The Ineffectiveness of the Current Practice of Evaluating Lecturers’ Teaching in the Classroom by Administrators in Malaysia: A Conceptual Analysis

The Ineffectiveness of the Current Practice of Evaluating Lecturers’ Teaching in the Classroom by Administrators in Malaysia: A Conceptual Analysis

Ahmad Azfar Abdul Hamid, Sheik Badrul Hisham Jamil Azhar*, Mohd Amirul Atan, Nur Aqilah Norwahi, Nuramirah Zaini

Academy of Language Studies, University Technology MARA (UiTM), Melaka, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400469

Received: 16 April 2025; Accepted: 23 April 2025; Published: 22 May 2025

ABSTRACT

The quality of teaching and learning in Malaysian higher education is crucial for developing an innovative, globally competitive workforce. However, the current practice of evaluating lecturers predominantly by administrators has come under growing scrutiny. This conceptual paper critically examines the ineffectiveness of administrator-led evaluations of teaching performance in Malaysian universities and other higher education institutions. Drawing on extant literature, policy documents, and theoretical frameworks, the paper highlights key challenges and proposes a more holistic and context-responsive approach to lecturer evaluation. By focusing on issues such as subjective bias, limited observational frequency, reliability and validity concerns, and the neglect of pedagogical innovation, the study underscores the shortcomings of relying heavily on administrative assessments. A conceptual framework is proposed, emphasizing multi-source feedback, peer collaboration, self-reflective practice, and technology-enhanced evaluation techniques. The paper recommends that policymakers and institutional leaders cultivate a culture of continuous professional development and empowering all stakeholders—administrators, lecturers, and students—to co-create robust evaluation strategies. Overall, this paper aims to stimulate informed discussion and foster a more effective evaluation system that accurately reflects teaching quality and fosters genuine pedagogical improvement in Malaysian higher education.

Keywords: Lecturer evaluation, Higher education, Administrator-led evaluations, Malaysia, teaching effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, higher education in Malaysia has undergone a rapid expansion in response to national aspirations for economic growth and global competitiveness (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia [MoHE], 2020). This surge has seen universities and colleges striving to maintain and enhance the quality of education, resulting in various quality assurance frameworks and accreditation processes (Ismail & Hassan, 2019). Among these frameworks, the evaluation of lecturers’ teaching effectiveness has become a key element for ensuring institutional accountability, improving pedagogical quality, and upholding global standards (Hashim & Nor, 2018). Traditionally, student feedback surveys, peer observations, and self-reflections have formed the foundation for these evaluations, supplemented by administrative oversight and classroom observations. However, in many Malaysian universities, the emphasis remains heavily skewed toward evaluations conducted by administrators, such as heads of department, deans, or other appointed officials.

Proponents of administrator-led evaluations contend that senior personnel hold broader institutional perspectives and are therefore well-positioned to judge the alignment of teaching practices with institutional goals (Cheah, 2021). Moreover, administrators typically have formal authority in personnel decisions relating to contract renewal, promotion, and reward structures—hence their input can carry significant weight (Hussein, 2020). Despite these arguments, the increasing reliance on administrative evaluations has drawn criticism for potentially misrepresenting actual teaching quality due to factors like administrative workload, limited classroom exposure, subjective biases, and institutional politics (Abdul Rahman, 2017). Critics suggest that such evaluations may be conducted hastily, inconsistently, or primarily for compliance, rather than for meaningful, formative feedback (Tan, 2018).

This conceptual paper critically examines the limitations of the current administrator-led evaluation approach in Malaysian universities. By drawing on relevant literature and theoretical frameworks, the paper highlights how existing practices might lack reliability and validity, discourage pedagogical innovation, and potentially lead to inaccurate judgments regarding teaching quality. Furthermore, the paper proposes a conceptual framework advocating for a more comprehensive, multi-source feedback approach that includes peer review, self-reflection, student input, and technology-facilitated evaluation tools. Such an approach is envisioned to foster genuine teaching improvement, ultimately benefiting student learning outcomes and institutional effectiveness.

