• Register
  • Login
  • Persian

Research in Teaching

  1. Home
  2. Identification of Teaching Components in Brand Universities (Case Study Sharif University of Technology)

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

Journal Metrics

News

Publication Ethics

Article Processing Fees

Copyright and Open Access Policy

Open access and Copyright Policy

Plagiarism Approach

Finding Similarity

Archiving Policy

Conflict of Interest

Article Evaluation

Extended Abstract

Conflict of Interest Sheet and Ethical Commitment

Authors Guide APA citation method

Guide for Authors

Identification of Teaching Components in Brand Universities (Case Study Sharif University of Technology)

    Authors

    • ali Keshavarz zadeh 1
    • Khalil Gholami 2
    • Nematollah Azizi 3

    1 Ph.D. Student, Higher Education Development Planning, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Kurdistan University. keshavarz.ali66@gmail.com

    2 Associate Professor of Educational Planning University of Kurdistan, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Kurdistan University, Iran.

    3 Professor of Educational Planning, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Kurdistan University, Iran.

,

Document Type : Research Paper

  • Article Information
  • References
  • Download
  • How to cite
  • Statistics
  • Share

Abstract

Determining the components of teaching in Brand University is considered as one of the most important basic missions of Brand University. The present study was organized with the aim of identifying the components of teaching in brand universities. In this research, the components of teaching include the purpose, content, method, means, evaluation, professor, student and managerial factors and policy-making involved in the educational process of the university. Considering these components, the research for this purpose considers Sharif University of Technology as a successful brand of higher education in the country for its study sample and based on a field study of the university, tries to identify the components of teaching at the brand university. Therefore, considering the type of centralized system of higher education and consequently the general announcement of all regulations and educational topics to universities across the country, this question arises, given the experiences of Sharif University of Technology, and on the other hand, the centralized context. Higher education in the country, what are the most important proposed strategies for teaching at Brand University? Finally, it should be noted that the proposed strategies are solutions that Sharif University of Technology can provide teaching at the level of brand universities at the level of its university and throughout the country. For this purpose, the method of phenomenological qualitative research was used. Based on the above method, sampling was purposeful and the data collection process was performed using semi-structured interviews. The research sample is using purposive sampling method and includes 32 experts of Sharif University of Technology. The data were analyzed at open and axial coding levels. According to the analysis, ten main categories or strategies in two categories of main components and supportive components have been proposed as the most important components of teaching at Brand University. Curriculum content design and development strategies, streamlining of university teaching and learning system, streamlining of university evaluation system and development of human resources planning of university professors as main components and policy strategies, strengthening education management system, adopting future-oriented approach, development Entrepreneurship, development of free education programs and design and development of information infrastructure are considered as supporting components of teaching at Brand University. In addition, each of these components consists of several categories and subcategories and has a specific definition appropriate to the statements of the participants. Therefore, the most important research finding is the identification of nine strategies consisting of; Policy-making, strengthening the education management system, designing and developing curriculum content, streamlining the university education system, streamlining the university evaluation system, adopting a future-oriented approach, developing human resources planning for university professors, entrepreneurship development, developing free education programs and plans And the development of information infrastructure, each of which consists of several categories. Another finding of the research is that in addition to focusing on the main components of teaching, the requirements and prerequisites of teaching at the university have been presented in terms of the type of centralized educational system in the country. It should be noted that the presented classification is based on conceptual and content similarities. On the other hand, according to the studies done from the background and theoretical foundations of the research, the classification has been done, is theoretically approved and can be done operationally. Accordingly, strategies for designing and developing curriculum content, streamlining the university education system, streamlining the university evaluation system, and developing human resource planning for university professors have been proposed as key components in brand teaching at the university. These strategies are directly related to the teaching and learning processes in teaching. Also, policy-making strategies, strengthening the education management system, adopting a future[1]oriented approach, entrepreneurship development, developing free education programs and designing and developing information infrastructure are considered as supporting dimensions of teaching at Brand University. These dimensions play a supporting role for the main dimensions and can be considered as requirements and prerequisites for teaching at Brand University. Therefore, these components are as supportive or supporting factors that can, along with the main factors of the teaching process, contribute to its greater efficiency and effectiveness. The following are the findings and suggestions of research on the components of teaching at Brand University. Research on the components of teaching at the university is, first of all, to find the shortcomings and provide effective solutions; Because it provides a relatively comprehensive picture of university planning and will strengthen the strengths and eliminate the weaknesses in the quality of teaching. As a result, the university must be more effective in planning in-service training courses and optimally anticipate and meet the real needs of the teaching process in this area. Also, it is necessary for the university to negotiate with the government to delegate the necessary authority and independence to design and develop curricula and education in accordance with internal and external conditions, and on the other hand, the special nature and context of the university being industrial. Therefore, it is necessary for university administrators to consider and plan the necessary grounds for the design and development of teaching components in the brand university.

