فراتحلیل بررسی کیفیت تدریس معلمان

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکترای فلسفه تعلیم و تربیت، دانشیار، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی؛

2 مدیریت آموزشی، دانشجوی دکتری، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی؛

3 دکترای مدیریت آموزشی، دانشیار، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی.

چکیده

کیفیت یکی از مهم‌ترین مسایلعصر حاضر است که نه تنها در صنعت بلکه در دنیای رقابتی امروزی در آموزش‌وپرورش بیشتر از آن مطرح است چرا که امروزه دیگر سرمایه ملی یک کشور، پول و زمین نیست بلکه دانش و نیروی انسانی آموزش دیده، مبتکر و خلاق می‌باشد.
هدف: پژوهش حاضر به‌منظور مقایسه کیفیت تدریس معلمان با استفاده از شیوه فراتحلیل انجام شد.
روش: تعداد 19 مطالعه از طریق جستجوی اینترنتی در بانک‌های اطلاعاتی خارجی و نیز 3 مطالعه از طریق جستجوی دستی دانشگاه‌های داخل کشور شناسایی و اطلاعات مربوط به آنها کدگذاری گردید.
یافته‌ها: نتایج یافته‌ها نشان داد که کیفیت تدریس در عنصر جنسیت دارای ضریب اثر 1.80 می‌باشد که از نظر شدت اثر دارای اثر بزرگ‌تری می‌باشد. این اثر در سطح    0.05 p <  معنادار می‌باشد. از بین عناصر کیفیت تدریس، بالاترین ضریب اثر مربوط به تعیین روش سبک تدریس با مقدار 1.32 می‌باشد و سپس روش تدریس و ارزیابی یادگیری دانشجو قرار دارند. نتایج روش‌های بررسی تورش انتشار، حاکی از عدم تورش انتشار در نمونه فراتحلیلی بود. با توجه به ناهمگن بودن مطالعات، تحلیل تعدیل‌کننده برای متغیرهای سن و ابزار اندازه‌گیری صورت گرفت که بیانگر تأثیر تعدیل‌کننده متغیر سن در نتایج مطالعات بود. 
نتیجه‌گیری: توجه بیشتر به بحث کیفیت در آموزش به‌خصوص کیفیت تدریس در دانشگاه و فراهم آوردن امکانات رفاهی و توجیه کیفیت در تدریس برای اساتید ضروری به نظر می‌رسد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


Andersen, K. and Miller, E.D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching; Political Science  Politics, 30 (2): 216-219.

Basow, S.A. and Silberg, N.T. (1987). Student evaluations of college professors: Are female and male professors rated differently? Journal of  Educational Psycholog, 79 (3): 308-314.

Bellamy, L.D. and  Evans, D. and Linder, B. and McNeill. G & Raupp.A .(1999). Active learning, team and quality management principles in the engineering classroom. Proceedings of the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education.Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education.

Brent, R., Felder, R.M. (2008). Writing assignments Pathways to connections, clarity, creativity; College Teaching, 2 (2): 43-47.

Bloom, B.S. (2010). Taxonomy of educational objectives1:Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

Burns-Glover, A.L. and Veith, D.J. (1995). Revisiting gender and teaching evaluation. Sex still makes a different. Journal of Social Behanior & Personality, 10 (6): 69-80.

Campbell.W.E. and Smith, K.A. (2009). New paradigms for college teaching. Edina, Minn.: Interaction Book Company.

Centra, J.A. and Gaubatz, N.B. (2000). Is there gender bias in student evaluation of teaching? Journal of Higher Education, 71(1): 17-33.

Deming, W.E .(2004). The new economics. 2d ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Studies.

Diller, K. R. and Barnes, J. W. (2000). Adaptation of total quality methods to the administration of an academic engineering department; Journal of  Engineering Education, 3(1): 249-253.

Ganjy, M., Zahed babolan, A. and Moienikia, M. (2012). A meta-analysis of research on the role of teaching patterns on students' academic achievement; Journal of School Psychology; 1(1): 93- 107. (in Persian).