The overarching aim is to contribute to the discourse on higher education quality assurance by questioning the status quo of lecturer evaluation processes and proposing an alternative conceptual model that is more transparent, inclusive, and development-oriented. The paper begins with an overview of the current lecturer evaluation practices in Malaysia, followed by a focused literature review that establishes a theoretical backdrop for the discussion. This is followed by an analysis of the criticisms and challenges associated with administrator-led assessments, culminating in the proposed conceptual framework. Finally, the paper concludes by outlining the implications of these findings for policymakers, administrators, and educators seeking to enhance teaching quality in Malaysian higher education.

Historical Perspective of Current Lecturer Evaluation Practices in Malaysia

The formal evaluation of teaching in Malaysian higher education can be traced back to national education reforms in the 1970s and 1980s, which sought to strengthen the quality and credibility of higher education institutions (Ismail & Hassan, 2019). Initially, these evaluations were rudimentary, often involving limited student feedback surveys and occasional visits by administrative staff. As Malaysian universities expanded in size and scope, driven by the government’s ambition to develop a knowledge-based economy, more structured and standardized evaluation frameworks emerged (MoHE, 2020).

By the early 2000s, multiple accreditation bodies, such as the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA), began mandating more formalized mechanisms to assess academic staff performance. This led to the proliferation of evaluation tools, including comprehensive student evaluations of teaching (SET), peer reviews, and performance appraisals conducted by heads of department and deans (Said, 2021). Under these frameworks, administrative evaluations carried weight, given that they were tied to staff promotion, tenure, and institutional quality audits.

Policy and Guidelines

National policy guidelines, such as the Malaysian Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2015-2025, emphasize the importance of improving teaching and learning quality as part of broader institutional transformations (MoHE, 2018). Many public and private universities, in turn, have adopted variations of these guidelines. Typically, lecturers undergo an annual performance review in which their teaching effectiveness is judged based on classroom observations, student feedback, research output, and community service (Hashim & Nor, 2018). Administrators, including heads of department, deans, or appointed evaluation committees, are responsible for synthesizing these inputs.

While the stated objective of administrator-led evaluations is to provide constructive feedback, encourage professional development, and ensure alignment with institutional strategy, critics argue that the actual process often skews toward summative and compliance-driven assessments (Abdul Rahman, 2017). Furthermore, the time constraints faced by administrators—who are typically juggling multiple leadership, managerial, and academic roles—can result in evaluations that do not adequately capture the nuanced realities of lecturers’ classroom performance (Hussein, 2020). The ensuing sections explore these critiques in greater depth.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Purpose of Lecturer Evaluation

Lecturer evaluation is conventionally grounded in two overarching purposes: summative and formative (Barrett & Tandlich, 2020). Summative evaluation is tied to administrative decisions about promotion, tenure, and remuneration, requiring standardized measures and objective indicators of teacher performance (Kogan et al., 2017). In contrast, formative evaluation focuses on personal and professional development, offering rich feedback that lecturers can use to refine their pedagogical approaches and better support student learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998). For evaluations to be comprehensive, many scholars argue that both summative and formative elements should be integrated (Arreola, 2017). However, in practice—particularly in Malaysian universities—the summative dimension often dominates due to institutional demands for accountability and ranking competitiveness (Hashim & Nor, 2018).

Theoretical Frameworks

Several theoretical frameworks illuminate the complexities of evaluating teaching effectiveness. One prominent approach is the Teacher Efficacy Model, grounded in Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory. This model suggests that the perceived self-efficacy of lecturers significantly influences their motivation, pedagogical strategies, and resilience in the face of professional challenges. When evaluation methods undermine lecturers’ sense of professional identity and efficacy—by emphasizing administrative compliance or by delivering inconsistent feedback—teaching quality may deteriorate rather than improve (Darling-Hammond, 2017).

Another relevant framework is the Constructivist Approach to Teacher Assessment, which underscores the interactive and context-dependent nature of teaching (Van Driel & Berry, 2012). Within this framework, effective teacher assessment should account for the socio-cultural context of the classroom, the evolving teacher-student dynamic, and the ongoing professional growth of educators (Kane et al., 2013). Evaluations rooted in constructivist principles emphasize collaborative dialogue, reflective practice, and peer feedback (Brookfield, 2017). However, administrative evaluations in many Malaysian institutions rarely incorporate these elements, limiting their developmental impact (Cheah, 2021).

