Since the late 1980s, student evaluations of course units and lecturers' teaching performances have gained a higher profile in higher education institutions, becoming standard practice and providing an important input to the process of developing department/school, faculty and university academic profiles. It is in a context of the conjunction of the nexus between professional academic integrity and academic appraisal, and the value of student evaluations, that this paper reports on the findings of two recent independently conducted studies from the Faculties of Business and Education, CQU, which related to student evaluations of the participating lecturers, course units taken, and learning environments experienced. Findings suggest that the characteristics most conducive to establishing and maintaining an ideal learning environment are consistent and cohesive across a range of student backgrounds. Characteristics of major importance to students fell within three orientations, (a) effective, (b) interpersonal, and (c) organisational. It is suggested that, in order to improve the educative process in higher education, these orientations and associated characteristics will need to be practically addressed in both internal and open learning contexts. Finally, it is suggested that the notions of "experienced learning " and "play " need to be seriously investigated in the quest for enhanced student learning.

Introduction

This paper reports on the findings of two recent, independently conducted, case studies from the Faculties of Business and Education, CQU, relating to student evaluations. The two case studies were used to view commonalities in the way that student evaluations were used to improve lecturer/unit programs, particularly in using student feedback to enhance the quality of the subject content and delivery. One objective behind the studies was to enhance the quality of the interactive teaching-learning environment through the effective utilisation of student feedback. Case Study A was developed from an eight-year distance education longitudinal student evaluation research project. A survey was conducted to canvass the views of 40 internal postgraduate students in both Graduate Diploma in Management(GDM) and Master of Business Administration (MBA) programs within the Faculty of Business. Case Study B was developed over a period of four years via a series of workshops with third-year undergraduate internal Bachelor of Education students (approximately 200 students).

Guiding Premises

• The student was understood to be a consumer-customer-client, though it was recognised that students had certain expectations placed upon them (e.g., meeting acceptable academic standards). It was further recognised that (a) students may not be able to control or change their working conditions such that better performance is assured; (b) authoritarian assessment procedures may act as a negative influence on long range learning attitudes of students; (c) management (administrators and lecturers) have a responsibility to improve upon negative teaching-learning conditions out of the control of students.

• Student assessment and evaluation have to do with improvement of teaching and learning, not merely evidencing of student knowledge.

The value of student evaluations

Romiszowski (1981) noted that communication may be a one-way transfer of information from teacher to student through an information medium, or a two-way communications medium carrying information both ways, including feedback from students. In the authors' opinion, it would seem that the latter interactive system is necessary for person interface learning and open learning to be most effective, and that interactive feedback is an important aspect of the teaching-learning process. However, there is a fundamental difference between person interface learning and open learning.

The very notion of interactive feedback in person interface teaching-learning implies the importance in communication of non-verbals such as "body language" as well as an understanding of language itself. For instance, in the person-interface situation, if it is accepted that nonverbal communication between lecturers and students exerts an important influence upon feedback in the teaching-learning process, and if it is estimated that approximately 90% of all information whatsoever, is carried not so much by the actual words spoken, but by the body language that goes with those words, and accompanied by the quality, tone and intonation of the voice (Elgin, 1989), then there are emerging implications for non-interactive feedback given only via written or audio comments, for example, in distance and open education. It is the authors' viewpoint (formulated as assertions) that (a) from a learning perspective, person interface teaching with interactive feedback is superior to other modes of delivery; (b) an understanding of the best characteristics of interactive feedback with internal students is a stepping stone to the understanding of best practices in the largely unknown field of establishing and maintaining an enhanced learning environment for students in the distance and open learning situations; and (c) the comparative effectiveness of feedback in the two situations provides a rich field for future research, as well for the research and development of feedback mechanisms for open learning, equivalent, if possible, to person interface interactive feedback. For example, though it may be argued that the use of media such as instructional television is neither superior nor inferior to classroom presentation (McCleary & Egan, 1989; Whittington, 1987), research may find that there are differences in the value and medium-to-long range effectiveness of feedback occurring in the two situations.

Student feedback is considered to be educationally important for instructional, psychosocial and contextual evaluations. Multi-directional feedback on student learning, including intrinsic interest, proactive involvement and deep understanding, is arguably superior to unidirectional feedback involving communication from the lecturer (as authoritarian figure) to the student (as passive figure) stated in right-wrong terms, since the latter may lack meaning (Ausubel, 1968), or narrow motivation to achievement (Good & Brophy, 1986). Feedback, in its broadest perspective, should help to confirm, correct, clarify, and evaluate learning (Ausubel, 1968). Part of its function is to assist a lecturer's judgment in determining, for example, the best positioning of unit content, the teaching-learning communication processes, and appropriate instructional designs (Seels, 1993).

