[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Archive::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Principles of Transparency::
Contact us::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Volume 11, Issue 1 (March-April 2018) ::
Educ Strategy Med Sci 2018, 11(1): 40-48 Back to browse issues page
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"
Hassan Eslamian1 , Seyyed Ebrahim Mirshah Jafari 2, Mohammadreza Neyestani1
1- University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2- University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran , Jafari@edu.ui.ac.ir
Abstract:   (5123 Views)
Introduction: The evaluation of faculty members' effective teaching performance through student evaluation and teacher self-assessment is one of the most effective methods to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of educational performance, which can provide a platform for improving the quality of teaching professors. In this regard, the present study was conducted with the aim of comparing the level of application of effective teaching components by faculty members of Isfahan University based on two approaches: "student evaluation" and "self-assessment of professors".
Methods: The present study was conducted in the first semester of the academic year of 2011-2013 using descriptive cross-sectional method. The statistical population of the study consisted of faculty members of Isfahan University of Humanities. 60 of them were participated in the study using available sampling method. Each faculty member was evaluated by herself and some of her classmates. Sample selection among the students was based on the total list of courses and classrooms of the participating instructors in the study. Three classrooms were selected randomly from each teacher and a total of 2,210 students participated in the study. A researcher-made questionnaire was used for teaching effective and data analysis was performed using SPSS 22 software and frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation and independent T-test.
Results: Independent T-test showed that the mean of students' evaluation scores was lower than the average of self- evaluation scores of faculty members in all 6 effective teaching components and the difference in meanings was also significant in all components (P ≤ 0.05). Also, the overall performance of teaching professors on basis of student's evaluation was at relatively desirable level, based on professors' self- evaluation results, at desired level.
Conclusions: Considering the different results obtained from the two approaches of evaluation of students and the self-assessment of professors in evaluating the effectiveness of teaching faculty members, it is necessary to evaluate the professors' teaching function in general, while strengthening the ability of faculty self-assessment and closer assessment of faculty members and students, The combination of the two approaches should be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses and improve the teaching performance of the professors.
Keywords: Effective Teaching, Faculty Members, Students’ evaluation, Self-evaluation
Full-Text [PDF 870 kb]   (2010 Downloads)    
Article Type: Original Research | Subject: Health
Received: 2017/08/18 | Accepted: 2017/11/1 | Published: 2018/04/21
References
1. Hatami J, Ahmadzade B, Fathiazar E. [University professors' views on the application of critical thinking on teaching process]. J Res Plan Higher Educ. 2013;19(3):103-19.
2. Parrish D. Promoting Quality Teaching: Phase 1 of a Case Study and Research Initiative for Progressing Evidence-Based Educational Innovations. Liter Inf Comp Educ J. 2016;7(1):2198-205. [DOI:10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2016.0290]
3. Murray HG. A Comprehensive Plan for the Evaluation of Teaching at the University of Queensland. Queensland: Tertiary Education Institute, University of Queensland; 1980.
4. Marsh HW. Distinguishing Between Good (Useful) and Bad Workloads on Students' Evaluations of Teaching. Am Educ Res J. 2016;38(1):183-212. [DOI:10.3102/00028312038001183]
5. Cashin W. Student Ratings of Teaching: The Research Revisited; Instructional Development and Effectiveness Assessment. Manhattan: Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development, Kansas State University, 1995.
6. Young S, Shaw DG. Profiles of Effective College and University Teachers. J Higher Educ. 2016;70(6):670-86. [DOI:10.2307/2649170]
7. Chalkley B, Fournier EJ, Hill AD. Geography Teaching in Higher Education: Quality, assessment, and accountability. J Geograph Higher Educ. 2000;24(2):238-45. [DOI:10.1080/713677380]
8. Rueda M. how to make e-learning work for your company. Workspan. 2000;45(12):3-50.
9. Marzano R. What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD; 2003.
10. Berg CL, Lindseth G. Students' perspectives of effective and ineffective nursing instructors. J Nurs Educ. 2004;43(12):565-8. [PMID]
11. Muijs D, Campbell J, Kyriakides L, Robinson W. Making the Case for Differentiated Teacher Effectiveness: An Overview of Research in Four Key Areas. Sch Effectiveness Sch Improv. 2005;16(1):51-70. [DOI:10.1080/09243450500113985]
12. Miller W, Miller MF. [Teaching guide at universities]. Tehran: Publication of the Field; 2004.
13. Knapper C, Cropley A. Lifelong Learning in Higher Education. 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page; 2000.