Alternative Approaches to Lecturer Evaluation

Global higher education contexts have generated various models for lecturer evaluation beyond administrative assessments. Notably:

Peer Observation and Feedback

Peer evaluation programs encourage faculty members to observe each other’s classes, provide constructive critiques, and share pedagogical strategies. This approach fosters collegiality and promotes a culture of continuous improvement (Shortland, 2010). Evidence suggests that peer observations can be especially beneficial when they are voluntary, involve mutual respect, and prioritize professional growth (Gosling, 2014).

Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET)

SET instruments remain among the most widely used metrics for evaluating teaching, often carried out online or through standardized questionnaires (Marsh, 2007). However, research has demonstrated that SET results can be influenced by factors such as students’ grade expectations, the timing of evaluations, or lecturers’ personalities, leading to inconsistent and sometimes unfair outcomes (Boring, 2017). Consequently, while SETs can offer valuable insights, they should be triangulated with other evaluation methods to mitigate bias (Spooren et al., 2013).

Self-Assessment and Reflective Practice

Encouraging lecturers to engage in systematic self-reflection enables them to identify areas for improvement and track their development over time (Brookfield, 2017). Reflective practice can be augmented by teaching portfolios, action research, and professional development workshops, allowing lecturers to take greater ownership of their pedagogical growth.

Multi-Source Feedback (MSF)

MSF incorporates evaluations from multiple stakeholders—administrators, peers, students, and the lecturers themselves—to offer a holistic perspective on teaching quality (Arreola, 2017). This approach aligns with the belief that a single data source is rarely sufficient to capture the multifaceted nature of teaching.

Although such alternative approaches exist in Malaysian institutions, their adoption is generally sporadic, overshadowed by a persistent reliance on administrator-led observations and summative assessments (Hashim & Nor, 2018). Understanding the challenges and limitations of these administrative evaluations is therefore crucial to developing more robust mechanisms.

Criticism and Challenges of Administrative Evaluation

The administrator-led model of lecturer evaluation, while rooted in institutional oversight and policy enforcement, faces numerous criticisms that question its reliability, fairness, and developmental potential. A central concern is the risk of bias and subjectivity in evaluations. Heads of department or deans, despite holding leadership positions, may lack disciplinary expertise in the subjects they evaluate. This can lead to overemphasis on surface-level indicators such as presentation style, at the expense of pedagogical depth and innovation (Cheah, 2021). Moreover, personal relationships, institutional politics, or even conflicts of interest can compromise objectivity and erode faculty trust in the evaluation process (Rahman, 2017).

Recent research by Davidovitch and Cohen (2024) further highlights the dual-role dilemma faced by academic administrators. As both managers and evaluators, administrators may inadvertently conflate managerial compliance with teaching effectiveness. Their decisions are often influenced by performance metrics aligned with institutional goals, which may not always reflect nuanced, student-centered pedagogy. This dual responsibility creates the potential for evaluative distortions, particularly when assessments are linked to high-stakes outcomes such as promotion, contract renewal, or disciplinary actions.

Another major critique pertains to the lack of reliability and validity in many administrator-led evaluations. These assessments often rely on limited classroom observations—sometimes just one or two per academic year—resulting in snapshots that may not represent the dynamic nature of teaching across different topics, cohorts, or time periods (Hussein, 2020). Without standardized rubrics or sufficient observer training, inter-rater consistency remains low, and the interpretive value of the evaluations becomes questionable (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2012).

The issue of infrequent and superficial observations further weakens the credibility of administrative evaluations. Large enrolments and constrained administrative workloads often limit the depth and regularity of classroom visits. Consequently, evaluations are reduced to perfunctory checklists that fail to capture instructional variability, real-time student engagement, or responsiveness to diverse learning needs (Tan, 2018). This one-size-fits-all approach undermines both formative feedback and authentic appraisal.