Case study A (Business)

The rank order in terms of perceived importance obtained was:

• stimulation of interest in the subject (related to the lecturer's enthusiasm and lively style).
• lecturer's commitment (related to student perceptions of lecturer dedication and sincerity).
• provision of high-quality feedback (related to the provision of remedial, diagnostic and encouraging/supportive feedback).
• helpful, caring attitude (related to approachability and conveying genuine interest in the students' academic progress).
• clarity of learning objectives and expected standards in relation to assessment (related to organisation of subject).
• contemporary relevance/relating theory to practice (related to provision of up-to-date comments and practical examples).
• ability to get students involved (related somewhat to stimulation of interest in the first ranking, but also influenced by remembering students' names and drawing into discussion).

Dunbar (1988) observed that "continuous, formal student feedback in the form of projects, assignments, essays and presentations is not normally a feature of Asian education" (p. 13). Perhaps the novelty of being introduced to formal and informal interactive feedback and learning sessions where, for example, students--somewhat reluctantly at first, but later with great enthusiasm--gave short presentations in front of the class, influenced these higher ratings. Another contributing factor could be the Asian respect for academic authority coupled with seniority leading to what Dunbar (1988) refers to as "unquestioning acceptance of the knowledge of the teacher or lecturer" (p. 14). In this instance the non-reliance on videos and sparing use of overhead transparencies was singled out, suggesting that Asian students respond to a more personalised approach to imparting knowledge, particularly when it is imparted 'naturally'.

Johnson (1991, p. 13) observed that students from Third-World countries tended to be more highly motivated than students from advanced economies due partly to the fact that they have strong family group obligations to fulfil, and academic success means acquiring status within these groups, rather than achieving some individualistic self-realisation objective. This may account in part for the greater appreciation shown by Asian students toward lecturer commitment and interest in their personal academic learning welfare.

The second evaluation took the form of a loosely structured workshop over a ninety minute period. Its purpose was to check whether or not the coverage of characteristics in the survey questionnaire was adequate and to detect if there were significant cross-cultural differences in students' perceptions. Four 'natural' leaders were requested to form groups of seven from the 28 international students who attended with a view to identifying the five most important aspects of the unit. At this stage, the results of the student evaluation survey were unknown. Students were advised that the main purpose of the exercise was to find out if the perceptions of international students differed significantly from those of Australian students in terms of lecturer style, assessment procedures and general attitude. With this in mind, each student was asked to nominate the three most important aspects of the unit's delivery. Group leaders summarised the results and the four sets of findings were displayed and consolidated into a rank order.

In rank order, the five most important characteristics identified were:

• bringing the unit alive (stimulation of interest).
• showing personal interest in students' academic progress.
• inspiring confidence through mastery of subject (unit) matter.
• patience in establishing effective two-way (interactive) communication.
• provision of encouragement including constructive and supportive feedback.

The questions in the previously administered survey may have had a persuasive influence on the characteristics nominated at the workshop. It would have been better to have reversed the order. It was found that all the top rated characteristics were identified by both evaluation procedures and, given the above reservations, the findings of the workshop endorsed the student evaluation survey in terms of the most important characteristics identified.

Case study B (Education)

The ideal unit was deemed to have/be:

• relevancy and purpose (relationship to student experience and interests).
• motivating and success-oriented.
• clear expectations and challenge.
• structured in design, yet flexible and understandable in content and assessment requirements.
• participative, and catering for student needs and learning styles.
• room for exploration and imagination.
• self-expression and interaction with others.
• stimulating, fun and enjoyable.
• individual and group work, with opportunity for "hands-on" activities.
• risk-free and supportive.

Many of these characteristics are not new to research findings, and are foundational to the development of practical or workable theory in teaching, learning and assessment practices. A number of constructs and assertions may be posited from this list which could form a basis for continuing research. Two exemplary assertions follow, which will form a basis for ongoing research by the authors.