14. Dalby T. Theory and practice of teaching in a university mathematics. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol. 2001;32(5):691-6. [DOI:10.1080/00207390110053775]
15. Nicoll K, Harrison R. Constructing the Good Teacher in Higher Education: The discursive work of standards. Stud Continue Educ. 2003;25(1):23-35. [DOI:10.1080/01580370309289]
16. Codde J. Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education 2014 [Available from: https://www.google.com/url?url=
17. Algozzine B, Gretes J, Flowers C, Howley L, Beattie J, Spooner F, et al. Student Evaluation Of College Teaching: A Practice In Search Of Principles. Coll Teach. 2004;52(4):134-41. [DOI:10.3200/CTCH.52.4.134-141]
18. Nelson MS. Peer evaluation of teaching: an approach whose time has come. Acad Med. 1998;73(1):4-5. [DOI:10.1097/00001888-199801000-00004] [PMID]
19. Asadi M, Gholami K, Bolandhemmatan K. The Fundamental Components of Effective Teaching in Higher Education from the Perspective of Students and Faculty Members at University of Kurdistan. J Educ New Thoughts. 2015;11(1):123-46.
20. Shakurnia A. Results of student ratings: Does faculty attitude matter? Iranian J Med Educ. 2012;12(1):33-5.
21. Shaabani Varaki B, Hossaingholizadeh R. Evaluation of college teaching qualities. Q J Res Plann Higher Educ. 2006;12(1):1-21.
22. Luskova M, Hudakova M. Approaches to Teachers' Performance Assessment for Enhancing Quality of Education at Universities. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2013;106:476-84. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.053]
23. Rahnema S, Jennings F, Kroll P. Student perception of the" Student Evaluation of Instruction" form as a tool for assessing instructor's teaching effectiveness. NACTA J. 2003:6-10.
24. Herbert W, Marsh M. Student evaluation of university teaching. Educ Psychol. 1995;76(1):702.
25. Barrie S, Prosser M, editors. An aligned, evidence-based approach to quality assurance for teaching and learning. Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum; 2003.
26. Carr KC, Fullerton J, Severino R, McHugh MK. Barriers to completion of a nurse-midwifery distance education program. Int J E-Learn Distance Educ. 2007;11(1):111-31.
27. Kuzmanovic M, Savic G, Gusavac BA, Makajic-Nikolic D, Panic B. A Conjoint-based approach to student evaluations of teaching performance. Exp Syst Appl. 2013;40(10):4083-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.01.039]
28. Ranjbar M, Vahidshahi K, Mahmoudi M. Viewpoints of the attendings and medical students about the Students' evaluation of the attendings, Mazandaran. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2007;16(56):126-35.
29. Adhami A, Nakhaee N, Fasihi Harandi T, Fattahi Z. Preliminary assessment of the validity and reliability of the evaluation questionnaires by the students regarding teaching methods of the faculty members of Kerman university of medical sciences in 2002-2003. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2005;1(2):121-9.
30. Ziaee M, Miri M, Haji-Abadi M, Azarkar G, Eshbak P. [Academic staff and students' impressions on academic evaluation of students in Birjand University of Medical Sciences and Health Services]. J Birjand Univ Med Sci. 2006;13(1):61-7.
31. Morrison J. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Evaluation. BMJ. 2003;326(7385):385-7. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.326.7385.385] [PMID] [PMCID]
32. Shumway JM, Harden RM, Association for Medical Education in E. AMEE Guide No. 25: The assessment of learning outcomes for the competent and reflective physician. Med Teach. 2003;25(6):569-84. [DOI:10.1080/0142159032000151907] [PMID]
33. Skills TIDoEa. School self-evaluation guidelines post primary. Clarin College, 2016.
34. McDonald B, Boud D. The Impact of Self-assessment on Achievement: The effects of self-assessment training on performance in external examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2010;10(2):209-20. [DOI:10.1080/0969594032000121289]
35. Seif A. Measurement, Measurement and Educational Evaluation. 3rd ed. Tehran: Duran Publishing 2012.
36. Jafari H, Vahidshahi K, Kosaryan M, Mahmoodi M. Comparison between the results of academic staff self assessment and those made by the students, Faculty of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, 2006. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2007;17(57):67-74.
