| dc.description.abstract | Student-completed teacher evaluation forms (TEFs) are used by many educational institutions as an efficient way to assess teaching performance. However, both researchers and practitioners have raised doubts and concerns about the way they are used. This includes the validity of student-completed TEFs and the possible adverse effects they have on teachers due to their high-stakes nature.
The aim of this thesis is to identify and examine underlying assumptions about the student-completed TEF used to evaluate native English speaking teacher (NEST) performance within a Korean EFL university context. These assumptions are considered from three stakeholder perspectives: students, NESTs, and administrators. This study seeks to gain insight on the similarities and differences in stakeholder perceptions regarding the TEF in terms of its general purpose, usefulness, and preferred use, as well as opinions on the best way to evaluate NESTs. Questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups are conducted with four students, four NESTs, and four administrators.
This study suggests that the current, student-completed TEF used to evaluate NESTs is considered to be insufficient and inadequate by all stakeholders. Using a grounded approach to analyze the qualitative data, findings show that all stakeholder groups perceive a) a gap between the TEF’s intended and actual purpose b) a lack of TEF usefulness and validity c) a strong preference for TEF formative use and d) a need for a more tailored TEF to evaluate NESTs. These views suggest the creation and implementation of a comprehensive NEST evaluation system rooted in the needs of both students and NESTs. In addition, certain critical, context-specific, and neoliberal factors appear to augment the negative effects of student-completed TEFs on NESTs. | en_GB |