1. Students obviously are concerned with relevancy and purpose, as noted from the findings. As such, it may be asserted that student learning is a function of student experience and interest, whether past, present or future. This assertion is in line with constructivist thinking which would argue that learners' new understandings are dependent on prior knowledge and experiences (e.g., Taylor & Campbell-Williams, 1993), but would argue further that new understandings are also dependent on current (present-oriented) and future (futures-oriented) experiences and interests. It seems, from the authors' experiences, that as students progressively mature, the present- and future-oriented experiences and interests have a greater influence upon student learning than past and present interests and experiences. In the design of the unit, the better the "fit" between students' present and future experiences and interests and the unit, the greater the intrinsic motivation and the greater the depth of meaningful learning. This does not discount, however, the importance of past knowledge and experiences. It should be noted that experienced learning moves beyond the notion of "real life" learning, in that the real life content pertinent to curriculum designers may not be experienced by the student. An analogy could be the difference between a careers advisor describing a particular career (real life) to a student, and the student actually taking part in that career via work experience (experienced learning) as a student. Learning about and learning through are different from a learner's perspective. The work experience concept has implications for learning, for example, in mathematics, where mathematical thinking is more likely to occur for most students if it fits with their mathematical experiences.

2. Most researchers would agree that the interrelated notions of participation and interaction, fun and enjoyment in learning are generally ranked highly by students. In higher education teaching and learning, however, the psycho-social idea of play is not generally considered, though research into preschool and lower primary schooling has begun to refocus on the concept of play and its importance to intrinsic motivation in learning. Constructivists, it is assumed, are positively oriented to play, since play normally uses social interactive language important to constructivists (Taylor & Campbell-Williams, 1993; Vygotsky, 1962), and therefore is an ideal way for students to construct meaning. Yet, in spite of the considerable findings from research on the importance to learning of fun, enjoyment, stimulation, and so forth, there seems to be little attention being paid to play in the design of course units in higher learning. Rather, it appears that play and learning become more mutually exclusive the higher the grade of learning. The lack of focus on play, which is an active concept, may also be a reflection of society, corresponding partly to rapid technological advances in media communication, partly to economic constraints, and partly to Australia's history in education. Accordingly, a key assertion from this study is that the notion of play needs to be positively redefined and taken seriously in higher education, and that it be given due consideration by researchers and practitioners. For example, if it is accepted that play is a valuable learning vehicle for children, it would seem profitable to find the characteristics of play that make it enjoyable to players. These characteristics, it is assumed, would have significance for learning in higher education. A starting point from this study would see play, by definition, enveloping characteristics such as variety, motivating, stimulating, fun and enjoyable, exploring and imagining, all mentioned by the students. The problem arises then of how to implement the notion of play into curriculum design to suit an (a) internal person interface interactive learning environment, and (b) open (inclusive of distance) learning environment. As noted in The value of student evaluations previously, because of the importance of body language, it would seem that person interface learning would be more conducive to play than open learning situations, and therefore poses problems for transferring the positive characteristics of person interface teaching to their equivalent characteristics in open and distance learning. Can they actually be replaced, and if so, by what?

• enthusiastic, friendly, approachable, helpful, interested in students, caring, motivating, personable, relational and interactive, helpful, sensitive, appreciative, empathetic, accepting and concerned.
• practical, organised, competent, knowledgeable, modern in thought, resourceful, fair and consistent, professional in dress and attitude, cooperative, reflective, colourful, humanistic, creative.
• good interactive communication skills, clear expectations, proactive involvement with students, good preparation of lessons, sense of humour, assertive abilities, ability to vary teaching to suit different learning styles, competent leadership qualities.

Ranking of the characteristics was taken from student ratings, and indicated that students preferred the following order of characteristics in the ideal teacher: (a) sound organisation; (b) involvement with and caring for students as individuals; (c) enthusiasm; (d) variety in teaching approaches; and (e) approachability.

Ranking of characteristics preferred by students for the outstanding teacher was (a) understands individual needs; (b) organised; (c) enthusiastic; (d) good communicator; and (e) relates well to students. Ranking of characteristics for annoyances was (a) disorganised; (b) sarcasm; (c) mass punishment for individual misdemeanour; (d) personal criticism; and (e) poor communicator. On the other hand, ranking for characteristics associated with being cooperative was (a) interaction and involvement; (b) being listened to; (c) patience; (d) being accepted as a person; and (e) enthusiasm.

It is to be remembered that these were internal students in regular personal contact with their lecturer, so that many of the characteristics stem from person interface interrelationships and interactions. It is noted that the characteristics chosen by these university professionals in-training were similar to those evidenced by research into the ideal teacher for gifted students (Baldwin, 1993). For example, Fleming and Takacs (1983) in pairing characteristics of the gifted student with those of the ideal teacher, suggested the following teacher roles and characteristics: (a) scholar - high intellectual ability; (b) generalist - versatile; (c) facilitator - provides opportunities; (d) originator - enjoys ideas and challenges; (e) liberator - patient, accepts and listens; (f) instructor - superior teaching ability; (g) guide - helps find right interests; (h) friend - sensitive to problems, respect for goals and dreams; (i) counsellor - provides opportunities; and (j) wit and enthusiast high self-concept and good sense of humour.

