KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Öneri Dergisi / 2004 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 22

DEVELOPING EVALUATION CRITERIA OF ACADEMICIANS ’ TEACHING PERFORMANCE: DISCRIMINANT AND LOGISTIC REGRESSION APPLICATIONS

E. Serra YURTKORU
Beril SİPAHİ
Sayfa
203–213
Yayın Tarihi
2004-06-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

This item is followed by “instructors being competent in his/her field” and “exams being a good measuring device”.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Since 1997 students’ course evaluation questionnaire (SCEQ) has been conducted in Business Administration Department of Marmara University to evaluate teaching effectiveness of instructors.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In this study data obtained from 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 questionnaires are used to conduct discriminant and logistic regression analysis.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:This item is followed by “instructors being competent in his/her field” and “exams being a good measuring device”.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2000-2001 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Discriminant Analysis · Logistic Regression Analysis · Course Evaluation

Özet

Since 1997 students’ course evaluation questionnaire (SCEQ) has been conducted in Business Administration Department of Marmara University to evaluate teaching effectiveness of instructors. In this study data obtained from 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 questionnaires are used to conduct discriminant and logistic regression analysis. As a result of these analyses evaluation criteria of academicians’ teaching performance are developed Findings of both the discriminant and logistic regression methods show similar results. In both methods “satisfaction with the way course is conducted” is the most powerful item that discriminates effective instructors from ineffective instructors. This item is followed by “instructors being competent in his/her field” and “exams being a good measuring device”.

Abstract

Since 1997 students’ course evaluation questionnaire (SCEQ) has been conducted in Business Administration Department of Marmara University to evaluate teaching effectiveness of instructors. In this study data obtained from 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 questionnaires are used to conduct discriminant and logistic regression analysis. As a result of these analyses evaluation criteria of academicians’ teaching performance are developed Findings of both the discriminant and logistic regression methods show similar results. In both methods “satisfaction with the way course is conducted” is the most powerful item that discriminates effective instructors from ineffective instructors. This item is followed by “instructors being competent in his/her field” and “exams being a good measuring device”.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

YURTKORU, E. S., SİPAHİ, B. (2004). DEVELOPING EVALUATION CRITERIA OF ACADEMICIANS ’ TEACHING PERFORMANCE: DISCRIMINANT AND LOGISTIC REGRESSION APPLICATIONS. Öneri Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 22, 203–213. https://ajindex.com/articles/36089

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. JOHNSON, P„ CASSELİ, C„ CLOSE, P„ & DUBERLEY, J. (2001). Performance Evaluation and Control Supporting Organizational Change. Management Decision. Vol 39 No 10 pp 841-850
  2. ARNOLD, H.J. & Feldman, D.C. (1986). Organizational Behavior. Singapore, McGraw Hill International Editions [3] AAMODT, M.G. (1996). Applied industrial/organizational psychology. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Pasific Grove. CA
  3. AHMADI, M., HELMS, M. M. & RAISZADEH, F. (2001). Business students1' perceptions of faculty evaluations. The International Journal of Educational Management. Vol 15 No 1 pp 12-22
  4. EMERY, C.R., KRAMER, T.R., & Tl AN, R.G. (2003). Return to Academic Standards: a Critique of Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness. Quality Assurance in Education. Vol 11 No 1 pp 37-46
  5. RADMACHER, S.A. & MARTIN, D.J. (2001). Identifying Significant Predictors of Student Evaluations of Faculty Through Hierarchical Regression Analysis. Journal of Psychology. Vol 135 issue 3 pp 259-269
  6. CRUMBLEY, D.L. & FLIEDNER E. (2002). Accounting administrators’ perceptions of student evaluation of teaching (SET) information. Quality Assurance in Education. Vol 10 No 4 pp 213-222
  7. LIAW, S. & GOH K. (2003). Evidence and Control of Biases m Student Evaluation of Teaching. The International Journal of Educational Management. Vol 17 No 1 pp 37-43
  8. COBURN, L. (1984). Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance. ERIC/TME Update Series. http://ericae.net/edo/ED289887.htm (Date:12.04.2003
  9. HOBSON, S.M. & TALBOT,D.M. (2001). Understanding Student Evaluations College Teaching. Vol 49. issue 1. pp 26-32
  10. SOJKA, J., GUPTA, A.K. & Deeter-Schmelz, D.R. (2002). Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student Evaluations of Teaching: A Study of similarities and Differences. College Teaching. Vol 20 issue 2 pp 44- 49
  11. TIMPSON, W.W. & DESLEY, A. (1997). Rethinking Student Evaluations and The Improvement of Teaching: instruments for Change at the University of Queensland. Studies in Higher Education. Vol 22 issue 1 pp 55-66
  12. KOH, H.C. & TAN, T. M. (1997) Empirical Investigation of the Factors Affecting SET Results. The International Journal of Educational Management. Vol 11 No4pp 170-178
  13. McKINNEY, K.(1997). What Do Students Ratings Mean? The National Teaching and Learning Forum. Vol 7 No 1 pp 1-4
  14. WHITWORTH, J.E., PRICE, B.A. & RANDALL, C.H. (2002). Factors that Affect College of Business students Opinion of Teaching and learning. Journal of Eduction for Bu