37. Hewson MG, Copeland HL, Fishleder AJ. What's the use of faculty development? Program evaluation using retrospective self-assessments and independent performance ratings. Teach Learn Med. 2001;13(3):153-60. [DOI:10.1207/S15328015TLM1303_4] [PMID]
38. Khoshbakht H, Mirkazemi M, Poursolantani Zarandi S, Sahagholeslami A. [Comparison of the results of self-assessment by faculty members and students, Case study: Physical education faculties of major universities in Khorasan]. he 2nd International Management Conference; Qom: Payame Noor University; 2012.
39. Zolfaghar M, Mehr Mohammadi M. Evaluation of Performance Quality of Humane Science Faculty Members in Payame Noor University in Procedure of Group Problem Solving Classes from Viewpoint of Students and Professors. TLR J. 2013;2(2):1-18.
40. Aghamolaei T, Abedini S. [Comparison of Self and Students' Evaluation of Faculty Members in School of Health of Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences]. Iranian J Med Educ. 2008;7(2):191-9.
41. Azizi K, Aghamolaei T, Parsa N, Dabbaghmanesh T. Comparison of differences in performance evaluation of faculty by students with faculty's self-assessment. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2014;2(3):108. [PMID] [PMCID]
42. Alhija FN-A, Fresko B. Student evaluation of instruction: What can be learned from students' written comments? Stud Educ Eval. 2009;35(1):37-44. [DOI:10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.01.002]
43. Hewson MG. A theory-based faculty development program for clinician-educators. Acad Med. 2000;75(5):498-501. [DOI:10.1097/00001888-200005000-00024] [PMID]
44. Lane JL, Gottlieb RP. Improving the interviewing and self-assessment skills of medical students: is it time to readopt videotaping as an educational tool? Ambul Pediatr. 2004;4(3):244-8. [DOI:10.1367/A03-122R1.1] [PMID]
45. Mattheos N, Nattestad A, Falk-Nilsson E, Attstrom R. The interactive examination: assessing students' self-assessment ability. Med Educ. 2004;38(4):378-89. [DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01788.x] [PMID]
46. Sicaja M, Romic D, Prka Z. Medical students' clinical skills do not match their teachers' expectations: survey at Zagreb University School of Medicine, Croatia. Croat Med J. 2006;47(1):169-75. [PMID] [PMCID]
47. Abdolsamadi HR, Dalband M, Davoodi P, Bakhtiari B, Ahmadimotamayel F, Moghimbeigi A. Comparison of Self-evaluation and Students' Evaluation of Hamadan Dental School Faculty Members. Iranian J Med Educ. 2012;12(2):101-9.
48. Airasian PW, Gullickson A. Teacher Self-Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2006. 186-211 p. [DOI:10.4135/9781412990202.d66]
49. Griffiths CE. Competency assessment of dermatology trainees in the UK. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2004;29(5):571-5. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2004.01569.x] [PMID]
50. 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):458-63. [DOI:10.1097/00001888-200405000-00017] [PMID]
51. Ross JA, Bruce CD. Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional growth. Teach Teach Educ. 2007;23(2):146-59. [DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.035]
52. Tofoghiyan T, Monadi H, Nasrollahi S, Rakhshani MH. [Prioritization of the Effective Teaching Parameters; Comparing the Viewpoints of Students and Teachers of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences]. Bimonthly Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2015;8(1):1-6.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA



XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

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
URL: http://edcbmj.ir/article-1-1310-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 11, Issue 1 (March-April 2018) Back to browse issues page
دوماهنامه علمی- پژوهشی راهبــردهای آموزش در علوم پزشکی Education Strategies in Medical Sciences
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645