cover single with DOI 214 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research Students’ Opinion on the Faculty Performance Evaluation Instrument FRANCIS ANN R. SY VIOLETA B. FELISILDA farsybeauty@yahoo.com Southern Leyte State University Tomas Oppus Philippines Abstract - Students’ feedback on faculty performance is an influential measure in obtaining the objectives of teaching effectiveness. Southern Leyte State University-Tomas Oppus usually experiences student evaluation reactions on faculty performance. Considering that success of the evaluation process is the instrument itself, this research dealt with students’ degree program profile and academic performance; determined their opinion on the criteria’s appropriateness and the instrument’s validity, reliability, objectivity, and utility and their attitude upon it; and, determined relationship between academic performance and degree program on opinions of the four criteria. Through the descriptive one shot survey, stratified sampling was employed to college freshmen, juniors and seniors with different courses of SY 2010-2011. The mean, percentage, frequency, and chi- square were used. The students’ opinion on the appropriateness of the criteria was very appropriate and very high on the four criteria. They manifested positive attitude on the instrument. Their academic performance and degree program have no significant relationship with their opinion on the instrument. Student’s opinion of the evaluation instrument was very appropriate, yet, it has to be revisited because some items, though minimal, were moderately appropriate. Keywords - Performance Evaluation Instrument, Southern Leyte State University-Tomas Oppus Vol. 9 · August 2012 Print ISSN 2012-3981 • Online ISSN 2244-0445 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7719/jpair.v9i1.6 Published Online: August 2012 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research is produced by PAIR, an ISO 9001:2008 QMS certified by AJA Registrars, Inc. 215 International Peer Reviewed Journal INTRODUCTION Student evaluation on faculty performance is one of the appraisal devices used in the academe. The baseline information is sources of specific characteristics in designing an accommodating teaching atmosphere. Since student ratings are influential measures of teaching effectiveness, active participation by and meaningful input from students can be critical in the success of such teaching evaluation system. Nevertheless very few studies have looked into students’ opinion of the teaching evaluation system and their motivation to participate (Heine, 2010). Conversations among university colleagues on the topic of faculty evaluations are typically animated and full of opinions, myths, war stories and frustrations (Heine, 2010). It is because teachers normally have mixed reactions when their performance is being measured through certain standards. The case of student evaluation is a sensitive matter since teachers could not help but take into consideration that these evaluations have value only if done for faculty development. If they are for venting personal issues and conflicts, they will lose their significance. Further concern is the many reliability and validity issues related to teacher evaluations done by the students. While individual situations and personalities may be able to lend some credence to the description of student evaluations as unreliable, invalid, and useless, the literature does not support these claims. For over thirty years, research on student evaluations has ben compiled which remain useful tools in impacting the teaching-learning process on the higher education front (Scriven, 2009). The Southern Leyte State University is not spared from negative insights and reactions pertaining to student evaluation on faculty performance. Yet, Scriven (2009) emphasized that students have a front row seat to observe teacher behaviours and classroom processes, and are the best judge of what they have learned. The use of standardized evaluations implies, though, that students have the ability to make fair, overall judgments about teaching effectiveness based on legitimate factors that actually relate to effective teaching and learning. Moreover, researchers have that college students, in general, possess self-insight into how they make judgments concerning their instructors since they 216 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research have an implicit awareness of the relative importance of the factors they are considering. With all the reasons cited herein and with the desire to improve the SLSU faculty evaluation instrument through the student evaluation, this study was conducted. FRAMEWORK The study is anchored on this argument that students are the best indicator on numerous faculty behaviors associated with effective teaching and student learning. It is an important element in the evaluation of faculty to assess the instructional skills of the faculty, and the academic quality of the