نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 1و 3مدرس پردیس فاطمه زهرا (س)، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، اصفهان، ایران

2 2استاد گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

3 4استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه کاشان، کاشان، ایران

چکیده

هدف پژوهش حاضر، در مرحله اول تهیه ابزاری مناسب برای ارزشیابی از واحد درسی بوده است. ادبیات تحقیق نشان می‌دهد ابزار ارزشیابی از واحد درسی باید مؤلفه‌های الف) مواردی که به دانشجویان در یادگیری کمک می‌کند، شامل شرایط یادگیری، منابع یادگیری، خدمات حمایتی و کیفیت تدریس؛ ب) سطح انگیزه و میزان درگیری دانشجویان با تکالیف یادگیری و ج) رضایت کلی دانشجویان از درس را مورد سنجش قرار دهد. در مرحله دوم، اجرای ابزار تهیه شده به منظور ارزشیابی واحد درسی «روش‌های استفاده از منابع یادگیری» بوده است. جامعه آماری شامل کلیه دانشجو معلمان دوره کارشناسی ناپیوسته رشته آموزش ابتدایی مرکز آموزش عالی شهید رجایی دانشگاه فرهنگیان اصفهان بوده است. ابزار مذکور پرسشنامه‌ای محقق ساخته شامل 10 سؤال بسته پاسخ در مقیاس لیکرت در مورد ویژگی‌هایی شامل اهداف یادگیری، تجربیات یادگیری، منابع یادگیری، تکالیف یادگیری، بازخوردهای آموزشی، حجم فعالیت‌ها، کیفیت تدریس، انگیزه، تفکر و رضایت کلی و دو سؤال باز پاسخ در مورد بهبود درس مورد نظر بوده است. روایی صوری و محتوایی پرسشنامه توسط پنج تن از اعضای هیأت علمی تعیین گردید. برای تعیین پایایی از روش آلفای کرونباخ استفاده شد که ضریب مربوطه 92/0محاسبه شد. یافته‌های تحقیق نشان می‌دهد بین میانگین‌های دو گروه دانشجومعلمان با سابقه کم و زیاد در ده ویژگی واحد درسی مورد نظر تفاوت معناداری وجود ندارد. همچنین میانگین‌های دو گروه نشان می‌دهد دانشجویان در هر دو گروه بالاترین اهمیت را برای ارائه بازخوردهای آموزشی قائل هستند. به منظور تحلیل سؤالات بازپاسخ از روش مقوله‌بندی استفاده شد همچنین، راهکارهای بهبود تدریس در سه مقوله شامل: موارد مربوط به مدرس، واحد درسی و دانشجو طبقه‌بندی گردید

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis of the course evaluation principles and their implementations by teacher students of Shahid Rajaee Educational Center of Isfahan , Farhangian University

نویسندگان [English]

  • afsaneh kalbasi 1
  • Ahmadreza Nasr 2
  • Pooran Khorushi 1
  • Zeinab sadat Athari 3

چکیده [English]

Providing a suitable instrument for the course evaluation was the primary purpose of the present study. What being indicated from this research is that some necessary features are acquired for the course evaluation instruments as: A) the points which help the students in learning including learning condition, learning sources, supportive services, and teaching quality B) the motivation level and the degree of the students' involvement with the learning tasks . C) the students' general satisfaction of the course. Provided instruments, then, were used so as to evaluate the teaching courses" the methods of using learning courses". All the university students majoring in teaching primary education in Shahid Rajaie Center at Isfahan University were chosen as the statistical population. Considering the Likert scale, a researcher-made questionnaire including 10 closed-ended questions was used, focusing on the learning objectives, learning experiences, learning sources, learning tasks, educational feedbacks, activities volume, teaching quality, motivation, thought and general satisfaction. Two open-ended questions, also, have been used regarding the course improvement. The face and content validity of the questionnaire were determined by the five faculty members and in order to determine the reliability, the Coronbach alpha method was applied the coefficient of which was 0.92.the findings showed that there was not a significant difference between the two teacher- student groups' mean scores, with low or high records, in those ten features. The mean score of the two groups indicates that the students in either of the groups had the highest emphasize on presenting educational feedbacks. In order that the open-ended questions to be analyzed, the method of itemizing was applied and course improvement techniques, also, have been categorized considering 3 items as: the professor, course and the students.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • course evaluation
  • curriculum modification
  • educational feedback

