ارزیابی میزان کاربست مولفه های تدریس اثربخش توسط اعضای هیات علمی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی بر اساس رویکردِ ارزشیابی دانشجویان

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانش آموخته دکتری برنامهریزی درسی، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

چکیده

زمینه و هدف: از مهمترین روشهای بررسی کیفیت آموزش در نظام آموزش عالی، ارزیابی عملکرد تدریس اثربخش اعضای هیئت علمی از طریق ارزشیابی دانشجویان است. پژوهش حاضر با هدف تعیین میزان کاربست مولفه های تدریس اثربخش توسط اعضای هیئت علمی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی، انجام گردید.
روش بررسی: پژوهش حاضر در نیمسال اول سال تحصیلی97-1396با روش توصیفی- مقطعی انجام شد. جامعه آماری پژوهش شامل کلیه دانشجویان دانشکده پرستاری و مامایی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان بود که از بین آنها 291 نفر به عنوان نمونه آماری پژوهش تعیین شدند. ابزار مطالعه، پرسشنامه محقق ساخته تدریس اثربخش بود و تحلیل آماری داده ها با نرم افزار SPSS 20 در دو سطح آمار توصیفی و استنباطی انجام شد.
یافته ها: نتایج نشان داد اعضای هیات علمی از نظر کاربست هر شش مولفه تدریس اثربخش، در مجموع میانگین و انحراف معیار 02/13±82/83 را از مجموع 120 نمره کسب کردند. بر اساس جدول استاندارد مطلوبیتِ طراحی شده، عملکرد تدریس اثربخشِ اعضای هیئت علمی، در مجموع در حد نسبتاً مطلوبی بوده است و به تفکیک مولفه ها، در مولفه های طراحی تدریس، اجرای تدریس، مدیریت کلاس و ارزشیابی در حد نسبتاً مطلوب و در مولفه های روابط انسانی و ویژگیهای مطلوب شخصیتی، در حد مطلوب بوده است.
نتیجه گیری:در مجموع نتایج پژوهش حاضر بیانگر عدم مطلوبیتِ عملکرد کلیِ تدریس اثربخشِ اعضای هیات علمی بوده است که بیانگر وجود ضعف ها و مشکلات جدی در عملکرد تدریس اثربخش استادان است. بر همین اساس ضروری است مقوله توانمندسازی آموزشی اعضای هیئت علمی، مورد توجه بیشتری قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of application measure of effective teaching components by faculty members of Isfahan University of medical science based on the of " Students’ evaluation" Approach

نویسنده [English]

  • hassan eslamian
Ph.D. Curriculum Development, Department of Education, faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Background and aim: The present study was conducted with the aim of determining the rate of application of effective teaching components by faculty members of the University of Medical Sciences.
Materials and Methods: The present study was conducted in the first semester of the academic year of 2007-2013 through a descriptive cross-sectional method. The statistical population of the study included all students of nursing and midwifery faculty of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, among whom 291 were selected as the statistical sample. The research instrument was a researcher-made questionnaire, and the statistical analysis of the data was done using SPSS 20 software in two levels of descriptive and inferential statistics.
Results: The results showed that faculty members in terms of application of each of the six effective teaching components obtained a total average and standard deviation of 82.83 ± 13.02 from a total of 120 grades. According to the standard table of desirability, the effective teaching function of the faculty members was generally quite satisfactory, and by component differentiation, in the components of teaching design, teaching, classroom management, and evaluation at a rather favorable level and in components Human relationships and desirable personality characteristics have been at the optimum level.
Conclusion: Overall, the results of the present study indicate that the overall performance of faculty members is ineffective, which indicates that there are weaknesses and serious problems in the effective teaching performance of the professors. Accordingly, it is essential to consider the issue of faculty faculty empowerment.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • effective teaching
  • Faculty Members
  • evaluation
  • Students

