Students’ Perspectives on the Quality of Evaluation Practices and Feedback in College of Education and College of Science in Eritrea

The aim of this study is to explore students’ perspectives on the quality of evaluation practices and feedback in College of Education and College of Science. The sample population consists of 135 third-year and fourth-year students’ from both Colleges. Questionnaires, using a 5-point Likert scale, were administered to all participants whilst two focus group discussions were also conducted. The findings from survey data and focus group discussions showed that the majority of students hold a positive perception on the quality of the evaluation practices but had a negative perception on methods of awarding grades and administrators’ role in listening to the students’ complaints about the courses. Looking into the differences among years of study and gender, the analysis from the questionnaire showed that there is no statistically significant difference between third-year and fourth-year students, in both Colleges with respect to the quality of evaluation practices and feedback. The study recommends that the Colleges in Eritrea improve the quality of fairness and feedback during course assessments.


Purpose of the Study
In recent years, researchers, educators, stakeholders, and policymakers throughout the world have questioned the current evaluation practices employed in higher education. Many educators argue that due to the increasing number of students entering universities and colleges and their diversity; still, the current evaluation practices focus too much on measuring students' capability to memorize knowledge using objective questions at the expense of problem-solving and skills. This shows that the current evaluation practice is rife with assessments that measure knowledge of core content areas rather than on 21 st -century evaluation practices and feedback.
Besides, educators raised a lot of concerns about the quality and quantity of student feedback and the inconsistency across departments and within colleges (Higgins, Hartley, & Skelton, 2002). Therefore, the purpose of this research was to gather data in order to understand students' perceptions of the quality of evaluation practice and feedback in the College of Education and College Science in Eritrea. The primary goal of this is to use the data to both improve the quality evaluation practice and feedback, and to plan for the future using a continuous cycle of improvement.

Literature Review
It is understood that evaluation practices in higher education are complex which involves many issues. This is evident in the literature on student evaluation practice and feedback is frequently contentious. Numerous papers and documents put forward strong philosophical arguments for the need to discover the evaluation practice in more detail than it has been before. This is partly due to the significant changes in the mode of delivery, introduction of different modular learning, increase in number and diversity of students over the last twenty years (Stuart, Solomon, & Akroyd, 2006).
According to Astin (2012), evaluation plays a very significant role in higher education, and there are mainly four reasons why we evaluate students, first is to compare students attainments with each other students, second to check if students meet a particular standard, third to support the student's learning, and finally to check whether the teaching program is doing what it intends to do. While Allen, Ort, & Schmidt (2009) stated that students benefit from evaluations in multiple ways such as smooth communication, administrator-teacher-student involvement, and step-by-step instructions.
Moreover, when teachers use continuous assessment supplemented with appropriate feedback, the whole classes have the potential to benefit (Heritage, 2010). Feedback is fundamental to the student's attainment of knowledge and can encourage and inspire students through initial transition and also throughout their study. According to Murphy and Cornell (2010), feedback is considered as the essential and final point in the concept of evaluation in which it tells the advantages and limitations of the students or the system. Moreover, research studies have found that feedback has the most influential effect on students' attainment, progression, and retention (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007;Yorke, 2003).
According to Fatima (2010), the scope and complexity of the evaluation practices that are carried out in any college will vary according to the nature of the college, as certainly, will the evaluation styles used. Whatever the situations, still, the significance of using evaluation practices to monitor the instructional system should shed light on the objectives, appropriateness of the teaching styles used, the content adopted, the techniques of implementation, and the assessment techniques. With each sequential cycle of the evaluation, the teaching-learning processes should become gradually tuned and should accordingly become more effective and efficient through a continuous process of evaluation practices and feedback.
An evaluation can be formative or summative. Formative evaluation is a type of evaluation that takes place during the process of teaching and learning, and its primary function is to help, deliver, guide, and monitor the teaching-learning process by providing continuous feedback.
The essence of formative evaluation is well captured by Yorke (2003); in which he mentioned that formative evaluation is carried out for three different reasons. First, to give acknowledgement for what has been achieved to the anticipated standard, second to correct the incorrect and the third is to encourage emancipation by informing the learners to opportunities which he or she may not have previously discerned. Furthermore, Alonge (2004) and Kolawole (2010), stated that continuous assessments combined with appropriate and suitable written feedback help to remove the learning weaknesses and provide strengths towards summative evaluation.
Summative evaluation is conducted at the end of the course or program, and its function is to find out the extent to which the instructional objectives have been achieved or not. According to Patton (2002), the primary purpose of summative evaluation is to examine the overall competence and effectiveness of the program, the contents, and the product, in order to decide on its sustainability and further inferences.

