Beyond the Shutter: Perception Teaching Quality in Learning Basic Photography in Sarawak

Teaching quality is part of how students experience skills-based, studio disciplines such as photography, where learning depends on both instructional guidance and physical resourcing (Rabadán, 2015). Refers to the capacity to use, evaluate, and create content through the quality of teaching, and has become as important to photographic courses as camera technique (Ginns, Prosser, Barrie, 2007). This paper presents the perception of teaching quality readiness among local students in Sarawak by learning in photography courses in Malaysia. By using local institutional Course Evaluation Feedback (CEF) data from two related photography-relevant courses (n = 385) at a public institution. In the absence of a purpose-built perception teaching quality instrument, this study repurposes course appraisal data as a measure across four dimensions of teaching and learning methodology. Overall, this will cover 4 factors that are course perception, instructor professionalism, teaching and learning activities, and infrastructure, which are conceptually mapped onto the technical, cognitive, and social-emotional model of digital literacy (Ng, 2012). The findings show consistently “Excellent” ratings across both photography-related courses (93.50% and 98.46% overall), with the strongest performance recorded in instructor professionalism and teaching methodology, but a comparatively weaker infrastructure dimension. This gap is of practical significance in a discipline where equipment and studio access are directly tied to the development of digital skills, especially those related to the digital era. The paper situates this gap within Sarawak's range of rural-urban digital divide and argues that while teaching quality is not a barrier to digital literacy development in this context. It concludes that local institutions can use routinely collected feedback data as an early, low-cost signal of resourcing gaps as part of the evaluation and to improve further. It recommends that future studies validate these findings against a purpose-built teaching quality instrument for studio-based discipline before translating them into curriculum or investment decisions.

Teaching Quality, Student Perception, Basic Photography, Course Evaluation, Sarawak

