تحلیل و مقایسه نرخ‌های پاسخ به ارزشیابی‌های درون -کلاسی و برخط از کیفیت تدریس اعضای هیات علمی (مطالعه موردی: دانشگاه اصفهان)

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای علوم تربیتی

2 دانشیار گروه علوم تربیتی دانشگاه اصفهان

3 کارشناس دفتر نظارت و ارزشیابی دانشگاه اصفهان

4 کار شناس ارشد مدیریت آموزشی

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر به منظور تعیین و مقایسه اختلافات بین نرخ‌های پاسخ ارزشیابی‌های درون ـ کلاسی و برخط از کیفیت تدریس اعضای هیات علمی و کفایت آنها در سه نیمسال تحصیلی دانشگاه اصفهان انجام گرفته است. روش پژوهش از نوع زمینه‌یابی تداومی و جامعه آماری آن شامل کلیه دانشجویان و اعضای هیات علمی دانشگاه اصفهان بوده است. نمونه آماری دانشجویان در طول پژوهش مجموعاً 11673نفر (8327 نفر شرکت‌کننده در ارزشیابی درون ـ کلاسی و 3346 نفر شرکت‌کننده در ارزشیابی برخط) و نمونه آماری اعضای هیات علمی مجموعاً 259 نفر را شامل می‌شد. با عنایت به ماهیت پژوهش، فقط آن گروه از اعضای هیات علمی که به طور همزمان با دو روش ارزشیابی شده بودند انتخاب گردیدند. ابزار پژوهش پرسشنامه ارزشیابی کیفیت تدریس بوده است که به صورت درون ـ کلاسی و برخط در اختیار دانشجویان قرار گرفته است. نتایج پژوهش نشان داد، در طول مطالعه، نرخ پاسخ به ارزشیابی برخط رو به رشد و با رشدی تقریباً هم‌تراز نرخ ارزشیابی درون ـ کلاسی همراه بوده است، نتیجه دیگر حاکی از آن است که با فراهم‌سازی زمینه مناسب می‌توان به کفایت‌های لازم در نرخ پاسخ‌های برخط دست یافت. 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis and comparing the response rates of in-class and online evaluations on teaching quality of faculty members (case study: Isfahan University)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Alireza Shavakhi 1
  • Ahmadreza Nasr 2
  • Mariam Ansari 1
  • Laleh Safaei Pirooz 3
  • Batoul Jafari Harandi 4
چکیده [English]

The purpose of the present research was to determine and compare the differences between the rate of responses to paper and online evaluations of the teaching quality of faculty members and their competence in three semesters in Isfahan University. The research was of longitudinal survey and the statistical social consisted of all students and faculty members in Isfahan University. The statistical sample of students included 11673 individuals (8327 participants in paper evaluation and 3346 participants in online evaluation). The statistical sample of the faculty members included 259 individuals. Regarding the nature of the research, the faculty members who were evaluated simultaneously by both methods were only selected. The research tool was the evaluation questionnaire of teaching quality, which was made available for the students both in paper and online form. The results from the research indicated that during the research, the rate of responses to the online evaluation was increasing with a growth nearly equal to that of paper evaluation. The results also indicated that the necessary adequacy in the rate of responses to online evaluation can be reached by providing appropriate backgrounds.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • In-class evaluation
  • On-line evaluation
  • Response rate
  • teaching quality
  • faculty members

بازرگان، عباس (1380). ارزشیابی آموزشی. تهران: سمت. چاپ اول.

شعبانی ورکی، بختیار و حسین قلی‌زاده، رضوان (1385). بررسی کیفیت تدریس در دانشگاه. فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی در آموزش عالی، شماره 39، صص: 22- 1.

گیج آن- ال (1987). مبانی علمی هنر تدریس. ترجمه محمود مهر محمدی (1374). تهران: انتشارات مدرسه.

 

Ballantyne, C. (2005). Moving student evaluation of teaching online: reporting pilot outcomes and issues with a focus on how to increase student response rate. Paper presented at the 2005 Australasian evaluations forum: university learning and reaching: evaluating and enhancing the experience, UNSW, Sydney, 28-29 November.

Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. C., Kuh, G. D., Kennedy, J. M., & Ouimet, J. A. (2003). College student responses to web and paper surveys; Research in Higher Education, 44 (1), 1-19.

Cook, C., F. Heath, R. L. & Thompson. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web or internet-based surveys. Educational and psychological measurement 60, no. 6:821-836.

Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P. & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: perceptions of burden; Social Science Computer Review, 19 (2), 146–162.

Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P. & Hanna. R. W. (2002). College students’ attitudes toward methods of collecting teaching evaluation: in-class versus online. Journal of education for business 78, no. 2:11-15.

Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Hanna, R. W. & chapman. K. S. (2004). Gathering faculty teaching evaluations by in-class and online surveys: their effects on response retes and evaluations. Assessment & evaluation in higher education 29, no. 5:611-623.

Hastie, M. & palmer. A. (1997). The development of online evaluation instruments to compliment web-based educational resources. Paper presented at the third Australian world wide wed conference, lismore, New South Wales.

Kronholm, E. A., Wisher, R. A., Curnow, C. K. & Poker, F. (1999). The transformation of a distance learning enterprise to an Internet base: from advertising to evaluation; paper presented at the Northern Arizona University NAU/Web99 Conference, Flagstaff, AZ.

Layne, B. H., Decristoforo, J. R., & McGinty, D. (1999). Electronic versus traditional student ratings of instruction; Research in Higher Education, 40 (2), 221-232.

Marsh, H. W. (1983). Multimensional Ratings of teaching Effectiveness by student from different Academic setting and their relation to student/course/instructor characteristic; Journal of Educational psycology, 75. 150-166.

Marsh, Herbert. W. (1986). Students Evalution of university Teaching Dimensionality, Reliability, validity, potential, Biasec and utility; Journal of Educational psycology, Vol. 79, No. 5, pp. 707-756.

Martens, E. & Prosser. M. (1998). What constitutes High Quality Teaching and Learning and How to assure it; Journal of Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 6. p. 1.

Mertler, C. A. (2002). Demonstrating the potential for web- based survey methodology with a cose study. American secondary education, 30, 49-61.

Nair, C. S., weyland. C. & Soediro. S. (2005). Evaluating the student experience: a leap into the future. Paper presented at the 2005 Australasian evaluations forum: university learning and teaching: evaluating and enhancing the experience, UNSW, Sydney, 28-29 November.

Nulty, D, D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment 8 Evaluation in higher Education. Vol. 33. No. 3,301-314.

Ogier, j. (2005). The response rates for online surveys- a hit and miss affair. Paper presented at the 2005 Australasian Evaluations Forum: University Learning and Teaching: Evaluating and Enhancing the Experience, UNSW, Sydney. 28-29 November.

Pearson. (2006). survey tracker plus, available online at: http:// www. Pearsonncs. Com/ surveytracker/ index.htm.

Quinn, D. (2002). Improving online response rates, available online at: http://www. unisanet.unsia.e.dau/ sei/ website/ online-respnrates.asp

Robertson, J. T. E. (2005). Instrument for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Assessment & evaluation in higher education 30, No. 4:387-415.

Salmon, P., Deasy, T., and B. Garrigan. (2004). what escapes the Net? A statistical comparison of responses from paper and web surveys. Paper presented at the 2004 Evaluation Forum: Communicating Evaluation Outcomes: Issues and Approaches, Melbourne, Australi. 24-25 November.

Sax. 1. J., Gilmartin. S. k & Bryan. A. (2003). Assessimg response ratese and nonrespomse in web rnd paper surveys; Research in Higher Education. vol. 44. 409-39.

Schillewaert, N., langerak. T. & duhamec. (1998). Non- probability sampling for www surveys: a comparision of methods. Journal of the market research society, 40, 307- 322.

Seal, K. C., & Przasnyski. ZH (2001). Using the World Wide Web for teaching improvement. Computers and education 36: 33-40.

Simpson, P. M. & Siguaw (2000). Student evaluations of teaching: an exploratory study of the faculty response; Journal of Marketing Education, 22 (3), 199–213.

Solomon, D, J. (2001). Conducting web- based surverys. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 7 (19). Availalce on line: http://pare on line. Net/getun. Asp? v=7&n=1.