Additionally, there is a growing misalignment between evaluative criteria and pedagogical innovation. With the rise of flipped classrooms, blended learning, and collaborative assessment models, modern teaching strategies often diverge from conventional lecture-based paradigms. Administrator-led evaluations—rooted in traditional rubrics—may not account for these innovations and can inadvertently penalize lecturers who take pedagogical risks (Chang & Fang, 2020). Lecturers using interactive platforms or student-led activities may be rated poorly simply because their methods deviate from expectations not updated to reflect evolving practices.

Perhaps most concerning is the psychological and professional toll of high-stakes, top-down evaluations. Faculty members frequently report anxiety, reduced motivation, and a tendency to “teach to the evaluation” rather than foster deep learning. When feedback is generic or summative in nature, it limits opportunities for growth, self-reflection, and instructional experimentation (Brookfield, 2017). Over time, this compliance-driven approach suppresses innovation and curtails the development of reflective teaching cultures.

In summary, while administrative evaluations provide an institutional mechanism for oversight, their current design in many Malaysian universities is misaligned with the principles of effective, equitable, and developmentally supportive evaluation. These limitations call for a more balanced, triangulated system that integrates peer input, student feedback, and self-assessment alongside administrative perspectives.

Empirical Illustration through Lecturer Testimonials

To enhance the conceptual arguments outlined in this paper, this section presents brief case vignettes and testimonials drawn from anecdotal accounts and synthesized lecturer experiences. These narratives illustrate the lived realities of academic staff in Malaysian higher education institutions and highlight the disconnect between administrative evaluation practices and authentic teaching effectiveness.

Case Vignette 1: Limited Observational Frequency

“As a senior lecturer in engineering, I found that my department head only observed my class once in two years. That observation happened to fall on a day when I was conducting a student-led workshop, and the feedback I received was that I ‘wasn’t teaching enough.’ It felt like the evaluation system didn’t value innovative methods.” – Lecturer A, Public University

This account underscores the issue of limited observation frequency and the risk of unrepresentative evaluations based on isolated class visits. It highlights the need for multi-point and contextually sensitive evaluations as recommended in this paper’s conceptual framework.

Case Vignette 2: Misalignment with Innovative Pedagogy

“I received glowing feedback from students and peers for my flipped classroom techniques. However, the administrative evaluation noted a ‘lack of board usage’—which completely missed the point of my digital and interactive delivery model.” – Lecturer B, Private University

Such experiences reveal a troubling misalignment between conventional evaluation criteria and evolving pedagogical strategies. This reinforces the necessity for evaluators to be trained in diverse teaching approaches and to update evaluation rubrics accordingly.

Case Vignette 3: Lack of Constructive Feedback

“The evaluation felt more like a compliance exercise. There was no dialogue, no suggestions for improvement, just a rating. It left me confused about what I needed to work on.” – Lecturer C, Research University

This quote points to the lack of formative intent in current evaluations. As argued in this paper, shifting toward reflective, developmental feedback mechanisms can enhance lecturer growth and motivation.

Case Vignette 4: Administrative Bias and Politics

“I had a disagreement with my department head regarding course content. Since then, my evaluations have been consistently average, despite positive student feedback. It feels personal.” – Lecturer D, Comprehensive University

This vignette draws attention to potential biases in administrator-led evaluations, further affirming the call for triangulated assessments incorporating peer and student voices.

Summary Table: Key Themes from Lecturer Testimonials

These empirical illustrations lend practical weight to the conceptual concerns discussed and offer compelling evidence for the need to reform current lecturer evaluation mechanisms in Malaysian higher education.

Proposed Conceptual Framework for Effective Lecturer Evaluation

In light of the discussed challenges, this paper proposes a conceptual framework that moves beyond administrator-centered practices. The framework comprises four interlocking components: (1) multi-source feedback, (2) peer observation and collaboration, (3) self-reflective practices, and (4) technology-assisted evaluation. Central to this framework is the principle of triangulation, wherein multiple data sources and evaluators converge to form a more accurate picture of teaching performance.

Figure 1. Proposed holistic framework for lecturer evaluation in Malaysian higher education.

As illustrated in Figure 1, this framework incorporates Multi-Source Feedback, Peer Observation & Collaboration, Self-Reflective Practice, and Technology-Assisted Evaluation to provide a comprehensive and development-oriented assessment of teaching effectiveness.

