11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

Students’ Perception and Satisfaction on Teacher’s
Evaluation in UNAI
Albinur Limbong
Faculty of Information Technology, Universitas Advent Indonesia
alimbong@unai.edu

ABSTRACT
This article is the result of a study regarding students' perceptions and satisfaction on the
lecturer evaluations. The purpose of this research is to see the level of student perception and
satisfaction regarding lecturer evaluation. The population in this study were all students
registering in the even semester 2023/2024, totaling 1400 students, and the number of samples
was 153. The research instrument is a questionnaire containing 12 questions grouped into 4
aspects. The research results showed that 70.4% of students thought that they read carefully,
understood and filled out the evaluation objectively. 73.6% of students said that the contents
of the questionnaire could explore lecturers' performance in the five competencies measured
and therefore needed to be continued and even developed. 59.5% of students believed that the
results of lecturer evaluations are used by lecturers and institutions to improve their
performance. Then 62.1% of students felt satisfied with their lecturer evaluation activities. Of
the five lecturer competencies assessed in the lecturer evaluation, 43.5% of students considered
that professional competency was the most important to assess and develop. Based on crosstabulation analysis and ANOVA test, it was found that there were no significant differences in
student perceptions and satisfaction according to gender, class or faculty. From the regression
analysis, it was found that understanding & objectivity, the contents of the questionnaire and
the benefits of lecturer evaluation collectively influenced student satisfaction, but partially
what significantly influenced satisfaction were the contents of the questionnaire and the
benefits of lecturer evaluation.
Keywords: Students’ perception, Satisfaction, Teachers’ evaluation

INTRODUCTION
Every teaching and learning process in tertiary education requires an evaluation to see
whether the teaching and learning process has succeeded in achieving its goals or not. A
lecturer evaluates every learning material that has been carried out, performs assignments,
quizzes, midterm exams and final semester exams. In addition to the assessment seen from the
results of exams and assignments, lecturers can also use additional assessment elements such
as activeness, attitude and skills. In addition to lecturers evaluating students who take their
courses, students also get the opportunity to evaluate their lecturers.
At Universitas Advent Indonesia (UNAI), lecturer evaluation by students is compulsory
for every course taken by students. Lecturer evaluations are carried out about one to two weeks
before the end of the current semester, or before students know the grades given by lecturer.
1430

11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

This is done to avoid the possibility of bias that can occur where the evaluation of lecturers
given by students will be influenced by the grades given by lecturers.
Lecturer evaluation by students has been carried out at UNAI for many years, however
there has no any studies done so far to see the benefits of the evaluation either for students or
lecturers. What is the students’ perception regarding the lecturers’ evaluation? Are the outputs
of the evaluation used by lecturers or institution to improve their performance. Did students
evaluate their lecturers objectively? Those issues are very interesting to study.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The teaching and learning process in higher education generally ends with an evaluation
process by lecturers to students and by students to lecturers. The evaluation carried out by
lecturers to students may be in the form of quizzes, mid and final semester exams, class
assignments, or other evaluation parameters. The evaluation carried out by students to their
lecturers may be done through a series of questions in a questionnaire given to students
(Simbolon, 2023:315). Evaluation of lecturers by students is needed as a meaningful feedback
for lecturers to see students' perception of the learning process that has occurred so that its
strengths and weaknesses can be seen to be further optimized in the future (Clayson, 2022:114).
In order for the results of student lecturer evaluations by students to be used by lecturers
as material for self-improvement, it is necessary to be convinced that students fill it out
objectively and consistently. However, in previous studies, inconsistencies were still found
from students assessing their lecturers (Clayson, 2018:252).
Many factors affect the results of student evaluation of their lecturers, one of which is
the feeling of pleasure or liking for the lecturer who teaches or the course taught by the lecturer
(Kreitzer & Sweet-Cushman, 2022:75). If students have a good relationship with the lecturer,
students understand the lessons taught by the lecturer or students are interested in the lessons
taught by the lecturer, then it is likely that students will judge the lecturer well.
Another factor that can affect the results of lecturer evaluations by students is the initial
grades given by lecturers to students. In previous research, it was found that the grades given
by lecturers to students affect the evaluation value of lecturers by students (Krautmann &
Saunder, 1999:138). That's why at Adventist University Indonesia, lecturer evaluation
activities are carried out before students know the final results of the grades they get from the
lecturers who teach them.
Based on the reference above, it is necessary to conduct a study to see whether students
evaluate lecturers objectively or not. What is the perception of students towards their
obligation to evaluate their lecturers, what are the parameters in the evaluation of lecturers that
need to be developed and what are the factors that affect student satisfaction in evaluating their
lecturers?

