You are here

Home » Content

Öğrenci Özelliklerine Göre En İyi ve En Kötü Olarak Tanımlanan Öğretim Elemanlarını Yordayan Eğitim Öğretim Süreci Boyutları

Teaching Dimensions Predicting the Instructors Defined as the Best and Worst According to Students’ Characteristics

Journal Name:

  • Ege Ünivesitesi Ege Eğitim Dergisi/Ege Eğitim Online

Publication Year:

  • 2010

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the predictors of the instructors who were perceived as the best or the worst by the students changed depending on the students’ characteristics including gender, academic achievement, value placed to the course content and self efficacy. A total of 766 students attending to Pamukkale University, Department of Education responded to the items of Student Evaluation of Educational Quality and Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. According to the results, although the order of the importance of the variables changed depending on the students’ characteristics, instructor enthusiasm, learning and academic value and interaction subcomponents were significant for all students regardless of students’ characteristics. More importantly, the predictive values of the sub-components were very low for the students who had low levels of academic achievement, did not value the content of the course or those who had low efficacy beliefs. These results support the concerns over the validity of students’ evaluations at least for some students.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın temel amacı üniversite öğrencilerinin en iyi ve en kötü olarak tanımladıkları öğretim elemanlarını yordayan eğitim öğretim etkinlikleri alt boyutlarının öğrencilerin cinsiyeti, akademik başarı durumları, derse verdikleri değer ve öz yeterlilik algılarına göre değişip değişmediğinin belirlenmesidir. Bu amaçla Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesine devam etmekte olan toplam (507 kız ve 259 erkek) 766 öğrenciye Eğitim Süreci Öğrenci Değerlendirme Ölçeği ve Güdülenme ve Öğrenme Stratejileri Ölçeğinin ilgili maddeleri uygulanmıştır. Bulgular önem sırası değişmekle birlikte isteklilik, öğrenme ve akademik yarar ve etkileşim boyutlarının tüm öğrenciler için önemli olduğunu, diğer boyutların öneminin öğrenci özelliklerine göre değiştiğini göstermektedir. Ancak, daha önemli bulgu öğrenci değerlendirmelerinin iyi ve kötü olarak tanımlanan öğretim elemanlarını yordama gücünün akademik başarı düzeyi düşük, derse değer vermeyen ya da öz yeterlilik düzeyleri düşük öğrenciler için daha düşük olduğudur. Bu bulgular öğrenci değerlendirmelerinin geçerliliğine ilişkin kaygıların en azından bazı öğrenciler için geçerli olabileceğini ve öğrenci değerlendirmeleri sırasında geçerliliğe yönelik bu tehdidingöz önünde bulundurulması gereğini ortaya çıkarmaktadır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_5670_11_pp_45-72.pdf
  • 2
45-72
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Arnon, S. ve Reichel, N. (2007). Who is the ideal teacher? Am I? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(5), 441 – 464. Bacon, D. R.ve Novotny, J. (2002). Exploring achievement strivingas a moderator of the grading leniency effect. Journal of Marketing Education 24(1), 4-14. Beishuizen, J. J., Hof, E., Van Putten, C. M., Bouwmeester, S. ve Asscher, J. J. (2001). Students’ and teachers’ cognitions about good teachers. (A. Tolmie, Ed.) British Journal ofEducational Psychology , 71 (2), 185-201. Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 23-34.
Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task value, achievement goal orientations, and attributional beliefs. Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 287-297. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö.,Özkahveci, Ö. veDemirel, F. (2004). GüdülenmeveöğrenmestratejileriölçeğininTürkçeformunungeçerlikvegüvenirlikçalışması.KuramveUygulamadaEğitimBilimleri, 4(2), 207-239. Cashin, W.E. (1995). Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited.IDEA Paper No. 32, September, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. Centra, J.A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 495-518. Chandler, J.A. (1978). The questionable status of student evaluations of teaching.Teaching of Psychology, 5,150-152. Connell, R. (2009). Good teachers on dangerous ground: Towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50(3), 213-229.
Creemers, B.P.M. veKyriakides, L. (2006). Critical analysis of the current approaches to modeling educational effectiveness: The importance of establishing a dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,17(3), 347– 366.
Epting, L., Zinn, T., Buskist, C. ve Buskist, W. (2004). Student perspectives on the distinction between ideal and typical teachers. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 181-183. Feldman, K.A. (1996). Identifying exemplary teaching: Using data from course and teacher evaluations. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 65, 41–50.
70 EgeEğitimDergisi 2010 (11) 2: 45–72
Gökçe, E. (2002). İlköğretimöğrencileriningörüşlerinegöreöğretmenlerinetkililiği.Ankara ÜniversitesiEğitimBilimleriFakültesiDergisi, 35(1-2),111-119.
Greenwald, A.G. (1997). Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52, 1182-1186.
Greenwald, A.G. ve Gillmore, J.M. (1997). No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring course workload in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 743-751.
Grimes, P. W., Millea, M. J. ve Woodruff, T. W. (2004).Grades; who to blame? Student evaluation of teaching and locus of control.Journal of Economic Education,35(2), 129-147.
Helterbran, V.R. (2008). The ideal proffessor: Student perceptions of effective instructor practices, attitudes and skills. Education, 129(1), 125-138.