Multi-Source Feedback

To enhance the validity and reliability of lecturer evaluations, a multi-source feedback (MSF) approach is increasingly recognized as essential in global higher education systems. Recent research by the University of Kentucky Senate Ad Hoc Teaching Evaluation Committee (2024) underscores that triangulated feedback—drawn from students, peers, administrators, and self-assessments—not only yields a more comprehensive picture of teaching performance but also fosters professional growth and accountability. Their findings advocate for a deliberate shift away from reliance on a single data source, which often skews the evaluation process, toward integrated models that promote transparency and inclusivity. Embedding MSF into institutional evaluation frameworks ensures that each stakeholder contributes uniquely and constructively to the assessment of teaching effectiveness.

Each stakeholder offers unique insights:

• Students experience the teaching firsthand and can comment on the lecturer’s clarity, availability, and engagement strategies.
• Peers can provide informed critiques grounded in disciplinary expertise and shared pedagogical interests (Gosling, 2014).
• Lecturers themselves can offer reflective narratives, highlight challenges encountered in the classroom, and contextualize their instructional choices (Brookfield, 2017).
• Administrators continue to supply institutional perspectives, ensuring alignment with strategic goals (Cheah, 2021).

This multi-perspective model not only diversifies the evaluation process but also creates a more balanced, development-oriented system that supports instructional excellence.

Peer Observation and Collaboration

Peer observation programs encourage shared responsibility for teaching quality across academic departments and faculties (Shortland, 2010). In this model, colleagues voluntarily observe each other’s classes and engage in post-observation discussions that focus on constructive feedback. This collegial process not only reduces the anxiety often associated with top-down administrative observations but also fosters a community of practice where teaching strategies and resources are exchanged more freely (Gosling, 2014).

For peer observations to be effective, several conditions must be met:

• Mutual Trust and Confidentiality: Observations and feedback should be non-judgmental and remain within a safe collegial environment (Shortland, 2010).
• Structured Guidelines: Institutions should provide clear criteria or observation rubrics that can be adapted for different teaching methods (Marsh, 2007).
• Professional Development Support: Findings from peer observations should feed into faculty development workshops, teaching innovation grants, or mentorship programs (Chang & Fang, 2020).

Self-Reflective Practices

Self-reflection stands as a cornerstone of effective teaching. Lecturers who regularly assess their instructional approaches, analyze student feedback, and critically examine their underlying assumptions are more likely to adopt learner-centered methods (Brookfield, 2017). Institutions can facilitate self-reflection by encouraging the development of teaching portfolios, which document lesson plans, assessment strategies, student feedback summaries, and reflective commentary on classroom activities (Darling-Hammond, 2017). Furthermore, incorporating action research projects into academic workloads allows lecturers to systematically investigate and refine their teaching practices, fostering a culture of continuous improvement (Kane et al., 2013).

Technology-Assisted Evaluation

The rapid advancement of educational technology has opened new pathways for improving lecturer evaluation processes. These tools provide quantifiable insights that complement traditional observations and feedback, making evaluations more holistic and evidence-based. A 2024 meta-analysis conducted by the Open Access Research Journal of Medical Sciences (OARJMS) emphasized that digital platforms such as learning management systems (LMS), virtual classrooms, and analytic dashboards allow institutions to monitor a variety of engagement indicators. These include students’ interaction with course materials, frequency of forum participation, punctuality in assignment submission, and overall course completion trends. Such data-driven mechanisms offer an objective lens through which to assess instructional effectiveness.

Moreover, educational technologies like lecture capture systems, video-based observations, and online polling tools enable evaluators—whether administrators or peers—to observe teaching in asynchronous formats. This flexibility allows for repeated reviews and detailed analysis of specific classroom moments, such as instructional clarity, pacing, and interaction dynamics (Grierson & Gallagher, 2020). When used constructively, these technologies support both formative feedback and longitudinal tracking of a lecturer’s teaching evolution.