These characteristics were also similar to themes found in a textual analysis of writings from higher education lecturers of excellence who were recipients of Vice-Chancellors' Awards for Teaching Excellence in 1991 (Watts, 1994). Here it was found that teachers of excellence (a) exhibited an enthusiasm and commitment to/for their topics and students; (b) made relevant to contemporary life the material and content covered; (c) displayed a range of teaching strategies beyond that of the lecture, including student participation, debating, critical argument, group work, joint answers and reports, and participatory teaching by students; (d) considered planning from aims to reporting as essential; (e) made transparent clearly defined structures; (f) provided formative and diagnostic feedback reasonably quickly; (g) were 'real' with students; (h) were often natural, empathising, caring, possessing the qualities of courtesy, respect and fairness; (i) were likely to be consistent, and possess ethical wisdom; (j) had the ability to 'read' where students were at in their understanding and participation; and (k) considered practical classes to be vital.

It may be posited from the above and other research data that students in general value similar characteristics in their perception of an ideal teacher. The characteristics are formidable, and closely relate to the characteristics of the ideal unit and the following characteristics for the ideal learning environment. Given that the ideal teacher characteristics are reasonably consistent and coherent across a spectrum of student backgrounds, it would seem that all teachers and teacher educators could be guided by such characteristics.

The ideal learning environment was perceived as:

• welcoming, nurturing, inclusive and non-threatening.
• comfortably challenging.
• stimulating, catering for student interests.
• interactive.
• key ideas being related to fun and enjoyment.
• thought-provoking, meaningful, and relevant.
• cooperative and student-centred.

Ranking of the characteristics was taken from student ratings, and indicated that students preferred the following characteristics in the ideal learning environment: (a) non-threatening; (b) cater for student interests; (c) supportive; (d) stimulating; (e) student centred; and (f) nurturing/welcoming. Ranking for preferences for learning was (a) hands-on; (b) linked to real life; (c) opportunity for choice of learning styles; (d) relevance to needs; (e) group work; and (f) challenge and be challenged.

As noted before, these characteristics are similar to those found in research associated with gifted and talented students. Lapan (1989), for example, suggested the following similar characteristics for the ideal program for gifted children: (a) an atmosphere rich in ideas in which a spirit of adventure, exploration, openness and responsibility is present; (b) higher thought processes should be emphasised; (c) tolerance for divergent approaches and solutions; (d) innovation, some aspect of learning not met in regular classes; and (e) care to be taken not to damage the student's feelings of self-confidence and feelings of worth (avoiding regimentation, sarcasm and threats, over-expectations and intense competition).

It may be posited from the above and other research data that students in general value similar characteristics in their perception of the ideal learning environment. The characteristics closely relate to the characteristics of the ideal unit and the ideal teacher, indicating first that a consistent and cohesive orientation towards the ideal teaching-learning context exists, and second that this orientation may transcend culture, age, sex and ability. If this is accepted, then it must be granted that these characteristics give clear guidelines for institutions of learning in the design of student materials for person interface and open teaching and learning, for the selection, education and training of teachers, and for appropriate learning and assessment environments.

As a result of student evaluations and interactive feedback, the mathematics education unit from which this study emerged now includes flexible assignments directly related to the present and future interests and experiences of each student, with clear expectations for criteria-based assessment. Student participation, interaction and involvement have increased, using a variety of learning experiences including the use of workshops, seminars and debates.

Conclusion

	Business	Education
1	stimulation of interest/enthusiasm	sound organisation
2	personal interest/caring for students and commitment to their academic welfare	involvement with and caring for student as individuals
3	inspiring confidence	enthusiasm
4	establishing effective holistic communication	variety in teaching approaches
5	encouragement through constructive and supportive feedback	approachability

	Outstanding	Ideal
1	understands individual needs	sound organisation
2	organised	involvement with and caring for student as individuals
3	enthusiastic	enthusiasm
4	good communicator	variety in teaching approaches
5	relates well to students	approachability

The rankings of characteristics indicate several orientations important to students which are posited as follows:

• Affective orientation: It is clear that affective characteristics such as interest, enthusiasm, caring, encouragement, active listening, and confidence are significant characteristics to be considered by educators interested in deep learning by students in the higher educational context.
• Interpersonal orientation: Characteristics such as interaction, participation, involvement, and communication have been clearly indicated to be important to students.
• Organisational orientation: Ideal lecturers were those who were duly organised, and such organisation would include the class and learning management aspects such as lesson planning, lesson content and materials, and diagnostic and remedial feedback.

