7.7 Statistical Analysis: Statement of findings, interpretation and discussion of the data
7.7.5 Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the organising and summarizing of the quantitative data that was collected. This summarised information is required for more constructive research after a detailed analysis has been undertaken. The frequency distributions for questions 1 to 7 are presented below.
170 a) Distribution in terms of status
Figure 7-1 describes the characteristics of the respondents in terms of status.
Most of the respondents were Junior Lecturers, Lecturers or Senior Lecturers. These categories of academics are evaluated more often by management or CQPA.
b) Distribution in terms of faculties
Table 7-1 describes the characteristics of the respondents in terms of faculties they belong to.
However, a detailed discussion is presented in terms of why the response rate differed in the various faculties.
Half of the respondents (50%) were either from the Faculties of Applied Sciences or Arts. The fairly large percentage is attributed to the fact that departments in these faculties have been undergoing evaluations during the last 2 years. Their recent experiences in evaluations could have motivated them to respond the questionnaire. This is in contrast to the Faculty of Engineering (where the response rate was only 6%) where a new round of evaluations will only begin from 2015.
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Junior Lecturer
Lecturer Senior Lecturer
Associate Professor
Professor 11.0
53.0
18.0
6.0 12.0
Percent
Figure 7-1: Description in terms of status
171 c) Distribution in terms of frequency of evaluations
Forty seven (47) of the respondents are evaluated on a yearly basis and nineteen (19) are evaluated every semester. This means that 66 (around two thirds) of the respondents undergo some form of evaluation at least once a year. The results indicate that evaluation and productivity estimation play an integral part in measuring the performance of academic staff at DUT. Just over 20% of respondents were evaluated only when they are informed about it. A general interpretation from the responses (Figure 7-2) indicates that departments in the various faculties are at liberty to evaluate academic staff either on a semester or yearly basis or on an ad hoc basis. Those respondents who were not certain (10%) are academic staff that have been recently employed at DUT and are not yet aware about evaluation procedures in the department or faculty. This corresponds to the results in Figure 7-3 which indicates that 10% of academic staff is employed at DUT for less than 5 years.
d) Distribution in terms of experience
Figure 7-3 describes the respondents experience in terms of the number of years of service at DUT.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Every Semester Yearly Only when informed Not certain
Figure 7-2:Description in terms of how often evaluations take place
172
Since 10% of respondents are employed for less than 5 years, it means that at least 90% of the respondents are employed at DUT for 5 years or longer. Clearly DUT has a teaching staff that is reasonably experienced and who have undergone some form of evaluations while at DUT. This is confirmed by the results in Figure 7-4 which indicated that more than 70% of respondents have undergone at least one evaluation per year. Since most respondents have undergone at least one evaluation, it is expected that their opinions regarding present evaluation methods (question 8) and what constitutes an efficient productivity estimation model (question 9) will be useful in developing the model.
e) Distribution in terms of number of evaluations
Figure 7-4 describes the number of evaluations that academic staff have undergone while employed at DUT.
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Less than 5 years
More than 5 years but less than 10 years
More than 10 years but less than 15 years
More than 15 years but less than 20 years
More than 20 years 10.0
49.0
14.0
9.0
18.0
Percent
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
None 1 - 3 4 - 8 9 - 12 More than 12
Figure 7-3:Description in terms of number of year service at DUT
Figure 7-4:Description in terms of number of evaluations at DUT
173
Figure 7-4 indicates that every respondent has undergone at least one evaluation. The fact that most respondents have undergone between 1 and 3 evaluations (63%) indicate that this group of academics are employed at DUT for the least number of years when compared to the other categories. This is further confirmed by the results indicated in Figure 7-3 that shows that most respondents (close to 60%) have been employed at DUT for less than 10 years (that is, 10% for less than 5 years and 49% between 5 and 10 years as indicated in Figure 7-3). The most experienced respondents at DUT (close to 18% as indicated in Figure 7-4) have the most number of evaluations (more than 12 as indicated in Figure 7-4). It is therefore expected that this group will provide the most valuable information regarding current evaluation methods (question 8) and the development of an effective productivity estimation model (question 9).
f) Distribution in terms of reasons for evaluations having taken place Figure 7-5 describes the reasons why respondents were evaluated.
Sixty four percent (64%) of respondents were specific about why they were being evaluated.
Further analysis revealed that a majority of the ‘other’ respondents indicated that they were evaluated by the Centre for Quality Promotion and Assurance (CQPA). Some respondents indicated that they were evaluated when they applied for a transfer from one department to another while others were evaluated when they applied for a transfer from campus to another.
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 Other
It was a requirement when I applied for a promotion post.
I was on probation when I joined DUT and it was a requirement that I undergo an evaluation to…
An evaluation was requested by upper management such as an HOD or the Dean.
44.0 29.0
13.0
31.0
Percent
Figure 7-5: Description in terms of reasons for evaluations
174 g) Distribution in terms of evaluation methods
Figure 7-6 describes the type of evaluation methods that the respondents have undergone.
Over three-quarter (76.0%) of the respondents were subjected to interviews by a panel. This is a common form of evaluation that involves questions being asked to the respondent. If the evaluation is for promotion purposes, then the same questions are generally asked to all applicants. The weighting method (28% of respondents) is usually combined with the panel interview (76% of respondents). Each panel member will ask a question and the entire panel will independently assign a weight or a score to a criteria or sub-criteria. The scores are added at the end of the interview and a discussion then takes place so that all evaluators come to an agreement on the final score. Since the total of these two percentages (76% and 28%) exceeds 100%, it means that some respondents chose both options.
The Centre of Quality Promotion and Assurance (CQPA) encourage peer evaluations of academic staff. This is however not a very popular method as only 14% of respondents have undergone such a method of evaluation. This question also had the ‘other’ option that was open- ended with 27% of respondents having chosen this option. Most of the respondents for the
‘other’ option were from the Engineering, Arts and Health Sciences faculties. Besides the standard methods of evaluation prescribed by CQPA, these faculties have additional methods of evaluations. A few respondents from the Engineering faculty were evaluated based on a demonstration of a new artifact they developed. Some members from the Drama department
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 Other
Interviews involving a panel.
A weighting method. (A weighting method allocates a certain score if an academic…
Peer evaluations.
27.0
76.0 28.0
14.0
Percent
Figure 7-6:Description in terms of evaluation methods
175
were evaluated based on some theatre production while some respondents from the Health Sciences Faculty were evaluated based on some innovative and ground-breaking research.
This section described the results of the survey for questions 1 to 7 of the research questionnaire.
In order to address the objectives of the remainder of the questions, inferential techniques are used. Inferential techniques include the use of correlations and chi square test values, which are interpreted using the p-values.
7.7.6 Factor and statistical analysis for questions 8 and 9