Andalib, B. Ahmadi, Gh. (2007). The degree of effective teaching criteria application at Islamic Azad university, Khorasgan branch from the standpoint of the students in educational year 2006-7. Journal of knowledge and research in educational sciences. Islamic Azad university, Khorasgan branch, Isfahan. 15. 67-82. Bowling. N. A. (2008) . Does the relationship between student ratings of course easiness and course quality vary across schools? The role of schools academic rankings. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 33)4(,455-464. Brennan, J., R. Brighton, N. Moon, J. Richardson, J. Rindl, and Williams, R. (2002). Collecting and using student feedback on quality and standards of learning and teaching in higher education: a report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. London: HEFCE Clayson, D. E. and Haley D. A.( 1990). student evaluations in marketing: what is actually being measured? Journal of Marketing Education 12(3), 9-17. Cook-Sather .A (2009).From traditional accountability to shared responsibility: the benefits and challenges of student consultants gathering midcourse feedback in college classrooms. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 34(2), 231-241. Combs. K. L., Gibson, S. K. & Hays , J.M. (2008). Enhancing Curriculum and delivery : linking assessment to learning objectives. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 33(1), 87-102. Diamond, M. R.( 2004). The usefulness of structured mid-term feedback as a catalyst for change in higher education classes. Active Learning in Education, 5( 3), 217-231. Dulz ,T. and P. Lyons. (2000). student evaluations: help or hindrance? Journal of the Academy of Business Education, Available online at: http://www.Abe.villanova.edu/proc2000/n038.pdf Fisher, R. & Miller, D. (2008). Responding to student expectations: partnership approach to course evaluation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 33(2), 191-202. Hendry, G., R. Cumming, P. Lyon , and J. Gordon. (2001). student-centered course evaluation in a four-year, problem based medical program: issues in collection and management of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 26(4), 327-339. Jones . S., & B. Tucker.( 2005). Course evaluation on the web(CEW) makes a difference to GCEQ results. Paper presented at the Making a Difference: 2005 Evaluation and Assessment Conference. Sydney, November. Kim, C., E. Damewood, and N. Hodge.( 2000). Professor attitude: its effect on teaching evaluations. Journal of Management Education 24(4), 458-473. Laverie . D. A.( 2002). Improving teaching through improving evaluation: a guide to course portfolios. Journal of Marketing Education 24(2), 104-113. Leis-e-Safar, Z. Ahmadi, Gh & Sa'adatmand, z. (2010). The standpoint of faculty members of Islamic Azad university, Khorasgan branch about the professor's evaluation by the student and the student's evaluation by the professor. Journal of knowledge and research in educational sciences. Azad university, Khorasgan branch. 27. 247-258. Ma'roofi, Y. Kiamanesh, A. MehrMohammadi, M. and Ali Asgari, M. (2007). Evaluation of teaching quality in higher education: examining some viewpoints. Curriculum studies periodical. 5. 81-112. Nasr, A., Etemadizadeh, H. and Nili, M.(2011). Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Curriculum Development in Higher Education. University of Isfahan Publication. Oliver, B., Tucker. B., Gupta. R. & Yeo , S. (2008). eVALUate : an evaluation instrument for measuring student perceptions of their engagement and learning outcomes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 33(6), 619-630. Pounder. J. S. (2008). Transformational Classroom leadership: a novel approach to evaluating classroom performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 33( 3), 233-243. Shakournia A, Elhampour H, mozafari A, DashtBozorgi B. Ten Year Trends in Faculty Members' Evaluation Results in Jondi Shapour University of Medical Sciences. Iranian Journal of Medical Education.2008;7(2):309-316. Sorensen, K. L., & Reiner C.( 2003). Charting the uncharted seas of online student ratings of instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 96, 1-24.