The student-client approach, which in some ways coincides with a constructivist approach, appears to be worthwhile for the improvement of teaching, learning and assessment processes for undergraduate and postgraduate, national and international, internal and open learning students using varying modes of delivery. Student evaluations have improved the units considered in this paper, with the authors implementing improvements on the basis of a series of such evaluations. There is recognition of the fact that many lecturers are doing the same type of evaluations. However, the studies raise a number of issues to be considered for teaching and learning in person interface and non-person interface approaches (e.g., computer interfacing, printed text).

• It is apparent that research findings have consistently raised similar characteristics for the ideal teacher, unit, learning environment and so forth. How can researchers now investigate how these characteristics are actualised in the educative process? For example, there is a difference between the 'academic' question: What does it mean for a lecturer to care for the well-being of a student? and the research question: What does it mean when students state that a lecturer has cared for their well-being as a student?

• There have been a number of characteristics raised in these studies which seem to warrant further investigation by the authors, and perhaps deserve more attention from educational researchers. For example, the notions of" play" and "experienced learning" need continuing attention in higher education as well as lower education to address students' consistent mentioning of associated characteristics. Are there generic characteristics transcending culture, race, sex and ability, these characteristics simply addressing basic human needs, and which can be generalised in education?

• If the affective orientation in students is so important, how will associated characteristics be catered for, equivalence-wise, in open education and international modes of delivery? Similarly, if non-verbal language is a major communication deliverer, then how will this be replaced effectively by non-personal approaches to teaching, learning and assessment? Are there equivalent characteristics available, or will they have to be created in association with developing communicative technology? Are the three orientations noted above the only orientations to be considered, and what practical theories for teaching and learning can emerge from these orientations, bearing in mind that practical theories as used here means theories that will work in the actual teaching and learning context? Student evaluation comments should not be confined to content, important as it is, since it is clear that content is only one aspect of the learning process, and perhaps, in the overall context of developing a positive attitude towards learning for the future ("life-long learning"), not as important to many students as the psychosocial aspects raised in their evaluations.

References

Baldwin, A. 1993, Teachers of the Gifted. In Heller, Moenks and Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent. Pergamon Press.

Dawkins, J.1987, Higher Education. A Policy Discussion Paper, Canberra, Australian Government Printing Services.

Dunbar, R. 1988, Culture-based Learning Problems of Asian Student: Some Implications for Australian Distance Educators, ASPESA Papers No. 5.

Elgin, S. 1989, Success with the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-defence, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Good, T. and Brophy, J.1986, Educational Psychology: A Realistic Approach, New York, Longman.

Johnson, H. 1991, 'Cross-cultural Differences: Implications for Management Education and Training', Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(6), pp.13-16.

Lapan, S. 1989, 'Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Gifted Programs', Roeper Review, 11(3), pp.167-169.

McCleary, I. and Egan, M. 1989, 'Program Design and Evaluation: Two way Interactive Television', American Journal of Distance Education, 3(1), pp. 50-60.

Romiszowski, A. 1981, Designing Technology in Curriculum Development, London, Butler and Tanner.

Seels, B. 1993, 'The View Looking Back: Curriculum Theory and Instructional Technology Programs', Educational Technology, 33(2), pp. 21-26.

Taylor, P. and Campbell-Williams, M. 1993, Discourse Towards Balanced Rationality in the High School Mathematics Classroom: Ideas from Habermas's Critical Theory. In J. Malone and P. Taylor (Eds.), Constructivist Interpretations of Teaching and Learning Mathematics. Perth, WA, Curtin University of Technology.

Vygotsky, L. 1962, Thought and language, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Watts, J. 1994, Quality in Teaching and Learning Workshop 2: Quality Teaching in Higher Education - Issues and Themes, Rockhampton, Qld, Central Queensland University.

Watts, J. 1995, Multiple Career Pathways: Relieving Stress and Improving Working Conditions, Unpublished Report, Rockhampton, Qld, Central Queensland University.

Whittington, N. 1987, Is Instructional Television Educationally Effective? A Research Review?, The American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), pp. 47-57.

Please cite as: Watts, J. (1996). Student ratings of lecturer-related characteristics most conductive to establishing and maintaining an ideal learning environment in higher education. Queensland Researcher, 12(2), 33-47. http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/qjer/qr12/watts.html