Keywords

  • Components
  • Teaching
  • University
  • Brand
  • Sharif Industry
  • XML
  • PDF 850.81 K
  • RIS
  • EndNote
  • Mendeley
  • BibTeX
  • APA
  • MLA
  • HARVARD
  • CHICAGO
  • VANCOUVER
References
Ali-Choudhury, R., Bennett, R., & Savani, S. (2009). University marketing directors’ views on the components of a university brand’, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 6(1): 11–33.
Areglado, Ronald R.C., Pamela Bradley, & S. Lane. (1996)/ Learning for life, America: Cokwin Press. Ic. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixe methods research, Sage Publications.
Chapleo, C. (2007). Barriers to brand building in UK universities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(1): 23– 32. De Chernatony L. (2010). From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation. Ebrahimzadeh, E. (2004). The teaching process of learning and future open an distance universities. Peak nour - Human Sciences, 1 (2). [in Persian].
Erguvan, D. (2013). Perception of academics towards the impact of foundation universities on Turkish Higher Education. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 13(1): 153–160.
Gal, M. D., borg, &, gal, c. (2004). Quantitative and qualitative research methods in educational sciences and psychology (Volume 2). Publications of Shahid Beheshti University.
Gharakhani, H., Soleimani, M., & Soleimani, A. (1393). Identifying Factors Influencing the Use of Active Teaching Methods by Physical Education Teachers in Ilam Province. Journal of Sport Management and Motor Behavior, 11 (1). [in Persian]
ghobayee, M. (2017). Branding in higher education; studying and analyzing the effect of brand equity on customer responses in the education industry. MSc, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Kharazmi University. [in Persian]
Ismail, H. A. (2016). Branding Higher Education Institutions: What It Takes to be Branded. Springer Science Business Media Singapore, Fast forwarding Higher Education Institutions for Global Challenges, DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-603-4_13. 152 ?  
Kidouzi, A., & Mohammadi Hosseini, S, A. (2017). The mental image of the academic validity of the university and its relation with the improvement of services in higher education: the test of the mediating role of communication quality.
Liaqatdar, M., Abedi, M., Jafari, S., & Bahrami, F. (2004) Comparing the effect of group discussion teaching method with lecture teaching method on students' academic achievement and communication skills. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 3 (10).
Mampaey, J. (2018). Brand Communication in Flemish Higher Education: a Comparison between Types of Institutions. In Competition in Higher Education Branding and Marketing. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58527-7_4
Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education’, Higher Education 52(1): 1–39.
Mohammadi Khaneghahi, M., & Hosseinzadeh, O. A. (1394). Scientific Journal of Education and Evaluation, 8 (31).
 Noori Mokhtari, J., Abbas, E., Fatemeh, & A., Nahid. (1389). The Importance of Pattern-Based Teaching in Nursing Students' Education. Training Strategies (Training Strategies in Medical Sciences). 3 (4). [in Persian[. Rahimian, A. (2018). Branding University; New Need for Higher Education (Case Study; Payame Noor University of Karaj). Management and Planning Quarterly in Educational Systems, 11 (1), 1. [in Persian].
Tabrizi, M. (2011). Qualitative content analysis from the perspective of deductive and inductive approaches. Journal of Social Sciences, (4). [in Persian].
Tas, A., & Ergin, E. A. (2012). Key factors for student recruitment: The issue of university branding. International Business Research, 5(10), 146-153.
Sheikhzadeh, M., & Samari, Sh. (2010). A study of teaching methods of professors of Islamic Azad University in West Azerbaijan province. Educational Management Research, 1 (3), 71-
Sarmad, Z., Bazargan, AS., & Hejazi, A. (2016). Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences. Informed publishing. QS. (2018). International students. A new survey of student expectations, first published at May 15, 2018.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1-14
    • Article View: 755
    • PDF Download: 566
Research in Teaching
Volume 9, Issue 4
October 2022
Pages 152-117
Files
  • XML
  • PDF 850.81 K
History
  • Receive Date: 02 October 2021
  • Revise Date: 08 November 2020
  • Accept Date: 05 March 2022
Share
How to cite
  • RIS
  • EndNote
  • Mendeley
  • BibTeX
  • APA
  • MLA
  • HARVARD
  • CHICAGO
  • VANCOUVER
Statistics
  • Article View: 755
  • PDF Download: 566

APA

Keshavarz zadeh, A. , Gholami, K. and Azizi, N. (2021). Identification of Teaching Components in Brand Universities (Case Study Sharif University of Technology). Research in Teaching, 9(4), 152-117.

MLA

Keshavarz zadeh, A. , , Gholami, K. , and Azizi, N. . "Identification of Teaching Components in Brand Universities (Case Study Sharif University of Technology)", Research in Teaching, 9, 4, 2021, 152-117.

HARVARD

Keshavarz zadeh, A., Gholami, K., Azizi, N. (2021). 'Identification of Teaching Components in Brand Universities (Case Study Sharif University of Technology)', Research in Teaching, 9(4), pp. 152-117.

CHICAGO

A. Keshavarz zadeh , K. Gholami and N. Azizi, "Identification of Teaching Components in Brand Universities (Case Study Sharif University of Technology)," Research in Teaching, 9 4 (2021): 152-117,

VANCOUVER

Keshavarz zadeh, A., Gholami, K., Azizi, N. Identification of Teaching Components in Brand Universities (Case Study Sharif University of Technology). Research in Teaching, 2021; 9(4): 152-117.

  • Home
  • About Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Contact Us
  • Sitemap

News

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Newsletter Subscription

Subscribe to the journal newsletter and receive the latest news and updates

© Journal management system. designed by sinaweb