ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Original Research

Authors

Aghamirzaee   T. (1 )
Salehi Omran   E. (* )
Rahimpour Kami   B. (2 )






(* ) Education Department, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Mazandaran University, Babolsar, Iran
(1 ) Department of Management, Faculty of IT, Mazandaran Science & Technology University, Babol, Iran
(2 ) Computer Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mazandaran Science & Technology University, Babol, Iran

Correspondence

Address: Educational Sciences Department, Human & Social Sciences Faculty, Mazandaran University Paradise, Babolsar, Iran
Phone: +981125242200
Fax: +981125342602
edpes60@hotmail.com

Article History

Received:  February  9, 2013
Accepted:  September 22, 2013
ePublished:  March 17, 2014

BRIEF TEXT


… [1-4] Evaluation by the students is one of the most common methods to evaluate university teacher in many countries and Iran as well [5, 6]. University teachers’ evaluation is performed to determine the level of the university teachers’ achievement to educational goals. Collection of the necessary information about the university teacher’s educational activities and selection of some criteria to compare the obtained information must be done to judge the level of the university teachers’ achievement to the determined aims and to perform university teachers’ evaluation correctly. … [7, 8] [9]. University teachers’ evaluation by students might be affected by various factors such as academic performance of the student, student’s academic course, the university teachers’ sex and the student’s sex, kind of lesson, university teachers’ scientific-educational ability, university teachers’ social behavior, the lesson presentation time , university teachers’ scientific rank, university teachers’ educational experience, university teachers’ employment status [9, 7, 11-19]. … [10]

Recently, various studies were done to evaluate the university teachers, and some of these studies commented in favor of evaluation by the students, while others are disagreed [5, 7, 8]. Although many studies have been conducted on effective factors on university teacher evaluation, but these studies have some weaknesses due to the small sample size and lack of designing and using a comprehensive questionnaire.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effective underlying factors on the university teachers’ evaluation by students.

The method is descriptive-analytic.

This study was done on 12339 students who were at least for two semesters at Mazandaran University of Sciences and Technologies up to the second semester of 2011-12 academic years, . The study was performed during second semester of 2011-12 academic years.

12339 students were selected.

A questionnaire was used. The total mean of the students was used as an indicator to determine the status of the student’s academic performance. To this aim, students were divided into three groups including ‘excellent’ (GPA more than 17), ‘average’ (GPA between 14.5 and 16.5) and ‘weak’ (GPA less than 12), and other scores were excluded. Validity of the questionnaire, containing information about teacher evaluation, was confirmed, by experts. Reliability of the questionnaire was estimated 0.89 using Cronbach's alpha. The questionnaire was consisted of two parts. The first part was related to the university teachers’ evaluation information, and the second part, contained demographic information. For the first part using Likert’s five-item range, the needed scores were as ‘very low’ (1 score), ‘low’ (2 scores), ‘medium’ (3 scores), ‘high’ (4 scores) and ‘very high’ (5 scores). Finally, 12338 questionnaires were analyzed. Data were analyzed by SPSS 17 software, using One-way ANOVA test (to compare more than two variables, i. e. to compare the average score of evaluating the university teachers by the students with the status of the academic performance of the student, student’s academic course, kind of the lesson in which the university teacher has been evaluated by the student, lesson presentation time, academic status and the university teachers teaching experience), Tukey test (for comparison of each pair mutually), Pearson's correlation coefficient (to consider the correlation between scientific-educational ability and social behavior of the university teacher) and Independent-T test (to compare the average score of the university teacher evaluation by students, based on lecturers’ gender, student’s gender and marital status of the university teacher).

There was a significant difference between the mean score of the university teacher evaluation with low academic performance student and the mean score of the university teacher evaluation with medium and high academic performance student. There was a significant difference between the mean score of university teacher evaluation evaluated by male and female students. There was a significant difference between the mean score of university teacher evaluation by the graduate and undergraduate students. There was a significant difference between the mean score of evaluating the female and male university teachers. There was no significant difference between the mean score of evaluating the official and the non-official university teachers. There was a significant difference between the mean evaluation score in the general lessons and basic courses and main and specialized courses. There was a significant difference for the mean score of university teacher evaluation according to the university teachers’ status. There was a significant difference between the score of evaluating the educators and the score of evaluating the instructors and the assistants; but there was no significant difference between the mean evaluation scores for other educational ranks. There was a significant difference between the mean evaluation score of the married and unmarried university teachers. There was a significant difference between the evaluation scores of the university teachers according to teaching experience. There was a significant difference between the evaluation scores of the university teacher according to lesson presentation time. There was a significant and positive correlation at 100% confidence level for the correlation between scientific-educational ability and social behavior of the university teacher.