METHODS
1431

11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

a. Population, Sample and time of research
The population in the study is all UNAI students who registered in the Even semester
2023/2024 who took online and offline classes, around 1400 students. Actually, the information
of questionnaire was informed to every student through various classes and WhatsApp groups
of UNAI students so that all populations would be samples, but until the specified deadline,
only 153 students voluntarily filled out the questionnaire provided online in Google Form. The
number of samples of 153 people is more than the minimum number of sample members
according to the Slovin formula (Mweshi and Sakyi, 2020:187) by taking a sampling error of
10%, which is 94. The distribution of the number of samples by batch (a) and faculty (b) and
gender (c) is given in the following table 1. In terms of the number of sample members, it is
almost proportional to the population.
Table 1
Distribution of sample based on (a) Batch, (b) Faculty and (c) Gender
(a) Batch
(b) Faculty
Batch
Number
Faculty
Number
B2023
52
Economy
47
B2022
47
Nursing
38
B2021
35
Information Technology
32
B2020/Senior
19
Philosophy
14
(c) Gender
Science
10
Gender
Number
Education
12
Male
79
Female
74
This research was conducted in the even semester of 2023/2024, from March until April
2024, but the google form questionnaire was opened for students to fill out in the 2nd and 3rd
weeks of April, which is during the period when the Lecturer Evaluation by students has been
opened online for students to fill out.
b. Teacher Evaluation Instrument
Teacher evaluation by student is a compulsory program. Each student must answer a
number of questions in the lecturer evaluation available online in the student module, for each
lecturer who teaches in the class he or she takes. If students do not carry out lecturer evaluation
activities, the student will not be able to see the grades of the courses taken. The lecturer
evaluation questionnaire is available in a Google Form which opens about 2 weeks before the
current final semester exam, and then will be closed at the time of the final semester exam or
before he knows the score given by the lecturer to the course he is taking.
The lecturer evaluation questionnaire consists of 12 questions described from 4 lecturer
competencies (pedagogic, spiritual, professional and personality). A lecturer must be able to
prepare learning materials, realize these materials in the learning process in the classroom or
other places, and evaluate learning outcomes (pedagogical competence). As a higher education
institution managed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church (GMAHK), lecturers must have
spiritual competence, namely being able to integrate Christian faith in learning. Lecturers must
also be professional, namely being able to teach by attracting and applying the material taught
with current life, mastering learning media, and being able to use the right media according to
the topic being discussed. The last competency is personality regarding the nature, authority
1432

11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

and example shown by lecturers to students. If the lecturer has the 4 competencies above, it is
hoped that students will be satisfied with the teaching and there will be an improvement in
academically and character in students.
c. Research Questionnaire
The data of this study was taken using a questionnaire consisting of 12 questions given
in the following table 2. These twelve question items are an elaboration of 4 aspects of
perception and satisfaction, namely:
A. Objectivity and understanding;
B. Questionnaire and sustainability,
C. Benefits and
D. Satisfaction.
Table 2
Research questionnaire for student perception of lecturer evaluation
No Questions
A. Aspects of Objectivity and Understanding
1 I fill out the lecturer's evaluation objectively (according to the actual facts)
The grades given to me by the lecturer affect the answers I give in the lecturer's
2
evaluation
3 I read every question carefully when filling out the lecturer's evaluation
4 I clearly understand the meaning of each question in the lecturer evaluation
B. Aspects of questionnaire content and sustainability
Lecturer Evaluation Questions can accommodate student aspirations regarding lecturer
5
performance in teaching
6

The Lecturer Evaluation question items need to be added/developed both in terms of
the number and aspects assessed/measured

I feel that the evaluation of lecturers by students as it exists today needs to be
maintained
c. Aspects of Benefit
8 I feel that the evaluation of lecturers by students is less useful for students
I feel that the information from the results of the lecturer's evaluation is used by the
9
lecturer to improve his or her performance
7

I feel that the information from the results of the lecturer evaluation is used by the
leadership of UNAI to improve the performance of the UNAI Institute
D. Aspects of satisfaction
I am satisfied with the lecturer evaluation program by students that is required to every
11
student
12 I feel satisfied with the lecturer evaluation activities that I carried out
10

Two additional questions about the most important lecturer competencies that need to be
developed (explored in depth)
1433

11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

13 Aspects of lecturer competence in the lecturer evaluation questionnaire are the most
important to assess from a lecturer at UNAI
Aspects of lecturer competence in the lecturer evaluation questionnaire that are most
14
important to be developed (explored more deeply)
The answer option for questions 1 to 12 above is to use the Likert scale (Joshi, et.al., 2015:400)
with 5 scale, i.e. Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4) dan Strongly agree
(5). However, if the question is a negative perception then the scoring system becomes reversed
where 5 for strongly disagree, and so on 1 for Strongly agree.
d. Analysis Methods
1. Validity and Reliability Check of the questionnaire
Before data collection, a questionnaire was first tested on 20 respondents to see the
validity and reliability of the questionnaire. The validity and reliability are determined by
looking at the correlation coefficient and the Cronbach's alpha respectively. The correlation
coefficient and Cronbach’s alpha are calculated by SPPS software.
2. Descriptive analysis
The data of the results of the first questionnaire was analyzed by frequency analysis,
namely determining the presentation of options for each answer option strongly disagree,
disagree, hesitate/neutral, agree and strongly agree for each question 1 to 12. From this
frequency analysis, the tendency or dominance of student perception and satisfaction for each
question point will be drawn. For negative questions 2 and 8, the scoring system is reversed,
where the scores for the answers SA = 1, A=2, N/H=3, D=4 and SD=5. So that to determine
the percentage rearrangement of aspect A (questions 1 to 4), specifically for question 2 the
score system is different from questions 1, 3 and 4. Likewise, for aspect C (benefits), namely
questions 8, 9 and 10, then in question 8 the score system is also reversed.
Next, a cross-tabulation analysis was carried out to see the difference in student
perception and satisfaction by gender, generation and faculty.
3. Regression Analysis
For the regression analysis, it will be seen whether there is a significant influence between
the 3 independent variables (understanding and objectivity, questionnaire and sustainability,
and benefits) on the satisfaction-bound variables. In the following figure is given a regression
model between free and bound variables:
Understanding and objectivity (x1)
Content of questionnaire (x2)

Satisfaction (y)

Benefits of Teacher evaluation (x3)
Figure 1. Regression model

1434

11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

The regression equation between x1 (understanding and objectivity), x2 (questionnaire
content), x3 (benefits) and y (satisfaction) as:
y=ax1+bx2 +cx3+d
………………………………………..(1)
Then it will be determined whether there is an effect of each of the independent variables (x1,
x2, x3) partially, or simultaneously on y (satisfaction).
In this case the research hypothesis is:
Null hypothesis (Ho):
There was no significant influence between understanding and objectivity, questionnaire
content and/or the benefits of filling out the questionnaire on student satisfaction.
Alternative hypothesis (Ha)
There is a significant influence between understanding and objectivity, questionnaire
content and/or the benefits of filling out questionnaires on student satisfaction.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In table 3, percentage data is provided for each item of student perception or satisfaction
statement in relation to the lecturer evaluation activities that he or she conducts. Percentage
data is the number of students who answered one of the answer options divided by the total
number of students who filled out the questionnaire. The percentages for each aspect are
grouped into 3 sections, the first group is strongly disagree (SD) and disagree (D), the second
one is Neutral or Hesitate (N/H) and the third one is A (Agree) and SA (Strongly Agree).

No

1
2
3
4

5

6

Table 3
Percentage data for each answer option and question
2
3
Questions
1
A. Aspects of Objectivity and
SD
D
N/H
Understanding
I fill out the lecturer's evaluation
0.7%
0.7%
11.1%
objectively (according to the actual facts)
The grades given to me by the lecturer
affect the answers I give in the lecturer's
10.5% 17.0%
30.7%
evaluation
I read every question carefully when
0.0%
1.3%
11.8%
filling out the lecturer's evaluation
I clearly understand the meaning of each
0.0%
1.3%
19.0%
question in the lecturer evaluation
B. Aspects of questionnaire content
11.4%
18.2%
and sustainability Average of A
Lecturer Evaluation Questions can
accommodate student aspirations
0.0%
5.9%
15.7%
regarding lecturer performance in
teaching
The Lecturer Evaluation question items
0.0%
3.9%
30.7%
need to be added/developed both in terms

4

5

A

SA

45.1%

42.5%

26.8%

15.0%

49.0%

37.9%

46.4%

33.3%

70.4%

47.7%

30.7%

42.5%

22.9%

1435

11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

of the number and aspects
assessed/measured
I feel that the evaluation of lecturers by
7 students as it exists today needs to be
0.7%
3.3%
19.0%
maintained
c. Aspects of Benefit average of B
4.6%
21.8%
I feel that the evaluation of lecturers by
8
11.8% 32.7%
30.7%
students is less useful for students
I feel that the information from the results
of the lecturer's evaluation is used by the
9
1.3%
5.2%
20.9%
lecturer to improve his or her
performance
I feel that the information from the results
of the lecturer evaluation is used by the
10
2.0%
1.3%
26.8%
leadership of UNAI to improve the
performance of the UNAI Institute
D. Aspects of satisfaction Average of
12.0%
28.5%
C
I am satisfied with the lecturer evaluation
11 program by students that is required to
0.0%
4.6%
34.0%
every student
I feel satisfied with the lecturer
12
0.0%
3.3%
34.0%
evaluation activities that I carried out
Average of D
3.9%
34.0%

47.1%

30.1%

73.6%
13.7%

11.1%

43.1%

29.4%

45.8%

24.2%

59.5%
41.2%

20.3%

43.1%

19.6%

62.1%

Five lecturer competencies were asked in the lecturer evaluation questionnaire by students: A
(Pedagogic), B (professional), C (Spirituality), D (Personality) and E (Satisfaction).
Aspects of Lecturer competence
Aspects of lecturer competence in the
lecturer evaluation questionnaire are the
13
most important to assess from a lecturer at
UNAI
Aspects of lecturer competence in the
lecturer evaluation questionnaire that are
14
most important to be developed (explored
more deeply)
Aspects of Lecturer competence

A

B

C

D

E

7.8% 47.1%

6.5% 22.9% 15.7%

12.4% 39.9%
10.1% 43.5%

7.2% 22.9% 17.6%
6.9% 22.9% 16.7%

From the percentage data for aspect A (understanding and objectivity), it was seen that
students admitted that they filled out the lecturer evaluation objectively (87.6% answered
Agree or Strongly Agree), but it is undeniable that for some students the grades given by
lecturers may affect the results of lecturer evaluations (30.7% hesitated and 41.8% agreed or
strongly agreed). The fact is that lecturers give grades after students evaluate lecturers. With
the findings, it is likely that the evaluation results will change if the lecturer's evaluation is
1436

11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

carried out after the grade is known by the student. From the percentage data for statements 3
and 4, it was obtained that students read carefully (86.9% agreed or strongly agreed) and
understand the meaning of each item of the statement in the questionnaire (79.7% agreed or
strongly agreed). For the aspects of understanding and objectivity, the majority of students
(70.4%) said that they read and understood the questions in the questionnaire and filled out the
lecturer evaluation objectively.
From the data on aspect B (questionnaire content and sustainability), statement 5 to 7,
it is seen that students admit that the statement items in the questionnaire can measure the
performance of lecturers in teaching (78.4% agreed or strongly agreed), so that the content of
the lecturer evaluation questionnaire needs to be maintained (77.2% agreed or strongly agreed)
and if necessary to be developed by adding other aspects/statements (86.9% agreed and
strongly agreed). For the content aspect of the lecturer evaluation, the majority of students
(73.6%) considered that evaluation questionnaire can accommodate student aspiration, and it
can measure lecturer performance, and needs to be maintained and even developed, this
percentage is slightly larger than the A aspect (understanding and objectivity).
In terms of benefits, 44.5% of students said they disagreed or strongly disagreed with
the opinion that lecturer evaluations were less useful, and 30.7% of students said they were
hesitant about this opinion. However, in terms of the benefits of the results of lecturer
evaluations on the performance of lecturers and UNAI institutions, 72.5% of students think
that the results of the evaluation are useful for self-evaluation and may improve their
performance, and 70.0% of students believed that the results of lecturer evaluations will be
used by UNAI institutions to self-evaluate or to improve the performance of the institution.
The average of benefit aspect 59.5% students were convinced that the results of lecturer
evaluations were used by lecturers and institutions to improve performance, although this
percentage was smaller than that for aspects A and B.
From the aspect of satisfaction (D), 61.5% of students said they were satisfied with the
obligation to fill out the lecturer evaluation and 62.7% of students admitted that they were
satisfied with the results of the lecturer evaluations given. For the satisfaction aspect, the
majority of students (62.1%) admitted that they were satisfied with the activities and results of
the lecturer evaluation given, although this percentage was smaller than the A and B, but this
percentage was slightly larger than that of aspect C.
Perception and satisfaction by generation, faculty and gender
Perception by batch (year of entrance)
In the following table 4a, the average data on perception and satisfaction scores based
on batch is given. Meanwhile, in table 4b, the results of the ANOVA Test are given for the
score in table 4a.
Table 4
a. The average of perception scores based on batch
Batches
Aspect-A
Aspect-B
Aspect-C
Aspect-D
B2023
3.95
4.01
3.80
4.00
B2022
3.89
4.05
3.65
3.61
B2021
3.71
3.83
3.35
3.67
B2020/Senior
3.82
3.91
4.02
3.82
b. ANOVA test for perception and satisfaction based on batches
ANOVA
1437

