Improving teaching effectiveness in higher education: Insights from a tertiary institution in Zimbabwe
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64754/2ypcmj41Keywords:
Student-Lecturer Evaluation; Teaching Effectiveness; Kirkpatrick Model; Logical Framework Approach.Abstract
Student–lecturer evaluations are central to improving teaching quality and achieving meaningful learning outcomes in higher education. Yet, in most tertiary institutions, the evaluations remain fragmented, unstructured, and weakly grounded in theory, limiting their transformative potential. This study addresses this gap by applying Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model (Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, Results) alongside the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) to develop a structured, evidence-driven evaluation system. Using a mixed-methods case study design, the study integrates quantitative student survey data with qualitative insights from interviews, focus groups, and classroom observations. The findings demonstrate a clear progression of impact: students recognised lecturers’ subject competence (Reaction); structured feedback systems improved assessment outcomes (Learning); lecturers adapted their pedagogical practices in response to evaluation (Behaviour); and these changes translated into enhanced student performance (Results). The LFA further revealed that effective evaluation depends on enabling conditions, including institutional MEL policies, resource availability, and systematic consideration of risks and assumptions. The study makes a distinctive contribution by proposing a novel conceptual model that reconceptualises student feedback as a productive system, transforming raw evaluative data into actionable insights that drive continuous teaching improvement. The study, thus, recommends institutionalising MEL frameworks, investing in lecturer capacity for data-driven reflection, and adopting digital evaluation tools. Overall, it demonstrates that embedding theory-informed evaluation systems can convert routine student feedback into a strategic instrument for quality enhancement, aligning institutional practice with ZIMCHE standards and offering a scalable model for higher education in Zimbabwe and comparable contexts.
References
Badat, S. (2010). The challenges of transformation in higher education and training institutions in South Africa. Development Bank of Southern Africa.
Benton, S. L., & Cashin, W. E. (2012). Student ratings of teaching: A summary of research and literature. IDEA Center.
Beran, T., & Rokosh, J. (2009). The consequential validity of student ratings: What do instructors really think? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(2), 61–80.
Berk, R. A. (2006). Thirteen strategies to measure college teaching: A consumer's guide to rating scale construction, assessment, and decision making for faculty, administrators, and clinicians. Stylus Publishing.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P. B. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. ScienceOpen Research, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AETBZC.v1
Edström, K. (2008). Doing course evaluation as if learning matters most. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(2), 95–106.
European Commission. (2004). Improving the quality of teacher education. Directorate-General for Education and Culture.
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2008). Establishing the validity and reliability of course evaluation questionnaires. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 341–353.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
Machingambi, S., & Wadesango, N. (2011). University lecturers’ perceptions of student evaluation of their instructional practices. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 21–28.
Makondo, D., & Ndebele, C. (2014). Re-thinking student evaluation of lecturers in higher education in Zimbabwe: A case of one state university. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(9), 370–377.
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 319–383). Springer.
Mengel, F., Sauermann, J., & Zölitz, U. (2019). Gender bias in teaching evaluations. Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(2), 535–566.
Mitchell, K. M., & Martin, J. (2018). Gender bias in student evaluations. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 648–652.
Ray, R., & van der Merwe, M. (2007). Student evaluations of teachers: What do they tell us? South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(4), 725–739.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387–415.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598–642.
Stark, P. B., & Freishtat, R. (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations. ScienceOpen Research, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AOFRQA.v1
Tagoe, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions on incorporating e-learning into teaching and learning at the University of Ghana. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 8(1), 91–103.
Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42.
Uwizeyimana, D. E. (2020). Challenges of evaluating teaching and learning in African universities. Journal of Public Administration and Development Alternatives (JPADA), 5(2), 97–115.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Upon acceptance and publication, authors grant The Dyke a non-exclusive licence to publish and distribute their article in all formats and media. This means: Authors may freely share, deposit, and republish their work (e.g., in institutional repositories, websites, or future publications), provided proper citation and acknowledgment of The Dyke as the original publisher.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles in The Dyke are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Under this licence:
- Others may copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the work for any purpose, even commercially.
- Appropriate credit must be given to the original author(s) and source (The Dyke), along with a link to the license.
- Any changes made must be indicated.
Full licence details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Archiving and Preservation
The Dyke supports long-term preservation of scholarly work through partnerships with digital repositories and indexing services, including Sabinet African Journals and DOAJ. Authors are also encouraged to deposit a copy of their published article in institutional or subject-specific repositories.