course according to Hassanein, Abdrbo, & Al Ateeq (2012). In fact, there have been many studies on evaluating faculty based on students’ opinion with a lot of objectives. Rifkin (1995) confirmed that the primary purpose is formative; that is, facilitating faculty growth, development, and self-improvement. Secondly, student evaluations are used for summative purposes and often play a vital part in tenure, promotion, reappointment, and salary decisions. Teachers were evaluated in various methods and ways. Simmons (1997) in his study said that a fairly common sort of evaluation that may actually be used for the best intentions but often facilitates the most common abuses is the use of student opinion in the decisions that affect teachers. Togomori (1993) as cited in Simmon (1997) established that the assessment used by universities and colleges to appraise a professor’s teaching effectiveness were conducted by evaluation through instruments they design, borrow, or adapt from other universities and colleges. The reliability of the instruments used is generally unknown. A comprehensive content analysis of faculty evaluation instruments has not been conducted. As a result, faculty members in higher education may be evaluated with flawed evaluation instruments, conceivably leading to unfair assessment of their teaching performance. A proposed paradigm was adapted from Arnoult and Anderson (1988) to provide for a better paradigm for the evaluation of teacher effectiveness in the academic environment so as to reduce an evaluator’s 217 International Peer Reviewed Journal biases: (a) gather as much evidence as possible, (b) employ multiple evaluators who have different viewpoints and interests, (c) vary the observational circumstances to provide for different emphasis in the environment, (d) review video tapes for greater accuracy, (e) compare the criteria on balance sheets to establish evidence for and against an evaluation, (f) solicit an explanation of the results and the subsequent conclusions made by evaluators to reveal gaps in reasoning. This paradigm constitutes constructive advice for the evaluations we make of others in a professional setting. In fact, in SLSU_Tomas Oppus a teacher is evaluated by four evaluators, namely: students, peers, immediate supervisor, and herself. This was implemented in order to get the holistic view of his teaching effectiveness. Accordingly, students need to be active partners in the enhancement of teaching in higher education. Seeking students’ responses to faculty evaluation are considered an honor and support the teaching-learning process. Student evaluations provide instructors with important feedback from their point-of-view. Also, student’s evaluation can contribute to the teaching-learning process and teachers must be receptive to their ideas. Additionally, student evaluation is of value to administrators and department chairs in assessing perceived effectiveness of instruction in line with the study of Hassanein, Abdrbo, & Al Ateeq (2012). Huitt; and Stockham, and Amann as quoted in the study of Hassanein, Abdrbo, & Al Ateeq (2012), presented the following principles: “1. Learning is an active process and student involvement is an integral part of that process; 2.Teachers view their teaching with regard to the paradigms of their students in order to facilitate change and build for their growth; 3. Teachers recognize that students can make important contributions to the teaching learning process; 4. The teaching learning process is dynamic and should change over time and with context”. Student evaluations can be a productive part of improving teaching strategies, course content, and student learning. Student evaluation of faculty is just one component of an important process in education. Most higher education faculty consider that the teaching learning process is an active process, ever-changing interaction between the student, teacher, and environment that should be focused on a particular outcome. It is therefore reasonable to expect students to 218 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research make important contributions to this system and it is imperative that teachers be receptive to student feedback as extracted from Hassanein, Abdrbo, & Al Ateeq (2012). Thus, this study was formulated so as to find out the students’ opinion if the instrument still needs some enhancement. The diagram illustrates the concept of the study. This study was conducted at SLSU-Tomas Oppus to the selected college students. It focused to determine on their opinion to the faculty performance evaluation instrument and their attitude upon it. Students’ degree program and academic performance were also being considered as these were assumed that these could affect their opinion on the evaluation instrument. Furthermore, the profile was correlated to the four criteria, namely: validity, reliability, objectivity, and utility of the faculty evaluation instrument. Finally, the study was conducted to enhance the instrument based on the result of the study. Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework of the Study OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The study focused on determining the students’ opinion on the faculty performance evaluation instrument at Southern Leyte State University-Tomas Oppus, SY 2010-2011. Specifically, this study answered the following objectives: 219 International Peer Reviewed Journal 1. Established the profile of the student evaluators in terms of: 1.1 degree program; and 1.2 academic performance. 2. Determined the extent of the students’ opinion on the appropriateness of the existing criteria of the faculty performance evaluation instrument. 3. Evaluated the students’ opinion on the existing criteria of the faculty performance evaluation instrument in terms of the following: 3.1. validity; 3.2. reliability; 1.1 objectivity; and 3.3. utility. 4. Assessed the students’ attitude on faculty performance evaluation instrument. 5. Correlated the students’ academic performance and degree program to the following criteria: 1.1 validity; 1.2 reliability; 1.3 objectivity; and 1.4 utility. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study utilized the descriptive method of research using the questionnaire as a tool in gathering data. This was conducted at Southern Leyte State University-Tomas Oppus. The respondents were sampled according to the degree program from the third year to fourth year levels. There was only one set of a questionnaire but consisted of four parts, namely: Part I are the personal profile, Part II is the existing 220 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research criteria of the evaluation instrument of faculty performance, Part III is on the criteria on validity, reliability, objectivity and utility, and Part IV is the attitude of the students towards the faculty evaluation. Furthermore, part I asked about the degree program of the students. Although, academic performance of the students was needed in the profile, but it was not reflected in the questionnaire since the students could not provide their exact Grade Point Average (GPA). Instead, the researchers asked their GPA from the Registrar’s Office. In part II, a scale was established in order to rank the students’ perception to the existing evaluation instrument. Instruction, critical factors, comments and suggestions from the students on the teachers’ performance were included here. Relatively in part III, was an adopted instrument of Bayon (2006) on the criteria in terms of validity, reliability, objectivity and utility. Lastly, part IV was the attitude of the students towards faculty performance evaluation which was patterned on the questions of Solis (2010) where it consisted of seven questions. The researchers followed the standard operating procedure of conducting a research. They were observing the ethical side of doing a research specifically on giving the respondents an assurance that their responses will be used only for this study and for research purposes only. Initially, permission to conduct the study was sought from the university president through the campus administrator. After the reproduction of the instrument, the researchers personally administered the questionnaire to the respondents. They thoroughly discussed the instrument especially it required opinion from the students. After an hour, the questionnaires were retrieved and was checked if all the items were completely answered. Those questionnaires with lacking information were returned and given back to the respondents in order for them to fill up the skipped items. After which, tallying, consolidation and analysis of data were done followed by the interpretation of results. The data gathered in problems 1, 2, 3 and 4 were analyzed using percentages, frequency counts and weighted mean while Pearson-r and chi-square were used to answer problem 5. 221 International Peer Reviewed Journal RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Profile of the Students in terms of Degree Program and Academic Performance Two figures will be shown in terms of degree program and academic performance. Figure 1. The profile of the student in terms of degree program It could be inferred from the data in figure 1 that the majority of the students were the education students. The willingness of the education students to participate in the evaluation process was manifested. A remarkable circumstance is to be considered because the majority of the evaluators are future teachers who would, in their profession, be subjected to performance evaluation (Bayon, 2006). Figure 2. The students’ profile in terms of academic performance 222 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research The results in figure 2 implied that majority of the students’ were doing very good in their academic performance. Thus, this would yield meaningful results because they composed the bulk of the respondents. B. Extent of Students’ Opinion on the