SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitim ve Bilim / 2013 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 170

Turkish adaptation of student evaluations of educational quality questionnaire and determination of teaching dimensions defining efficient college ınstructors

Eğitim süreci öğrenci değerlendirmeleri ölçeği’nin türkçeye uyarlama çalışması ve etkili öğretim elemanlarını tanımlayan alt boyutların belirlenmesi

Sevgi ÖZGÜNGÖR
Pages
78–94
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Finally, although all subscales were efficient in discriminating the instructors nominated as the best and the worst, four subscales emerged especially important; Instructor Enthusiasm, Group Interaction, Learning/Value and Organization/clarity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to assess the validity and reliability of SEEQ for Turkish College students and to determine the dimensions that best discriminate the instructors who were nominated as the best and the worst by students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data was collected from a total of 693 college students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, although all subscales were efficient in discriminating the instructors nominated as the best and the worst, four subscales emerged especially important; Instructor Enthusiasm, Group Interaction, Learning/Value and Organization/clarity.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to assess the validity and reliability of SEEQ for Turkish College students and to determine the dimensions that best discriminate the instructors who were nominated as the best and the worst by students. Data was collected from a total of 693 college students. Both explanatory and confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the 9-factor structure of SEEQ observed in the previous studies. Reliability scores ranging from .77 to .95 along with the validity results were supportive of the equivalency of Turkish and English forms of the SEEQ. Finally, although all subscales were efficient in discriminating the instructors nominated as the best and the worst, four subscales emerged especially important; Instructor Enthusiasm, Group Interaction, Learning/Value and Organization/clarity.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, yükseköğretimde kaliteyi artırmaya yönelik çalışmaların önemli bir parçası haline gelen öğretim elemanlarının yeterliklerine ilişkin öğrenci algılarını belirlemek amacıyla tüm dünyada en sık kullanılan ölçüm aracı olan SEEÖ’nün Türkçeye uyarlama çalışmalarının yapılması ve öğrenciler tarafından en iyi ve en kötü olarak algılanan öğretim elemanlarını ayırmada en etkili olan öğretim etkinlikleri boyutlarının ESÖD aracılığıyla belirlenmesidir. Bu amaçla, toplam 693 üniversite öğrencisinden elde edilen verilere yönelik yapılan analizler ölçeğin 9 alt boyutlu yapısını büyük oranda desteklemiş ve Türk üniversite öğrencileri için kullanılabilir olduğunu göstermiştir. Yapılan diskriminat analizi sonuçları ise öğrenciler tarafından en iyi ve en kötü olarak belirlenen öğretim elemanlarını en iyi ayıran öğretim etkinliği alt boyutlarının sırasıyla isteklilik, sınıf içi etkileşim, öğrenme/akademik yarar ve planlılık/açıklık alt boyutları olduğunu göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZGÜNGÖR, S. (2022). Turkish adaptation of student evaluations of educational quality questionnaire and determination of teaching dimensions defining efficient college ınstructors. Eğitim ve Bilim, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 170, 78–94. https://ajindex.com/articles/497899

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Apodaca, P. & Grad, H. (2005). The dimensionality of student ratings of teaching: İntegration of uni- and multidimensional models. Studies in Higher Education, 30, (6), 723–748.
  2. Berliner, D. C. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 205–213.
  3. Blair, T.R., Rupley, W.H. & Nichols, W. (2007). The effective teacher of reading: Considering the “What” and “How” of ınstruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(5), 432–438.
  4. Bolyard, J. J. & Moyer-Packenham, P. S. (2008). A review of the literature on mathematics and science teacher quality. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(4), 509-535.
  5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö., Özkahveci, Ö. & Demirel, F. (2004). Güdülenme ve Öğrenme Stratejileri Ölçeğinin Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 4 (2), 207-239.
  6. Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 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.
  7. Creemers, B. P. M. & Kyriakides, 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. Devlin, M. & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research and Development, 29, (2), 111 - 124. Epting, L., Zinn, T., Buskist, C. & Buskist, W. (2004). Student perspectives on the distinction between ideal and typical teachers. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 181-183.
  8. Feldman, K. A. (1976). The superior college teacher from the student’s view. Research in Higher Education, 5, 243-288.
  9. Feldman, K. A. 1988. Effective college teaching from the students’ and faculty’s viewpoint. Research in Higher Education 28:291-344.
  10. Feldman, K. A. (1996). Identifying exemplary teaching: Using data from course and teacher evaluations. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 41–50.
  11. Flynn, N. (2007) What do effective teachers of literacy do? Subject knowledge and pedagogical choices for literacy. Literacy, 41 I(3), 137-146.
  12. Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring course workload in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 743-751.
  13. Gökçe, E. (200