1. Alberts, L., Lyngs, U., & Lukoff, K. (2026). Designing for Sustained Motivation: A Review of Self-Determination Theory in Behaviour Change Technologies. Interacting with Computers, 38(3), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwae040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Al-Maamari, F. S. (2021). The potential in student evaluation of teaching for EFL teacher professional development. Cogent Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1888670 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Burn, Andrew. (2009). Making new media : creative production and digital literacies. Peter Lang. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cordell, Diane. (2016). Using images to teach critical thinking skills : visual literacy and digital photography. Libraries Unlimited, an imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Elshater, A. (2018). The Power of Photography in Urban Design Discipline: A Module Catalogue. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 12(2), 182. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v12i2.1594 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Eslava, J., Arones, M., Godoy, Y., & Guerrero, F. (2021). Characterization of Meaningful Learning Associated with Feedback in a Digital Transformation. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 128–131. https://doi.org/10.1145/3480001.3480023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fu, J. S. (2013). ICT in Education: A Critical Literature Review and Its Implications. In International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT) (Vol. 9). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Gatete, O. (2026). Revisiting TPACK: A Critical Review and Contextual Extension for the Digital Age. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 54(3), 561–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395251382942 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ginns, P., Prosser, M., & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher education: the perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701573773 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hand, Martin. (2012). Ubiquitous photography. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hartley, J., McWilliam, K., Burgess, J., & Banks, J. (2008). The Uses of Multimedia: Three Digital Literacy Case Studies. Media International Australia, 128(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X0812800108 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hobbs, Renee. (2017). Create to learn : introduction to digital literacy. Wiley/Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2016). Digital competence – an emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 655–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Jalli, N., Karlina Idris, I., & Edwin Widjaja, N. (2025). Digital Inequality and Online Learning in Rural Sarawak. In Inclusive Futures (pp. 415–437). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003591078-20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Joshkun, S., Kurmanov, N., Kabdullina, G., Bakirbekova, A., Sabyrzhan, A., Rakhimbekova, A., Satbayeva, A., & Utegenova, Z. (2024). School or home: Exploring the impact of digital infrastructure on digital literacy of school-age young people in a developing economy. Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Development, 8(7), 4795. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i7.4795 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Khong, T. L. (2014). Validity and Reliability of the Student Evaluation of Teaching. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 2(9), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol2.iss9.238 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Li, Q., Zhang, Y., & Um, G. (2025). Intertwining artificial intelligence and efficiency: An empirical analysis of AI focus and operational efficacy in Chinese listed firms. Finance Research Letters, 80, 107451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.107451 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Long, C. S., Ibrahim, Z., & Kowang, T. O. (2013). An Analysis on the Relationship between Lecturers’ Competencies and Students’ Satisfaction. International Education Studies, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n1p37 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Marr, Bernard. (2022). Future skills : the 20 skills and competencies everyone needs to succeed in a digital world. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. McMillan, M., Little, P., Conway, J., & Solman, A. (2019). Curriculum Design and Implementation: Resources, Processes and Results. Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.24313/jpbl.2019.00178 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Morgan, A., Sibson, R., & Jackson, D. (2022). Digital demand and digital deficit: conceptualising digital literacy and gauging proficiency among higher education students. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 44(3), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2022.2030275 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Noorsiah Jamaludin, S., Jamaludin, S. N., Firdaus Abdullah, M., Azizan, N., & Isa, A. (2025). Navigating the Digital Landscape: Analyzing the Digital Literacy Levels of Malaysian University Students. International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society, 7(3), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.55057/ijares.2025.7.3.20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Pheunpha, P. (2019). A FACTOR ANALYSIS OF STUDENT’ PERCEIVED SERVICE QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION. In ABAC Journal (Vol. 39, Number 4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Praetorius, A.-K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2014). One lesson is all you need? Stability of instructional quality across lessons. Learning and Instruction, 31, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Rabadán, Á. V. (2015). Media Literacy through photography and participation. A conceptual approach. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 4(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2015.1.96 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Rafiq-uz-Zaman, M. (2023). Teacher Training Needs for Skill-Based Education: A Review of Competencies, Barriers, and Professional Development Gaps. Inverge Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 166–182. https://doi.org/10.63544/ijss.v2i3.212 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Rea, L. M. ., & Parker, R. A. . (2014). Designing and conducting survey research : a comprehensive guide. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Reddy, P., Sharma, B., & Chaudhary, K. (2020). Digital Literacy. International Journal of Technoethics, 11(2), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJT.20200701.oa1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Reynolds, R. (2016). Defining, designing for, and measuring “social constructivist digital literacy” development in learners: a proposed framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9423-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Saunders, G. E. (1971). Education in Sarawak. Melbourne Studies in Education, 13(1), 44–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487109556034 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Singh, P., & Kaur, A. (2022). A systematic review of artificial intelligence in agriculture. In Deep Learning for Sustainable Agriculture (pp. 57–80). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85214-2.00011-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Sun, X., Fu, R., Zhang, G., & Chen, C. (2022). Effects of multimedia integrated fine arts education on students’ learning attitude and learning satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.907468 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Ting, S.-H., & Kayad, F. G. (2026). Language Vitality Reassessment and Revival Efforts for Bidayuh of Sarawak, Malaysia. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 19(1), 30–56. https://doi.org/10.21313/10524/52558 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Webb, A., & Layton, J. (2023). Digital Skills for Performance : A framework for assessing current and future digital skills needs in the performing arts sector. Arts and the Market, 13(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAM-09-2021-0054 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Yap, P. S. Y., Moses, P., Cheah, P. K., Md. Khambari, M. N., Wong, S. L., & Yu, F.-Y. (2024). Digital Divide: Facilitating Conditions and Usage of Google Classroom for Teachers in Rural and Urban Secondary Schools in Malaysia. Journal of ICT in Education, 11(2), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.37134/jictie.vol11.2.6.2024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Yıldızhan Bora, B., & Şahin Kölemen, C. (2025). Integrating AI into instructional design: A case study on digital photography education in higher education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/16433 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar