin görüşlerine
göre üniversite öğretim elemanlarının öğretim etkinlikleri ve
öğretmenlik meslek bilgisi ihtiyaçları. Sözel Bildiri, I. Eğitim
Bilimleri Kongresi, Adana.
50) Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowlegde growth
in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
51) Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowlegde and teaching. Foundations of
the new reform. Harward Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
52) Şen, Ş., & Erişen, Y. (2002). Öğretmen yetiştiren kurumlarda
öğretim elemanlarının etkili öğretmenlik özellikleri. Gazi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1, 99-116.
53) Terzioğlu, T. (2003). Akademik özgürlükler. (Edit. G. Vassaf),
Özgürleşmenin Sorunları- Mehmet Ali Aybar Sempozyumları
1997–2002. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
54) Teyin, Z. (2009). Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi’nde çalışan
öğretim elemanlarının demokratik tutumları. Yüksek Lisans
Tezi, Uludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa.
55) Tonbul, Y. (2008). Öğretim üyelerinin performansının
değerlendirilmesine ilişkin öğretim üyesi ve öğrenci görüşleri.
Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 56, 633-662.
56) Yeşil, R., & Özbek, R. (2008). Sosyal alanlar eğitimi bölümlerindeki
“branş” öğretim elemanlarının sorulardan yararlanma
yeterlikleri (Fırat Üniversitesi örneği). Ahi Evran Üniversitesi
Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 9(3), 175-186.
57) Wagenaar, T. C. (1995). Student evaluation of teaching: Some
cautions and suggestions. Teaching Sociology, 23(1), 64–68.
58) Wright, R. E. (2006). Student evaluations of faculty: Concerns
raised in the literature, and possible solutions. College Student
Journal, 40(2), 417-422.