There are different results from other studies regarding the academic performance status of the student [11-13]. About the results of the present study concerning the student’s academic course, some other studies report the same results [13], but other studies report different results [14]. According to the results regarding students’ gender, some other studies report the same results [13-16], whereas others report different results [17]. Some other studies report the same results on lesson presentation time [16], but other studies report different results [18, 19]. … [20, 21]

University teachers’ evaluation by students, alone, cannot be a correct criterion to evaluate their performance, and it is necessary that other ways such as peer-assessment and self-assessment to be used.

Non-declared

The components of the status of the academic performance of the student, the university teacher’ gender and the student’s gender, the student’s academic course, kind of the lesson, scientific-educational ability of the university teachers, the university teachers’ academic status and teaching experience lesson presentation time the and marital status of the university teacher are effective on the students’ evaluation, but the university teachers’ employment status has no correlation with this evaluation.

Non-declared

Non-declared

Non-declared

Non-declared

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Ghoorchian NG. Analysis of cube of quality in the higher education system. Res Periodic Prog High Educ. 1994;7,8:11-20. [Persian]
[2]Segers M, Dochy F. Quality assurance in higher education: Theoretical consideration and empirical evidence. Stud Educ Eval. 1996;22(2):115-37.
[3]Bazargan A. Educational evaluation: Concepts, Patterns and activity mechanism. Tehran: Samt; 2004. [Persian]
[4]Hasanzadeh Taheri MM, Riyasari HR, Miri MR, Davari MH, Hajiabadi MR. Survey of observing of educational rules and regulations by educational staffs in different faculties of Birjand University of Medical Sciences. J Birjand Uni Med Sci. 2009;16(1):58-64. [Persian]
[5]Amini M, Honardar M. The view of faculties and medical students about evaluation of faculty teaching experiences. Koomesh. 2008;9(3):171-8. [Persian]
[6]Thompson Bowles L. The evaluation of teaching. Med Teach. 2000;22(3):221-4.
[7]Shakournia AH, Motlagh MA, Malayeri A, Jahan Mardi A, Kamili Sani H. The view of Jondishapour Medical University students about faculty evaluation. Iranian J Edu Res. 2005;5(2):101-10. [Persian]
[8]Green ME, Ellis CL, Fremont P, Batty H. Faculty evaluation in departments of family medicine: Do our universities measure up?. Med Educ. 1998;32(6):597-606.
[9]Green ME, Ellis CL, Fremont P, Batty H. Faculty evaluation in departments of family medicine: Do our universities measure up?. Med Educ. 1998;32(6):597-606.
[10]Seif A. Educational Measurement, assessment and evaluation . 4th ed. Tehran: Duran Publication; 2004. [Persian]
[11]Aultman, LP. An unexpected benefit of formative student evaluations. Coll Teach. 2006;54(3):251-85.
[12]Afshar M, Hasanzadeh Taheri M, Ryasi H, Naseri M. Evaluation of faculty members by students with different educational development. J Birjand Uni Med Sci. 2010;17(2):118-26.
[13]Motlagh M, Shakournia A, Elhampour H. Correlation between students GPA and evaluation score of teacher. Iranian J Med Educ. 2002;2(0):40-1. [Persian]
[14]Vakily A, Haji Aghajany S, Rashideepour A, Ghorbani R. Factors affecting teachers 'evaluation of students' perspective. Koomesh. 2010;2(38):93-103. [Persian]
[15]Javahery Zadeh N. Factors affecting the evaluation of academic performance by students of Islamic Azad University, Boroujerd Branch. J Educ Sci. 2007;1(3):43-63. [Persian]
[16]Germain ML, Scandura TA. A grade inflation and student individual differences as systematic bias in faculty evaluations. J Instruct Psychol. 2005;32(1):58-67.
[17]Maroufi Y, Kianmanesh A, Mehr-Mohammadi M, Ali Asghari M. Evaluation teaching quality in higher education: Assessment of some visions. J Curriculum Stud. 2007;2(5):81-112. [Persian]
[18]Ahanchian M. Opposing effects of gender on student evaluations of faculty member. Psychol Educ sci. 2004;33(1):183-200. [Persian]
[19]Seif A .Teacher evaluation using student’s view point. Is it reliable? Psycho Res. 1991;2(1):12-24.
[20]Aleamoni LM. Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1988. J Pers Eval Educ. 1999;13(2):153-66.
[21]Dehghan M, Nakhaee N. Faculty evaluation by students: a review of criticisms. Stud Dev Med Educ. 2012;9(2):102-9. [Persian]