However, effective implementation of technology-assisted evaluations requires careful consideration:

• Ethical Considerations: Institutions must safeguard lecturers’ privacy and intellectual property rights. Transparent consent policies and secure data storage are essential (Chang & Fang, 2020).
• Professional Development: Faculty should receive adequate training on how to use technology for self-evaluation and how to interpret analytics meaningfully (Hashim & Nor, 2018).
• Holistic Interpretation: Quantitative metrics should not stand alone. Instead, they must be triangulated with qualitative insights from student feedback, peer review, and reflective narratives to ensure a comprehensive understanding of teaching quality (Ifenthaler & Widanapathirana, 2014).

In sum, technology-enhanced lecturer evaluations, when integrated thoughtfully and ethically, can enhance both the precision and developmental impact of academic performance assessments. They present a forward-looking model that aligns with 21st-century pedagogical and institutional goals.

Implications for Policy and Practices

The proposed shift toward a more holistic and development-oriented model of lecturer evaluation carries significant implications for stakeholders at every level of Malaysia’s higher education ecosystem.

Policy Makers and Accreditation Bodies

This transition calls for a re-examination of existing quality assurance frameworks. Agencies such as the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) and the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) should move beyond metrics that privilege administrative compliance and instead recognize diverse evaluation mechanisms—including peer observation, self-reflection, student voice, and technology-enhanced assessments—as legitimate indicators of teaching excellence. Recent research by Wong and Tan (2024) highlights the importance of aligning policy reforms with institutional cultures that promote motivation, autonomy, and innovation. They argue that green organizational culture and intrinsic motivation are key to unlocking lecturer performance—an insight that reinforces the need for policy to empower, rather than constrain, academic staff.

Institutional Leaders and Administrators

University leadership (e.g., Vice Chancellors, Deans) should allocate resources toward faculty development programs that train administrators and lecturers in diverse evaluation methods. Implementing structured guidelines for peer observation and self-reflective activities, along with robust data protection protocols for technology-assisted evaluations, would help ensure reliable, valid, and ethically sound processes (Hussein, 2020). Administrators should also be encouraged to assume a more facilitative rather than purely evaluative role—partnering with lecturers to identify professional growth pathways.

Lecturers

Lecturers stand to benefit from a more balanced evaluation system that acknowledges the complexity of teaching and promotes career-long professional development (Brookfield, 2017). They should be encouraged to actively participate in peer observation networks, share best practices, and utilize reflective tools. Such engagement can elevate teaching standards, boost morale, and encourage innovative pedagogical approaches (Darling-Hammond, 2017).

Students

While typically recipients of teaching quality, students in a reformed evaluation framework become crucial partners in the feedback process. Structured mechanisms—e.g., mid-semester focus groups or student-teacher dialogues—can generate richer, real-time data on instructional effectiveness, enhancing student satisfaction and learning outcomes (Cheah, 2021).

Professional Development and Continuous Improvement

A holistic evaluation model requires a simultaneous commitment to continuous learning. Institutions might develop resource centers or dedicate budget lines for pedagogical training, peer mentoring, and technology integration. By foregrounding professional development, evaluation transitions from a judgment-based exercise to an ongoing process of instructional refinement (Arreola, 2017).

In essence, transforming lecturer evaluation from a top-down, compliance-driven mechanism into a collaborative, feedback-rich, and context-sensitive system holds promise for elevating teaching quality, enhancing student learning, and fostering institutional innovation across Malaysia’s higher education landscape

Strategic Policy Integration for Framework Adoption

Pilot Implementation in Selected Institutions

Rationale and Justification: A phased implementation strategy beginning with pilot programs offers a low-risk pathway to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed multi-source evaluation model before institutionalizing it across the higher education sector. This approach aligns with principles of evidence-based policy making (Nutley, Walter, & Davies, 2007), allowing for iterative refinement and contextual adaptation.

Implementation Approach:

• Select a diverse sample of universities, including at least one research university, a teaching-intensive university, and a private higher education institution.
• Apply the full conceptual evaluation framework—incorporating student feedback, peer observation, lecturer self-assessment, and technology-assisted metrics—within selected faculties or departments.
• Develop evaluation rubrics collaboratively with faculty to ensure clarity and local ownership of the process.
• Conduct longitudinal studies to assess the impact on lecturer motivation, student satisfaction, and teaching quality.