11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

Source of Variation
Rows/Batch
Columns/Aspect

SS
0.208758
0.131004

df

MS
F
P-value
3 0.069586 3.471164 0.064001
3 0.043668 2.178293 0.160349

F crit
3.862548
3.862548

It can be seen in table 6b the significance value (p-value) for rows (batch) and columns
(aspect), where the p-value > alpha (0.05). It can be concluded that there is no significant
difference in student perception and satisfaction with the evaluation of lecturers for the four
batches at UNAI.
Perception by faculty
In the following table 5a, the average data on perception and satisfaction scores based
on faculties is given. Meanwhile, in table 5b, the results of the ANOVA Test are given for the
score in table 5a.
Table 5
a. Average perception and satisfaction scores based on faculty
Faculty
Aspect-A Aspect-B
Aspect-C
Aspect-D
Economy
3.78
3.85
3.46
3.63
Nursing
3.96
4.10
3.73
3.86
Information Technology
3.91
4.10
3.85
3.84
Philosophy
3.95
3.86
3.62
3.61
Science
3.75
3.87
3.60
3.75
Education
3.73
3.86
4.03
4.21
5b. ANOVA test for perception and satisfaction based on faculty
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
MS
F
P-value
F crit
Rows/Faculty
0.269216
5 0.053843 2.635871 0.066633 2.901295
Columns/Aspect
0.153938
3 0.051313 2.511995 0.098015 3.287382
From table 5b, it can be seen that the significance value (p-value) for row (faculty) and
column (aspect), where the p-value > alpha (0.05). It can be concluded that there is no
significant difference in student perception and satisfaction with lecturer evaluations among
six faculties at UNAI.
Perception by gender
In the following table 6a, the average data on perception and satisfaction scores based
on faculties is given. Meanwhile, in table 6b, the results of the ANOVA Test are given in table
6a.
Table 6
a. The average of perception scores based on gender
Gender
Aspect-A Aspect-B
Aspect-C
Aspect-D
Male
3.82
3.99
3.64
3.78
Female
3.91
3.95
3.72
3.78
b. ANOVA test for perception and satisfaction based on gender
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
MS
F
P-value
F crit
1438

11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

Rows/Gender
Columns/Aspect

0.002221
0.089406

1 0.002221 1.143898 0.363238 10.12796
3 0.029802 15.35258 0.025196 9.276628

From table 6b, we can see the p-value for row (faculty) and column (aspect), where the
p-value > alpha (0.05) both for the row (gender), however for the column (aspect) the p-value
value < alpha (0.05). It can be concluded that there is no significant difference in student
perception and satisfaction with lecturer evaluation between men and women, but in terms of
aspects there is a significant difference, where aspect C (the benefits of lecturer evaluation) is
less than others, or aspect B (questionnaire content) is being the highest.
The conclusion of the ANOVA test is synchronous with cross-tabulation carried out
using percentage data for each aspect according to generation, faculty and gender.
Regression equation
The regression between x1 (understanding and objectivity), x2 (questionnaire content
and sustainability), x3 (benefits) and y (satisfaction/outcomes) is given in the following table
7.
Table 7
Regression statistics: (a) Correlation, (b) ANOVA, and (c) Regression coefficient
(a) Multiple correlation
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.578354
R Square
0.334494
Adjusted R Square
0.321094
Observations
153
(b) ANOVA
df
F
Significance F
Regression
3 24.96324275
3.83E-13
Residual
149
Total
152
(c) Regression coefficient
Coefficients Standard Error
t Stat
P-value
Intercept
0.68144
0.420825 1.61931 0.107494387
Aspect A
0.09673
0.109982 0.87951 0.380536697
Aspect B
0.37979
0.095215 3.98883 0.000103758
Aspect C
0.33156
0.077916 4.25534 3.67421E-05
From table 7(a) it is seen that the double correlation coefficient is 0.5784, this means
that the relationship between x1, x2, in x3 with y in the medium category. From the ANOVA
data, it is seen that the significance value of F is 3.8e-13, this value is much smaller than alpha
(0.05). This means that there is a significant influence between x1, x2, and x3 on y. From the
data in table xx(c) the regression equation can be determined as:
Y=0.0967x1+0.3798x2+3316x3+0.6815
…………………(2)
The significance value for x1 is 0.1100 (greater than alpha=0.05), the significance value
for x2 is 0.0001 (less than alpha) and the significance value for x3 is 3.6742e-5 (smaller than
alpha), from the hypothesis test of influence i.e. that Ho is rejected if the significance value is
1439

11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

less than alpha. This means that the ones that significantly affect satisfaction are x2
(Questionnaire content and sustainability), x3 (Benefits), while the influence of x1
(understanding and objectivity) on satisfaction is not significant.

CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, SUGGESTION, AND LIMITATIONS
From the results of the research described above, it is concluded:
1. The majority of students (70.4%) admitted that they read carefully and understood the
details of the lecturer's evaluation questions and gave an objective assessment. Only
29.6% of students said that they were hesitant or did not read, did not understand the
questions, and did not fill out the lecturer's evaluation objectively.
2. 73.6% of students think that the content of lecturer evaluation questionnaire is
aspirational and can measure the performance of lecturers in teaching, and needs to be
maintained or even developed.
3. Quite significant students (59.5%) admitted that the results of lecturer evaluations were
beneficial for lecturers and institutions to improve their performance, compared to
40.5% of students who were hesitant or disagreed with the benefits of lecturer
evaluation results.
4. 62.1% of students admitted that they were satisfied with the lecturer evaluation
program, compared to 37.9% of students were hesitant to express their satisfaction.
5. More students (47.1%) consider that professional competence is the most important in
lecturer evaluation, compared to the other 4 competencies (pedagogic, personality,
spirituality and satisfaction), and 39.9% of students said that professional competence
is important to be developed or explored more in lecturer evaluation.
6. Based on the ANOVA test, it was concluded that there was no significant difference in
student perception in the three aspects measured and satisfaction, between men and
women, between new students and 3 other batches, and between 6 faculties at UNAI.
7. The variables x1 (understanding and objectivity), x2 (questionnaire content and
sustainability), x3 (benefits) simultaneously affect y (satisfaction/outcomes), but
partially the significant influence is the content of the questionnaire and the benefits of
lecturer evaluation.
The results of this study are based on students’ perspective. It is interesting to see the
evaluation of lecturers by students from the perspective of the lecturers themselves. The results
of the lecturer's evaluation by students are already known by the lecturer before the grades are
submitted by the lecturer into the online system. Is there an influence of the results of the
lecturer's evaluation on the grades given by the lecturer? Does the lecturer give grades
objectively? Those questions are interesting to study in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I acknowledge Ellen Putri Manullang (UNAI IT student and my student labor) who
help providing an online google form and informing UNAI students to fill the form.
1440

11th ISC 2024 (Universitas Advent Indonesia, Indonesia)
“Research and Education Sustainability: Unlocking Opportunities in Shaping Today's
Generation Decision Making and Building Connections” October 22-23, 2024

REFERENCES
Clayson, D. (2018). Student evaluation of teaching and matters of reliability, Assessment &
Evaluation
in
Higher
Education,
43:4,
666-681.
DOI:
10.1080/02602938.2017.1393495.
Clayson, D. (2022). The student evaluation of teaching and likability: what the evaluations
actually measure, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47:2, 313-326. DOI:
10.1080/02602938.2021.1909702.
Kreitzer, R.J., Sweet-Cushman, (2022) J. Evaluating Student Evaluations of Teaching: a
Review of Measurement and Equity Bias in SETs and Recommendations for Ethical
Reform. J Acad Ethics 20, 73–84 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09400-w
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D.K. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained,
British Journal of Applied Science & Technology 7(4): 396-403. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
Krautmann, A.C, & Sander, W. (1999). Grades and student evaluations of teachers, Economics
of Education Review, 18:1, 59-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S02727757(98)00004-1
Mweshi, G.K., & Sakyi, K. (2020). Application Of Sampling Methods for The Research
Design, Archives of Business Review, 8:1, 180-193. DOI: 10.14738/abr.811.9042.
Simbolon, I., & Limbong, A. (2023). PENGARUH HASIL EVALUASI DOSEN TERHADAP
NILAI MAHASISWA DI FAKULTAS KEPERAWATAN UNIVERSITAS ADVENT
INDONESIA, Jurkessutra (Jurnal Kesehatan Surya Nusantara), 11:2, 314-325. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48134/jurkessutra

1441