References

  1. Sahebi M, Nasri M, Gholinia H. Identification of assessment criteria for teaching professors with emphasis on engineering education. Journal of Technology Education, 2013;7 (4): 315-324.[Persian].
  2. Korsun I. The formation of learners’ motivation to study physics in terms of sustainable development of education in Ukraine. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability. 2017; 19(1):117-128.
  3. Eslamian H, Mirshah Jafari S E, Neyestani M. A comparative study of application measure of effective teaching components by faculty members of Isfahan University based on the results of " Students’ evaluation" and " professors’ Self-evaluation" . Educ Strategy Med Sci. 2018; 11 (1) :40-48.[Persian]
  4. Murray HG. A comprehensive plan for the evaluation of teaching at the University of Queensland. Reflections.1980; 4(3):8-11.
  5. Marsh HW. Distinguishing between Good (Useful) and Bad Workloads on Students’ Evaluations of Teaching. American Educational Research Journal. 2001; 38(1):183-212.
  6. Cashin, WE. Student Ratings of Teaching: The Research Revisited; Instructional Development and Effectiveness Assessment, Manhattan: Center for Faculty Evaluation andDevelopment, Kansas State University;1995.
  7. Young S, Shaw D. Profiles of effective college and university teachers. Journal of Higher Education.1999; 70 (6): 670-686.
  8. Chalkley B, Fournier EJ, Hill AD. Geography teaching in higher education: quality, assessment, and accountability. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 2000; 24 (2):238-245.
  9. Rueda M.“How to make e-learning work for your company”, Workspan.2000; 45(12):3-50.
  10. Marzano RJ. What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 2003.
  11. Berg CL, Lindseth G. Students' perceptive of effective and ineffective nursing instructors. Journal of Nursing Education,2004; 43(12): 565-568.
  12. Muijs D,Campbell J, Kyriakides L, Robinson W.Making the Case for Differntiated Teacher Effectiveness: An overview of Research in Four Key Areas. School Effectiveness and Schooll Improvement,2005;16(1): 51-70.
  13. Miller WR. And Miller, Marie F. Teaching guide at universities; Translation Vida Miri, Tehran: Publication of the field.2004.
  14. Knapper CK, Cropley AJ. Lifelong Learning in Higher Education. 3 thed. London: Kogan Page; 2000.
  15. Dalby T. Theory and Practice of Teaching in a University Mathematics Learning Centre. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 2001; 32(5): 691-696.
  16. Nicoll K, Harrison R. Constructing the Good Teacher in Higher Education: The Discursive Work of Student. Studies in Continuing Education. 2003; 25(1): 23-35.
  17. Codde JR. Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. [Cited 2014 October 04] Aavailable from: https://www.google.com/url?url=https:// www.shadowmountain.
  18. Algozzine B, Beattie J, Bray M, Flowers C, Gretes J, Howely L, et al. Student evaluation of college teaching: A practice in principles. College teaching. 2004; 52(4): 134-141.
  19. Nelson MS. Peer evaluation of teaching: an approach whose time has come. Acad Med. 1998; 73(1): 4-5. [Persian].
  20. Shukurnia A. Absolute, Mohammad Esmaeel. Malayeri, Alireza. Jahanhmardi, Abdolreza. Students' opinions about Ahwaz University of Medical Sciences regarding the evaluation of the professor. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 2002; 1 (2):Special Issue of the 5th National Conference on Medical Education.[Persian].
  21. Eslamian H, Jafari Sani H, Goodarzi Z, Eslamian Z. Study the relationship between emotional intelligence and how to apply the standards of effective teaching by faculty Medical Sciences. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2014; 14 (8) :685-694.[Persian]
  22. Joshi R, Ling FW, Jaeger J. Assessment of a 360-degree instrument to evaluate residents competency in interpersonal and communication skills. Acad Med 2004;79(5):458-463.
  23. Luskova M, Hudakova M. Approaches to teachers’ performance assessment for enhancing qualityof education at universities. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences.2013; 106, 476-484.
  24. Rahnema Sh, Jennings F, Kroll P. Student perception of the "Student Evaluation of Instruction"form as a tool for assessing instructor's teaching effectiveness. NACTA Journal Sep 2003.[cited 2007 Jan 9]. Available from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_qa4062/is_ 200309/ai_n9301104
  25. Herbert W, & Marsh M. student evaluation of university teaching, educational psychology. 1995; 76(1): 702.
  26. Barrie S.C, Prosser M. An aligned, evidence-based approach to quality assurance for teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Australian Universities Qual ity Forum, Adelaide. June 13-15.
  27. Luskova, M., Hudáková, M.(2013). Approaches to Teachers’ Performance Assessment for Enhancing Quality of Education at Universities. Social and Behavioral Sciences 106(1),476-484.
  28. BeheshtiRad R, Ghalavandi H, Ghale’ei A.R. Faculty Members Performance Evaluation by Nursing Students Urmia University of Medical Sciences . Quarterly of Education Strategies in Medical Sciences. 2014; 6 (4) :223-228.[Persian]
  29. Nobakht M, Rudbari M. in a study to assess students' quality of teaching in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Medicine and Cultivation,2012; 21 (1): 22-26. [Persian].
  30. ShabaniVaraki B, HosseinGholizadeh R. Examining the quality of teaching at the university. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education. 2006: 12 (1), 22-1. [Persian].
  31. Sattari S. Assessing the components of effective teaching from the students perspective. Research Quarterly in Curriculum Planning, Knowledge and Research in Curriculum Planning. 2013;10 (12): 146-134. [Persian].
  32. Salimi J, Ramezani Gh. Identifying the Effective Teaching Components and Assessing the Teaching Condition (Case Study of Applied Science University of Kurdistan Province). Quarterly Journal of Measuring and Evaluation Studies. 2014: 4 (8), 61-33. [Persian].
  33. Tang, T. Teaching evaluation in a public institution of higher education: Factors related to the overall teaching effectiveness.1997, Retrieved from http://www. findarticles.com.
  34. Fenandez J, Matio A. Student & faculty gender in ratings of university teaching quality, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research
  35. San Francisco State University. Assessing teacher effectiveness: An information & background paper.2005, Available in: http: www.sfsu.edu.
  36. Waithanji,N.,  Ndirangu,M.An improvement in instructional quality: can evaluation of teaching make a difference . Quality assurance in education.2005;13(3),183-201.
  37. Parrish D. Promoting Quality Teaching: Phase 1 of a Case Study and Research Initiative for Progressing Evidence-Based Educational Innovations. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ). 2016;7(1):2198-2205.
  38. Eslamian H, Saeedi rezvani M, Fatehi Y. Comparison of the effectiveness of teaching methods of group discussion and lecture on learning and satisfaction of students in teaching of religion and life courses in the secondary school students. Research in Curriculum Planing,2013;10(11):13-23. [Persian]
  39. Kuzmanovic M, Savic G, Gusavac B.A, Makajic-Nikolic D, Panic B. A conjoint-based approach to student evaluations of teaching performance. Expert Systems with Applications. 2013; 40 (10),4083– 4089.
  40. Adham As, Reyhani H, Fatahi, Z. Nakhaee, Nozar. Fassihi Harandi, Tayyebeh. Evaluating Educational Performance of the Faculty Members of Kerman University of Medical Sciences from their Point of View and Students. Developmental steps in medical education. 2005; 2 (1): 25-32. [Persian].