Karakelle, S. (2005).Öğretmenlerinetkiliöğretmentanımlarınınetkiliöğretmenlikboyutlarınagöreincelenmesi.EğitimveBilim,30(135), 1-10.
Kember, D. ve McNaught, C. (2007). Enhancing university teaching: lessons from research into award winning teachers. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Kızıltepe, Z. (2002). İyi ve etkili öğretmen. EğitimveBilim,27(126), 10-14.
Kulik, J.A. (2001). Student ratings: Validity, utility, and controversy. New Directions for Institutional Research, 109, 9-25.
Leventhal, L. (1975). Teacher rating forms: Critique and reformulation of previous validation designs. Canadian Psychological Review, 16, 269-276.
Liem, A.D., Lau, S. veNie, Y. (2008), The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512.
Ling, R. (2001). Exploration of professional development of excellent middle school teachers in China. Journal of Cahngshu College, 6, 26–30.
Marsh, H.W. (1981). Students' evaluations of tertiary instruction: Testing the applicability of American surveys in an Australian setting. Australian Journal of Education, 25, 177-192.
Marsh, H.W. (1982). Validity of students' evaluations of college teaching: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 264-279.
Marsh, H.W. (1983). Multidimensional ratings of teaching effectiveness by students from different academic settings and their relation to student/course/instructor characteristics.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 150-166.
Öğrenci Özelliklerine Göre En İyi ve En Kötü Olarak Tanımlanan Öğretim Elemanlarını Yordayan
Eğitim Öğretim Süreci Boyutları 71
Marsh, H.W. (1984). Students’ evaluation of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 707-754. Marsh, H.W. (1987). Students' evaluation of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253-388. Marsh, H.W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. İçinde R. P. Perry ve J. C. Smart (Ed.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp.319-384). New York: Springer.
Marsh, H.W. ve Dunkin, M. (1997). Student evaluation of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. İçinde Perry, P. R. ve Smart, J. C. (Ed.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice. (pp. 241-320). Agathon, New York. Marsh, H.W. ve Hocevar, D. (1991). Students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: The stability of mean rating of the same teachers over a 13-year period. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7(4), 303-14. Marsh, H.W. ve Overall, J.U. (1980). Validity of students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness: Cognitive and affective criteria. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 468-475. Marsh, H.W. ve Roche, L.A. (1992). The use of student evaluations of university teaching in different settings: The applicability paradigm. Australian Journal of Education, 36, 278-300. McKeachie, W.J. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52, 1218-1225.
Moore, M.L., Moore, R.S. veMcDonald, R. (2008). Student characteristics and expectations of university classes: A free elicitation approach. College Student Journal, 42(1), 82-89. Murphy, K. R. ve Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Okpala, C.O. ve Ellis, R.R. (2005). The perceptions of college students on teacher quality: A focus on teacher qualifications. Education, 126(2), 374-383.
Onural, H. (2006).Öğretmenadaylarının ideal öğretmenniteliklerineilişkingörüşleri.ÇağdaşEğitimDergisi, 31(327), 29-35.
Oktar, İ. veYazçayır, N. (2008).Öğrencileregöreetkiliöğretmenözellikleri.MilliEğitim, 180, 8-23. Overall, J.U. ve Marsh, H.W. (1980). Students' evaluations of instruction: A longitudinal study of their stability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 321-325.
72 EgeEğitimDergisi 2010 (11) 2: 45–72
Özgüngör, S. (2010a). Identifying dimensions of students' ratings that best predict students' self efficacy, course value and satisfaction.EğitimAraştırmaları, 38, 146-163.
Özgüngör, S. (2010b, Eylül). Öğrenciözelliklerinegöre “en iyi” ve “en kötü” öğretimelemanlarınıyordayanöğretimetkinliği alt boyutları .19.UlusalEğitimBilimleriKurultayı.Lefkoşa: UluslararasıKıbrısÜniversitesi.
Reynolds, D. ve Teddlie, C. (2000). The processes of school effectiveness. İçinde C. Teddlie ve D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer.
Richardson, T.R., veKring, J.P. (1997). Student characteristics and learning or grade orientation influence preferred teaching style. College Student Journal, 31(3), 347.
Schunk, D.H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
Spooren, P. ve Mortelmans, D. (2006). Teacher professionalism and student evaluation of teaching: Will beter teachers receive higher ratings and will better students give higher ratings? Educational Studies, 32(2),201-214.
Strage, A. (2008).Traditional and non-traditional college students' descriptions of the "ideal" professor and the "ideal" course and perceived strengths and limitations. College Student Journal, 42(1), 225-231.
Telli, S., Brok, P. veÇakıroğlu, J. (2008). Teachers' and students' perceptions of the ideal teacher.EğitimveBilim, 33(149), 118-129.
Ubuz, B. ve Sarı, S. (2009). Sınıföğretmeniadaylarınıniyiöğretmenolmaileilgiligörüşleri.OndokuzMayısÜniversitesiEğitimFakültesiDergisi, 28, 53-61.
Young, S.Y. ve Shaw, D.G. (1999).Profiles of effective college and university teachers.The Journal of Higher Education,70(6), 670-686.
Watkins, D., Marsh, H.W. ve Young, D. (1987). Evaluatingtertiary teaching: A New Zealand perspective.Teaching andTeacher Education: An international Journal of Research andStudies, 2:41 -53.
Worthington, A.C. (2002). The impact of student perceptions and characteristics on teaching evaluations: A case study in finance education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education: An International Journal, 27(1), 49-64.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com