Expected Outcomes:

• Generation of local best practices and guidelines for nationwide scaling.
• Identification of logistical challenges (e.g., administrative burden, peer matching).

Academic Support: Pilot testing as a policy instrument is endorsed in higher education transformation models (Kotter, 2012), and was successfully used in Malaysia’s own Higher Education Blueprint (2015–2025) implementation phases.

National Policy Revisions

Rationale and Justification: Systemic change must be underpinned by enabling national policies. The current Malaysian evaluation frameworks—largely administrative and compliance-driven—need recalibration to reflect more holistic and development-oriented practices, in line with global benchmarks (Darling-Hammond, 2017).

Implementation Approach:

• The Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) and Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) should update quality assurance standards to incorporate multi-source evaluation as a recognized best practice.
• Amend institutional audit rubrics to credit universities that implement peer-based evaluations, self-reflection tools, and technology-supported analytics.
• Embed evaluation reform targets into national indicators under the Malaysian Education Blueprint (MoHE, 2018).

Expected Outcomes:

• Harmonization of policy and practice, ensuring that evaluation reforms are not only localized but also legitimized at the national level.
• Stimulation of funding and institutional innovation through performance-based incentives.
• Elevation of Malaysian higher education institutions in international rankings through demonstrated commitment to teaching quality.

Academic Support: This recommendation builds on insights by Wong & Tan (2024), who advocate aligning national policy reform with organizational culture to unlock educator motivation and performance. It also echoes Kogan et al. (2017), who assert that sustainable reform requires top-down policy support integrated with bottom-up innovation.

DISCUSSION

The conceptual analysis presented in this paper underscores the limitations of the current administrator-led lecturer evaluation practices in Malaysian higher education. While administrative evaluations are intended to ensure institutional alignment and accountability, they often fall short in capturing the complexities of effective teaching. As noted, issues such as limited observation frequency, subjective biases, and rigid evaluation criteria can undermine the validity and developmental potential of such assessments (Tan, 2018; Hussein, 2020). These concerns are further amplified when evaluation outcomes are closely tied to high-stakes decisions, fostering a compliance-driven rather than growth-oriented teaching culture.

The proposed conceptual framework—anchored in multi-source feedback, peer collaboration, reflective practice, and technology-enhanced assessments—offers a holistic alternative that addresses these shortcomings. This triangulated approach not only diversifies the sources of evaluative input but also empowers lecturers to take active roles in their professional development. By including peer and student perspectives, alongside administrative and self-evaluations, the model enhances both reliability and relevance, aligning closely with global trends in quality assurance (Brookfield, 2017; Arreola, 2017).

Furthermore, the integration of contemporary teaching practices into evaluation mechanisms is essential. Innovative pedagogies such as flipped learning and blended instruction often fall outside the scope of traditional rubrics, yet they are critical for developing future-ready graduates. A reformed evaluation system that recognizes such pedagogical diversity can stimulate instructional experimentation and reflective practice, ultimately improving student engagement and learning outcomes.

Nonetheless, the successful implementation of this model requires institutional commitment. Beyond structural changes, a cultural shift is necessary—one that values teaching as a scholarly and evolving practice, supported by collegiality, trust, and continuous feedback.

CONCLUSION

This conceptual paper has examined the prevailing practice of evaluating Malaysian lecturers primarily through administrator-led classroom observations and summative appraisals. Drawing on theoretical and empirical insights, the paper highlights inherent deficiencies in such a system: the risk of subjective bias, inadequate observation frequency, questionable reliability and validity, and the stifling of pedagogical innovation. Although administrators offer a valuable institutional perspective, their evaluations often remain too limited and high-stakes to effectively capture the dynamic, context-dependent nature of teaching.

To address these shortcomings, the paper proposes a more comprehensive, triangulated approach anchored in multi-source feedback, peer observation, reflective practice, and technology-assisted assessments. This framework aims to balance accountability with professional growth, integrating formative and summative elements so that teaching effectiveness can be both accurately measured and continuously enhanced. The successful operationalization of this framework requires policy reforms that encourage broader definitions of teaching excellence, alongside institutional initiatives that allocate resources and training to support peer collaboration, reflective inquiry, and ethical data use.