Methods
This study employed a mixed-method design. The choice for the mixed-method design was made because it combines qualitative and quantitative data into a coherent and harmonious combination in order to enrich results. Moreover, using the mixed method in a single research study allows finding data intersections between the two collection methods and understanding of the research question than either a quantitative or qualitative approach on its own would provide (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018).
The researcher selected College of Education and College of Science as a research site from the six available Colleges in Eritrea. The researcher employed stratified random sampling for both quantitative and qualitative methods. One hundred thirty five students from the two Colleges, 57 students from the College of Education, and 78 students from College of Science were selected. The sample consisted of 70 male and 65 female students. The researcher also conducted two focus group discussions involving six to eight students from third-year and fourthyear students of the two Colleges.
The target population for this study were third-year and fourth-year students of the College of Education and College of Science in Eritrea. The researcher felt that by the time students reach third-year and fourth-year they would have enough experience and knowledge to provide significant and more accurate feedback with respect to quality of evaluation practices and feedback.
Before the administration of the questionnaire, to ensure validity and reliability, it was reviewed by the experts and conducted a reliability analysis. The reliability analysis showed the reliability of the two constructs, which were 0.77 cronbach's alpha for both constructs. Since both reliabilities were greater than 0.70, the instrument was considered to produce reliable scores. With regards to validity, the validity of the questionnaire was assured by the expert who has developed it. However, lecturers in Eritrea also gave their input, and finally, the questionnaire was revised and improved in the light of opinions of the lecturers and experts so that ambiguous and poorly prepared items were modified.
The data was collected from November 2018 to January 2019, following a pilot test in October 2018 in College of Education involving 20 students. The measurement of items in the survey questionnaires was based on 5 five-point Likert scale (5-Strongly Agree, 4-Agree, 3-Somewhat Agree, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree), where higher responses indicated higher levels of agreement. In the analysis, however, the five-point Likert Scale was then re-coded to three scales with 1 denoting "Low Agreement", 2 "Moderate Agreement" and 3 "High Agreement" to give more distinct focus for the interpretation of students' perceptions of the quality of evaluation practice and feedback. The quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS, for statistical analysis. And the recorded focus group discussions, each approximately 50 minutes in length were analyzed using top-down thematic analysis, whereby the original data were transcribed, coded, and interpreted thematically. Table 1 indicates that, from the total participants of 135 students, 57 (42.2%) of the respondents were from the College of Education and 78 (57.8%) from College of Science. In relation to the year of the study, 49.6% were third-year students, while the remaining 50.4% fourth-year students. In terms of gender, 51.9% male and 48.1% were female students.

Students' perspectives on the Quality of Evaluation Practice in College of Education and College of Science in Eritrea
The data on evaluation practice is displayed in Table 2. It has a total of seven statements, which include the provision of adequate time for exam preparation, varied forms of evaluation, proper exam invigilation, freedom of choice in selecting group members, exam coverage, suitability to the level of students, and clearness of exam questions.  Table 2, the respondents agreed with all the statements of the quality of evaluation practice to some extent. They had a higher agreement on 'the provision of adequate time for exam preparation' (M=2.47, SD=0.77); 'examination questions cover the important aspects of the course' (M=2.48, SD=0.72); 'students freedom of choice in selecting group members' (M=2.36, SD=0.75); 'proper exam invigilation' (M=2.30, SD=0.71); and 'appropriateness of assessment tests to the level of students' (M=2.25, SD=0.74). Respondents also agreed to some extent on lecturers ability to use varied forms of assessment (M=2.19, SD=0.78) and clearness of exam questions (M=2.19, SD=0.78). This implies that students had high perceptions for the provision of adequate time for exam preparation and exam coverage but less positive perception of the suitability of the evaluation practices and clearness of exam questions. The overall mean score of evaluation practice is 2.32, which suggests a positive perception of students on lecturer evaluation practice.
The information gathered from the focus group discussions of the two Colleges generally indicates that students hold positive perceptions on the evaluation practice. Students pronounced that their lecturers provide adequate time to make preparation for the exam, proper exam invigilation, and the use of continuous assessment.
The focus group noted the issue as follows: lecturers provide us sufficient time to prepare for the mid and final exams. Also, students revealed that their lecturers are strict during invigilation, such as on starting the exam on time, reshuffling the sitting arrangement, and providing accurate instructions.
Furthermore, the students also described that their lecturers sometimes employ formative assessment techniques. They noted as follows: Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.11, No.19, 2020 A student from the College of Education mentioned that their lecturers utilize continuous assessment techniques, such as project, group work activity, assignments, presentations, quizzes, and exams. However, a student from College of Science revealed some of their lecturers don't use continuous assessment, "we don't deny the fact that some of our lecturers provide us lab works, assignments, and projects, though some of the lecturers don't assess us formatively and as being claimed by our instructors the reason for them to do so is due to shortage of time, workload, and large class size." According to the information gathered from both sets of data, a positive student perception of lecturers' evaluation practice can be recognized.

Students' perspectives on Fairness and Feedback of Lecturer in College of Education and College Science in Eritrea
The construct on the quality of fairness and feedback consists of six statements that involve administration's role in the handling of student's opinions, marking and timely feedback, method of grading, fairness on grading students, setting standards and due dates for assessments, and fairness in grading. In terms of fairness and feedback, data in Table 3 reveals that respondents agree with some of the statements regarding fairness and feedback. For instance, students agreed that lecturers mark examinations on time and give students feedback immediately (M=2.27, SD=0.77), treat all students fairly and in an equitable manner during assessment (M=2.24, SD=0.75), and set standards and due dates for assessment tests (M=2.24, SD=0.70).
To some extent, respondents also agreed on 'lecturers' fairness in grading students' (M=2.05, SD=0.75). However, a significant proportion of students (47.4%) had a lower agreement as compared to moderate (29.6%) and higher (23.0%) on the role of administrative staff on listening to students' opinions about the course (M=1.76, SD=0.80). Students also had a lower agreement on lecturers' method of grading (M=1.79, SD=0.802). The findings suggest that students had moderate perceptions of the timely feedback to the students and due dates for assessment but negative perception of the role of administrative staff in handling student's opinions and methods of awarding grades. The overall mean score of 2.06 implies a moderate perception of the quality of fairness and feedback.
These perceptions are equally consistent with the data gathered during focus group discussions. The students expressed that even though lecturers mark examinations on time, they still had concerns regarding methods of awarding grades and administrators' role in listening to the students complain about the course. A student from College of Education quoted saying: Lecturers give broad and general feedback, but they don't have time to provide feedback to every learner in the class, and another student stated his dissatisfaction with the quality and format of feedback and further noted that he needs feedback to improve and allow him to move forward regardless of his mark. Another student from College of Science criticized the methods of awarding grades and administrators' roles. The student lamented: The lecturer's standard of awarding grades is not clear. Sometimes we receive unexpected grades, though we are quite sure performed well in the exams, and this makes us fail unfairly. Another student mentioned his discontentment on the roles of administration staff in listening to students concerning their courses.
Generally, from both sets of data, less positive student perception of lecturers' fairness and feedback can be recognized.
Differences between the quality of evaluation practice and feedback was also conducted. Tables 4-6 depict the data on students' perspectives of the quality of evaluation practice and feedback and their college, year of study, and gender variables. An independent sample t-test conducted on mean scores of colleges, year level, gender variables of the respondents, as shown in Tables 4-6. The test involved Levene' test for Equality of Variance (EV). In Tables 4-6 below the equality variances were assumed, because the p-value (significance level) in Levene's Test is greater than the critical p-value of 0.05. The confidence interval of the difference is at 95%.    6 showed that there is no significant difference in students perspectives on quality of evaluation practice and feedback with variables of College of Education and College of Science (df (133) = 0.801, p=0.425 two-tailed); third and fourth year (df (133) = 0.328, p=0.744 two-tailed); and male and female (df (133) = 1.200, p=0.232 two-tailed). Therefore, as it is greater than 0.05, which indicates that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean score of the College of Education and College of Science, third-year and fourth-year students, and male and female students.

Discussions of findings
The results obtained from the questionnaire and focus group discussions were found to be in agreement with respect to students' higher agreement, moderate agreement, and lower agreement of the evaluation practices and feedback in both colleges. The survey results indicated that students had a higher agreement on the provision of time for exam preparation, exam coverage of the important aspects of the course, and students' freedom to choose their own group, which concurs with what students reported during the focus group discussions. This result has equally echoed the findings of Belanger (2016), that allowing students to form their groups contribute to positive student attitudes toward self, academic ability, and colleagues. It also permits students to have greater contact, trust, acceptance, and support among students of different races, social classes, achievement levels, and sexes. In addition, providing students ample time to prepare for examination reduces students' anxiety and enhances their achievement (Ayres, 1996).
Evaluation practices are helpful in monitoring the learning progress of students and making decisions about how to improve teaching (Tomlinson, Brimijoin, & Narvaez, 2008). Usually, assessment data collected continuously throughout the course implementation, and that helps instructors to identify students' strengths and weaknesses and, based on that, to prepare additional or revised instruction for those who have not performed well (Yell, Busch, & Rogers, 2007). Based on questionnaire data and focus group discussions, it was found that some of the instructors use continuous assessment in most of the courses throughout the program.
The role of administrative staff in encouraging, stimulating, and guidance had a significant influence on students learning and specifically in students' performance (Kandinko & Mawer, 2013). Nevertheless, in this study, the administration's role in taking students' opinion about the course is low, which needs serious attention.
Marking and awarding grades is subject to scrutiny and debate, there remains extensive mystery surrounding the marking activity by lecturers (Yorke, Bridges, & Woolf, 2000), in this study, both data showed that low students' perception on lecturers method of awarding grades. Usually, quality assurance agencies recommend institutions to have transparent and fair mechanisms for marking and moderation (Kandinko & Mawer, 2013).
To solve these problems, lecturers need to transform conceptions of evaluation practice beyond a measuring and labeling tool towards diagnosing learning needs and continuously update themselves in changes in the assessment practice of their course. Besides prompt feedback, particularly for final exams and greater transparency in student grading. Furthermore, administrative staff and department heads have to be in a position to pay attention to the opinions of students regarding their courses.

Conclusion and recommendations
This study was carried out to explore the students' perspectives on the quality evaluation practice and feedback in College of Education and College of Science in Eritrea. The findings indicate that students in both Colleges had moderate perceptions of the quality of evaluation practice and feedback. The study found that lecturers give students enough time to make preparation for exams and also lecturers properly invigilate exams. In addition, students perceive that some lecturers utilize formative assessment techniques. Moreover, students have a negative perception of the role of administrative staff in handling student's opinions about the course, fairness in grading, and methods of awarding grades. Lastly, the study found that there are no significant differences in the perception between College of Education and College of Science students, third-year and fourth-year students, male and female students in relation to the quality of evaluation practice and feedback.
The study recommends for the introduction of wide-ranging and continuous assessment schemes and staff development plans so that instructors can improve the marking system, transparency in grade awarding and communication of feedback by creating different forums.