Towards Improved Teaching Effectiveness in Nigerian Public Universities: Instrument Design and Validation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is conducted to examine what is currently evaluated with respect to teaching in Nigerian publicuniversities and to produce instruments that would be useful for examining the course and teaching effectiveness ofcourse lecturers. Telephone interview of ten (10) professors in ten public Nigerian Universities is used to elicitinformation on the current state of evaluation of teaching while a document analysis reveals the concerns ofNational Universities Commission with lecturers during programme accreditation. Finding indicates that teachingeffectiveness is grossly ignored in the lecturer appraisal process. An 18 item questionnaire and another 15 itemquestionnaire measuring teaching and course effectiveness respectively is constructed. After a test retest procedureusing four lecturers and four courses, the instruments yielded a reliability coefficient ranging from -0.568 to 0.591for lecturers and 0.548 to 0.944 for the courses. The correlation coefficient values clearly reveal that the courseevaluation and lecturers’ evaluation forms were adequate to generate information on the course and lecturereffectiveness. It is therefore recommended, among other things that the National Universities Commission (NUC) asa regulatory body should make the evaluation of teaching a mandatory policy for all universities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it