Appropriateness of the Existing Criteria of the Faculty Performance Instrument Table 1. The Students’ opinion on the appropriateness of the faculty performance evaluation instrument criteria CRITERIA MEAN DESCRIPTION PART I. INSTRUCTION a. Commitment 4.47 VA b. Knowledge of Subject 4.52 VA c. Teaching for Independent Learning 4.46 VA d. Management of Learning 4.43 VA PART II. CRITICAL FACTORS a. Does not engage in unofficial matters like chatting, eating, telephoning, texting, etc. while the student is waiting or watching 4.21 VA b. Observes proper grooming and dressing, possesses self-confidence, poise, and a pleasing personality, wears proper uniform attire, and school ID, 4.45 VA a. Demonstrates a sense of responsibility 4.54 VA d. Shows patience, understanding and self-control 4.52 VA e. Uses sound principles and exhibits value-based behav- ior and observes standards of morality. 4.50 VA PART III. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS a. The practices that I like most… 3.66 A b. The practices that I like least… 3.33 MA c. To improve learning in this subject, I suggest the fol- lowing… 3.61 A Legend: 4.21-5.00 = Very Appropriate (VA), 1.81-2.00 = Less Appropriate (LA) 3.41-4.20 = Appropriate (A), 223 International Peer Reviewed Journal 1.00-1.80 = Not Appropriate (NA) 2.61-3.40 = Moderately Appropriate (MA) The criteria in Part I were rated very appropriate by the majority of the students as shown in Table 1. It was a very professional document. It was a product of the intellectual minds of the faculty in Southern Leyte State University (SLSU), (Sy, 2012). Specific areas were taken into consideration consistent with the standards and policies of the university, and Civil Services Commission (CSC). Arreola (2000) called this as “institutional parameter values” that set minimum and maximum weights for each of the faculty performance dimensions. Part II obtained a similar overall description with that of Part I which was very appropriate while part III was appropriate. Though part III was perceived by the students to be appropriate, but this part was the least rated among other parts of the instrument. It is a fact that teaching is a multidimensional activity (Arreola, 2000). There is no single measure adequate to assess the total domain of teaching effectiveness. To widely cover the dynamic performance parameter required of the faculty, it was forethought that the faculty performance instrument was set into three. C. The Students’ Opinion on the Validity, Reliability, Objectivity and Utility of the Faculty Evaluation Instrument Table 2. The Students’ opinion on the validity of the instrument INDICATORS MEAN DESCRIPTION 1. The criteria show teachers’ strength and weaknesses. 4.3 VH 2. They enhance professional growth of the faculty. 4.4 VH 3. They bring about classroom improvement. 4.4 VH 4. They help develop motivation to grow in the academe. 4.4 VH 5. They introduce curriculum improvement. 4.4 VH 6. They institute curriculum improvement. 4.3 VH 7. They help maintain academic standards. 4.1 H 8. They serve as a guide for self-appraisal. 4.4 VH 224 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research 9. They are bases for awarding tenure and benefits. 4.3 VH 10. They help meet standards for accreditation. 4.1 H 11. They enhance public relations with students and parents. 4.4 VH 12. They identify potential scholars. 4.3 VH 13. They determine rank classification. 4.3 VH 14. They determine teaching performance and enhance learning. 4.4 VH 15. They build faculty morale. 4.3 VH Grand mean 4.31 VH Legend: 4.21-5.00 = Very High (VH) 1.81-2.00 = Low (L) 3.41-4.20 = High (VH) 1.00-1.80= Very Low (VL) 2.61-3.40 = Moderately High (MH) A very high opinion was evident in table 2 from the students’ perception on the validity of the instrument. It gave an idea that the instrument can be used as a meaningful source of teachers’ performance. Thus, the students approved that the instrument measured what it intended to measure. Table 3. Students’ Opinion on the Reliability of the Instrument Criteria MEAN DESCRIPTION 1. There are enough students in the class who made the evaluation. 4.4 VH 2. The same criteria have been used every year. 4.2 H 3. The criteria are formulated by a group of repute. 4.2 H 4. The evaluation is administered by the same individual or group. 4.2 H 5. The evaluation is administered regularly. 4.3 VH 6. It has clear and specific instructions. 4.3 VH 7. The same system of interpretation of data is employed. 4.4 VH 225 International Peer Reviewed Journal 8. The criteria for assessing performance were clear prior to evaluation. 4.3 VH 9. Evaluation criteria are designed with specific purposes. 4.3 VH 10. The criteria are clearly worded in measurable terms. 4.5 VH 11. They are specific, properly laid out and are legible. 4.3 VH 12. They yielded satisfaction among the faculty. 4.3 VH 13. They have enough items to ensure credible results. 4.3 VH 14. They are job-related. 