By rethinking how lecturer evaluations are conducted in Malaysia, stakeholders can shift the focus from merely meeting administrative criteria to fostering genuine pedagogical development. In doing so, Malaysian higher education institutions can better equip their lecturers to deliver high-quality, innovative instruction that meets the evolving needs of students and the broader national agenda. The arguments and propositions advanced in this paper are intended to spur further research and discussion, with the ultimate goal of creating a more equitable, transparent, and enriching teaching and learning environment in Malaysia.

REFERENCES

1. Rahman, S. A. (2017). Administrator-led evaluations in higher education: Balancing accountability and improvement. Journal of Malaysian Higher Education, 12(2), 45-58.
2. Arreola, R. A. (2017). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation systems. Anker Publishing.
3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
4. Barrett, D., & Tandlich, G. (2020). Teaching excellence: Formative and summative approaches. International Journal of Higher Education Research, 9(3), 150-168.
5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
6. Boring, A. (2017). Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Public Economics, 145, 27-41.
7. Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
8. Chang, C., & Fang, M. (2020). The influence of innovative teaching on student engagement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(4), 89-101.
9. Cheah, S. L. (2021). Reconsidering administrative evaluations of university teaching: Voices from Malaysian academics. Higher Education Policy and Management Review, 14(1), 58-72.
10. Davidovitch, N., & Cohen, E. (2024). Administrative roles in academia—Potential clash with research output and teaching quality? Cogent Education, 11(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2357914
11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291-309.
12. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Pearson.
13. Gosling, D. (2014). Collaborative peer-supported review of teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 35-49.
14. Grierson, A., & Gallagher, T. (2020). Video-based peer coaching and teacher reflection in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(2), 192-203.
15. Hashim, C., & Nor, F. M. (2018). Reassessing teacher evaluation in Malaysian public universities. ASEAN Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 83-97.
16. Hussein, M. A. (2020). Administrative perspectives in evaluating academic staff: Challenges and implications for higher education policy. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(2), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1713749
17. Hussein, N. (2020). The politics of academic management: A Malaysian perspective on lecturer evaluation. Malaysian Journal of Educational Administration, 4(1), 120-134.
18. Ifenthaler, D., & Widanapathirana, C. (2014). Development and validation of a learning analytics framework: Two case studies using support vector machines. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1-2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9236-y
19. Ismail, S., & Hassan, R. (2019). The evolution of quality assurance in Malaysian higher education. Journal of Malaysian Policy Studies, 5(2), 1-18.
20. Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2013). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 563-601.
21. Kogan, M., Teichler, U., & Bleiklie, I. (2017). Reforming higher education. Springer.
22. Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and usefulness. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 319-383). Springer.
23. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (MoHE). (2018). Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2015–2025. MoHE.
24. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (MoHE). (2020). Annual report on Malaysian higher education. MoHE.
25. Open Access Research Journal of Medical Sciences. (2024). Evaluating the impact of educational technology on learning outcomes in higher education. OARJMS, 2(26), 88–102. https://oarjpublication.com/journals/oarjms/sites/default/files/OARJMS-2024-0026.pdf
26. Said, H. (2021). The role of accreditation in driving teaching excellence in Malaysian higher education institutions. Malaysian Journal of Quality Assurance, 9(1), 1-15.
27. Shortland, S. (2010). Feedback within peer observation: Continuing professional development and unexpected consequences. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 295-304.
28. Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598-642.
29. Tan, S. (2018). Teacher evaluation by administrative heads: A critical examination. Journal of Southeast Asian Education Studies, 6(2), 60-77.
30. University of Kentucky Senate Ad Hoc Teaching Evaluation Committee. (2024). Report of the Senate Ad Hoc Teaching Evaluation Committee. University of Kentucky. https://universitysenate.uky.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/FINAL.Teaching.evaluation.3.18.24_0.pdf
31. Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26-28.
32. Wong, M. Y., & Tan, S. K. (2024). Unleashing lecturer performance in Malaysian higher education through green organizational culture: The mediating role of work motivation. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(8), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i8.4716