Goodwin, L.D. and Stevens, E.A. (1993). The influence of gender on university faculty’ members’ perceptions of “good” teaching;  Journal of Higher Education, 64 (2): 166-185.

Gronlund .N. E .(2000). How to write and use instructional objectives. 4th ed. New York: Macmillan.

Grasha, A.F. (1994). A matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model,facilitator, and delegator. College Teaching, 42 (4): 142-149.

Houshmand, A.A. C. N., Papadakis, J.F.,  McDonough, T.W. and Fowler, G. and Markle, S. (2004). Methodology for improving quality of instruction; Journal of Engineering Education, 2(3):117-122.

Jensen, P.A. and Robinson, J.K. (2001). Deming’s quality principles applied to a large lecture course; Journal of Engineering Education, 1(5): 45-50.

Johnson .D. W & Johnson.R.T & Smith.K.A .(1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. 2d ed. Edina,Minn.: Interaction Press.

Joseph.C .(2014). Women More Educated Than Men But Still Paid Less. Yale ;Global, 6 March 2014A Publication of the MacMillan Center.

 Karapetrovic.S & Rajamani.D .(2002). An approach to the application of statistical quality control techniques in engineering courses; Journal of Engineering Education; 3(1): 269–276.

Kenneth.K .(2013). Salary differences: Why do women earn less than men? http://www.alumniportal-deutschland.org.

Kardia, D.B. & Wright. M.C .(2004). Instructor identity: The impact of gender and race on faculty experiences with teaching. Occasional Paper. University of Michican Center for Research on Learning and Teaching.

Kuh, G. D & Nelson. L.T. F & Umbach.P. D .(2004). Aligning faculty and student behavior:Realizing the promise of Greater Expectations; Liberal Education; 90 (4): 24-31.

Lacey.C.H & Saleh.A & Gorman.R .(1998). Teaching nine to five: A study of the teaching styles of male and female professors. Paper presented at the Annual Women in Education Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska, October 11-12.

Latzko .W.J .(2011). Modeling the method: The Deming classroom.Quality Management Journal; 5(1): 46–55.

Lisa.V & Raymond. B. (2001). Teaching in the medical setting: balancing teaching style , learning styles and teachingmethods; Journal of Medical Teacher; 23(1): 610-612.

Litwhiler.D.W & Kiemele.M.J .(2000). TQM and DOE in an undergraduate curriculum: Success stories; Journal of Engineering Education; 2(1): 147–151.

McKeachie, W. (1999). Teaching tips. 10th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

National Survey of Student Engagement .(2005). Exploring different dimensions of student engagement. Bloomington; IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

Singer.E .(1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty; Research in Higher Education; 37(6): 659-679.

Shelnutt .J.W & Buch.K .(1999). Using total quality principles for strategic planning and curriculum revision; Journal of Engineering Education; 3(1): 201–207.

Shuman. L.J., Atman, C.J. and  Wolfe.H .(1999). Applying TQM in the IE classroom: The switch to active learning. Proceedings of the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education.

Summers.D. C. S .(1998). TQM education: Parallels between industry and education. Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education. Washington,D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education.

Starbuck.G.H .(2003). College teaching styles by gender. Paper presented at the Western Social

Science Association Annual Meeting; Las Vegas, NV, April 9-12.

Statham.A & Richardson.L & Cook.J.A .(2007).Gender and university teaching: A negotiated difference. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Tartro.C.N. (1995). Gender effects on student evaluation of faculty; Journal of Research and Development in Education;  28(3): 169-173.

Welch, K. (2004). Sex Differences in Language and the Importance of Context: An Observational Study of Classroom Speech;  Yale University, undergraduate thesis.

Whitworth, J.E., Price, B.A. and  Randall, C.H. (2002). Factors that affect business college students opinion of teaching and learning;  Journal of Business Education, 2(3): 282-289.