4.3 VH 15. They are acceptable to all. 4.3 VH Grand mean 4.37 VH Legend: 4.21-5.00 = Very High (VH) 1.81-2.00 = Low (L) 3.41-4.20 = High (VH) 1.00-1.80 = Very Low (VL) 2.61-3.40 = Moderately High (MH) Most of the descriptions in table 3 were very high. So, students affirmed that the instrument is reliable. The students agreed with each other on the indicators present in the instrument. Further, it can be administered to a different group of students as well as it can be used to evaluate different teachers based on the result with 4.37 as grand mean. Huemer (2010) further elaborated that a test is said to be “reliable” if it tends to give the same result when repeated; this indicates that it must be measuring something. Table 4. Students’ opinion on the objectivity of the instrument INDICATORS MEAN DESCRIPTION 1. The criteria are approved by the faculty and evaluators. 4.6 VH 2. They are cooperatively planned and executed. 4.5 VH 3. They are formulated encompassing all agreed purposes 4.4 VH 4. They are formulated by an independent group of good repute. 4.3 VH 5. The evaluators are randomly selected. 4.2 H 226 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research 6. Common formula of evaluation is approved by all. 4.3 VH 7. The teacher stays outside while the evaluation takes place. 4.3 VH 8. The evaluation is done by impartial and independent group. 4.3 VH 9. The evaluators observe anonymity. 4.3 VH 10. There is ample time for evaluation. 4.3 VH 11. The faculty is evaluated by the students. 4.5 VH Grand mean 4.35 VH Legend: 4.21-5.00 = Very High( VH) 1.81-2.00 = Low (L) 3.41-4.20 = High (VH) 1.00-1.80 = Very Low (VL) 2.61-3.40 = Moderately High (MH) The students described the instrument as very objective with a grand mean of 4.35. Of the 11 items, only one (1) item was perceived high by the students. According to Elmore (2008), the best way to evaluate quality objectively is to establish several rankings for different types of work and to give them consensus values. In the case of the evaluative indicators, different aspects of establishing objectivity are manifested by the eleven options. The very high description marked that the students believe in the objectivity of the evaluation instrument. Table 5. Students’ Opinion on the Utility of the Instrument INDICATORS MEAN DESCRIPTION 1. The criteria show teacher’s strengths and weaknesses. 4.5 VH 2. They enhance professional growth of the faculty 4.4 VH 3. They bring about classroom instruction improvement. 4.5 VH 4. They help develop motivation to grow in the academe. 4.5 VH 5. They introduce curriculum improvement. 4.6 VH 6. They institute curriculum improvement. 4.4 VH 7. They help maintain academic standards. 4.5 VH 8. They serve as a guide for self-appraisal. 4.4 VH 9. They are bases for awarding tenure and benefits. 4.4 VH 227 International Peer Reviewed Journal 10. They help meet standards for accreditation. 4.4 VH 11. They enhance public relations with students and parents. 4.4 VH 12. They identify potential scholars. 4.4 VH 13. They determine rank classification. 4.4 VH 14. They determine teaching performance and enhance learning. 4.4 VH 15. They build faculty morale. 4.4 VH Grand mean 4.5 VH Legend: 4.21-5.00 = Very High (VH) 1.81-2.00 = Low (L) 3.41-4.20 = High (VH) 1.00-1.80 = Very Low (VL) 2.61-3.40 = Moderately High (MH) The students observed that the instrument was highly utilized by them as shown in table 5. It was their experienced to evaluate their teachers every semester. This is a reason why it has a very high description among them. So, they were very satisfied that it was used often. According to Sy (2011) in her study, the teachers as respondents perceived the faculty performance instrument as good. So, the students had a higher perception of usefulness of the instrument than the teachers in this case. D. Students’ Attitude Towards the Faculty Performance Evaluation Instrument To gather information about the students’ attitude towards the Faculty Evaluation Tool seven questions were considered by the researchers patterned after the questionnaire of Solis (2010). These were the following: A. What do you think are the institutional purposes of the faculty evaluation (FE)? B. What would you personally identify as the single most important purpose of the faculty evaluation? 228 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research C. What do you think are the steps of the course evaluation system, from the beginning to the end? D. Do you think that faculty evaluations are useful? E. What would you personally identify as the most attractive outcome of the FE? F. What would you personally identify as the least attractive outcome of the FE? and, G. Do you think the present system of evaluation is designed properly? The data showed that for question A, the students have different diction but their ideas were focused on one concern, and that is for the attainment and the improvement of institutional and professional goals. It could be made more concrete through some sample as … to determine the performance of the teachers inside the classroom; to promote good, effective and productive faculty; to improve teaching strategies; to identify the needs of the students; to monitor whether the students approve or like the strategies of the teacher through their performance; to improve the quality of education through teaching effectiveness; to rank high; to measure the competency of the faculty with regards to their field; for them to adjust the kind of students they have. Question B covered on what the students identify as the single most important purpose of the faculty evaluations. Yet, the evaluators answers were similar in thought with that of question A like to improve the strategies of the teacher; to know the satisfaction of the students; to maintain academic standards; to identify the problems of the students; to know the comment, suggestion, reaction, likes and dislikes of the student towards the personnel of this institution; to give information to the faculty on what they need to improve and where they excel. Question C basically paved the way for answers on what the student evaluators think as the steps, from the beginning to end, of the course evaluation system. This question yielded limited and varied answers from the respondents, but they were geared towards the positive side of it like low to high strategies; the lowest to the highest strategies; first, it will be planned then they will be observed and recorded. Question D would lead back again to the answers of questions A 229 International Peer Reviewed Journal and B as they were quite similar. Question D was on the usefulness of the evaluation and they commonly answered positively with reasons like: for them to know about their standard of teaching; so that the faculty performance will be evaluated by the students, and the faculty will know of their strength and weaknesses and they can improve their weaknesses; so that they will know the feedbacks from the students about their performance; to be able to reach the expectation of the students. In the same manner, question E has answers which were in the same vein with that of the answers given for questions A, B, and D because it deals with the what the respondents personally identify as the most attractive outcome of the faculty evaluation. The answers were as follows: it would help the faculty to know his/her weaknesses and strengths; they will be aware on what to do to improve their teaching techniques; for positive a outlook; positive changes will happen in the institution; to improve teaching ability of the teachers; it allows the faculty to have strategic planning for the improvement of their teaching. However, question E also has very interesting answers which were not in the same frame with the answers of questions A, B and D and these were: there is a possibility that the teachers will have anger with the one (who has evaluated) even if he does not know who the rater really is, and there is the tendency that the whole class will suffer; probably there is a conflict of the results in the perception between the faculty and the students; students will not be truthful of their answers to the evaluation. In this question, the respondents were being honest on the possible outcome of the evaluation process and their answers could affect the teachers’ record. As emphasized by McDaniel (2008) that student evaluation could threaten academic freedom or be misused by administrators. But, he countered that his own experience and chair and dean for 28 years suggests that it is an outside possibility at best. He further stressed that in arguments about evaluations statistics tend to be used by instructors more than by administrators. Question F was the opposite of Question E which caters to the evaluators’ opinion on the least attractive outcome of the faculty evaluation. The students did not hesitate to answer in the following: some or may students are not honest in answering the questions; I 230 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research hope there will be change after this activity; sometimes we feel tired to answer the FE; it is not valid because there is no action from the faculty for those with negative comments; it irritates the students; having proper outfit and having their make-up; it really hurts on the side of the teacher who is evaluated unfairly because of what we call “revenge” maybe because the students acquire low grade from the teacher. For question F, the students were just being logical of their answers; what they mentioned are some of the least attractive outcome of the evaluation. It could then be inferred that the students’ answers will have shed light on the shadows of the evaluation process. Basically, the students’ responses will be used to add to the qualitative data to improve faculty evaluation. Question G guided the students to be more honest about faculty evaluations as their answers are a mixture of Yes, No and Maybe to answer if they feel the present system of student evaluations is well- designed and properly implemented. There is also one who said it well-designed but not properly implemented. One also claimed that it is not properly implemented in matters of the schedule in which it is conducted. One bravely commented that the suggestions of the students are not being realized by the teachers. There is also a comment on the random procedure in the conduct of the evaluation which for him affects it’s effectively. E. The Relationship between the Academic Performance and Degree Program of the Students and their Opinion on the Faculty Evaluation Instrument in terms of Validity, Reliability, Objectivity, and Utility Table 6. The Relationship Between the Students’ Academic Performance and Degree Program and their Opinion on the Criteria of the Faculty Evaluation Instrument VARIABLE P-value DESCRIPTION Academic Performance and Validity 0.287 Not Significant Academic Performance and Reliability 0.265 Not Significant Academic Performance and Objectivity 0.220 Not Significant 231 International Peer Reviewed Journal Academic Performance and Utility 0.265 Not Significant Degree Program and Validity 0.261 Not Significant Degree Program and Reliability 0.261 Not Significant Degree Program and Objectivity 0.213 Not Significant Degree Program and Utility 0.261 Not Significant Table 6 displayed the result that academic performance of the students has no significant relationship to the criteria which means that the academic performance does not affect their opinion towards validity, reliability, objectivity and utility of the instrument. It could then be implied that whether the student is below average or above average, his opinion is not affected by his performance. Thus, it can be said further that they have the same perception towards the criteria. On the other hand, it shows that there was no significant relationship between the students’ degree program and their opinion on the Faculty Evaluation Tools’ criteria. It implies that whatever degree program the students had taken, had nothing to do with their opinion on the criteria. CONCLUSION The instrument of SLSU-Tomas Oppus met the criteria of a valid, reliable, useful and objective tool. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Students should be assured that their evaluation results will be treated with extreme professionalism and confidentiality so that they will deal with it in all honesty. 2. A post-evaluation conference should be announced to the students so that they will be aware that their evaluation will reach to the faculty concerned. LITERATURE CITED Arreola 2000 Establishing the Dynamic Role Parameter. Retrieved May 28, 232 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research 2010 from the World Wide Web:http://www.missouristate. edu/assets/provost/MeritPln-MGT.pdf Bayon, A. M. 2000 Faculty Evaluation Tools of Government Colleges in Southern Leyte: A Proposed Common Assessment Portfolio. A Dissertation Study. University of San Carlos, Cebu City Elmore, H. 2010 Toward Objectivity in Faculty Evaluation. Retrieved May 31, 2010 from the World Wide Web:http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/ pubsres/academe/2008/MJ/Feat/elmo.htm Heine, R. 2010 Student Perceptions of the Faculty Course Evaluation Process: An Exploratory Study. Retrieved May 27, 2010 from the World Wide Web:http://pheine@stetson.edu Huemer, M. 2010 Student Evaluations: A Critical Review. Retrieved may 31, 2010 from the World Wide Web:http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/ sef.htm McDaniel, J. 2006 Student Evaluations of Instructors: A Bad Thing. Retrieved May 31, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.facultyfocus. com/author/jmcdaniel/ Salwa H., Amany A., and Elham A. Aq. 2012 International Conference on Management and Education Innovation. IPEDR vol.37 (2012) © (2012) IACSIT Press, Singapore. College of Nursing, Cairo University, Egypt. College of Nursing – Al Ahsa, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, KSA Scriven 2009 Increasing Teacher Effectiveness. Retrieved November 19, 233 International Peer Reviewed Journal from the World Wide Web: http//www.teach.valdosta.edu/ whuitt/files/cheval.pdf Theall, M. 2010 Faculty Evaluation. Retrieved June 1, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ntlf.com/pod/facultyevaluation.htm Simmons, T.L. 1997. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter. Student evaluation of teachers: Professional practice or punitive policy? Rifkin, T. and E. C. f. C. Colleges. 1995. The status and scope of faculty evaluation: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. Pursuant to the international character of this publication, the journal is indexed by the following agencies: (1)Public Knowledge Project, a consortium of Simon Fraser University Library, the School of Education of Stanford University, and the British Columbia University, Canada; (2) E-International Scientific Research Journal Consortium; (3) Philippine E-Journals; and (4) Google Scholar.