THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT EVALUATION OF LECTURER PERFORMANCE AND LECTURER SELF-ASSESSMENT

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 85 - 94, 21.05.2015

Özgür Şahan Kari Şahan

Öz

Student evaluations are the most commonly used tool for assessing lecturer performance and competencies throughout the world. Student evaluations continue to be popular despite objections in terms of reliability and validity check issues, since students may not be able to assess lecturer effectiveness in every aspect. Regarding lecturer self-assessment, it would be intriguing to investigate the correlations between lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of lecturer performance. This study aims to find out what students think about their lecturers’ performance along with lecturers’ self-perceptions of themselves using the same poll, specifically the poll developed by Bursa Technical University School of Foreign Languages. The participants consist of 139 students and 19 lecturers. The present study also intends to see how honest the lecturers are with themselves in terms of teaching competencies and performance with respect to student evaluations. The results are analyzed and discussed regarding lecturers’ nationality (Turkish and foreign) and teaching experience. The main conclusion of the study emphasizes the importance of reflective-teaching and underlines how significant it is for lecturers to be aware of their performances and capabilities for self-improvement.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Student evaluation, Lecturer self-assessment, Reflective teaching

ÖĞRENCİ DEĞERLENDİRMELERİ VE ÖĞRETMENLERİN ÖZ DEĞERLENDİRMELERİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ

Öz

Öğrenciler, öğretmenlerin mesleki performanslarını bütün yönleriyle değerlendiremeyeceği için öğrenci değerlendirmeleri geçerlilik ve güvenirlik açısından tartışmalı bir konudur. Buna rağmen öğrenci değerlendirmeleri tüm dünyada öğretmenlerin mesleki performanslarının değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan en yaygın ölçme araçlarından biridir. Öte yandan öğretmenlerin öz değerlendirmeleri ve öğrencilerin öğretmenlere vermiş oldukları puanların korelasyonu araştırmaya değer bir konudur.  Bu çalışmada Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu tarafından geliştirilmiş performans değerlendirme anketi kullanılarak öğrencilerin öğretmenleri ve öğretmenlerin kendi öz değerlendirmeleri arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmak hedeflenmektedir. Bu çalışmaya 139 öğrenci ve 19 öğretmen katılmıştır. Aynı zamanda bu çalışma öğretmenlerin öğrenci değerlendirmeleri açısından kendi yeterliliklerinin ne kadar farkında olduklarını da ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır.  Elde edilen sonuçlar öğretmenlerin ulusları ve tecrübeleri göz önünde bulundurularak değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmanın ana bulgusu yansıtıcı öğretmenin önemini ortaya koymakla birlikte öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimleri açısından mesleki yeterlilikleri ve performanslarının farkında olmalarının gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Öğrenci değerlendirmesi, Öğretmen öz değerlendirmesi, Yansıtıcı öğretme

Kaynakça

• D’Apollonia, S., & Abrami, P.C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1198-1208.
• Arreola, R. A. (2000). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and operating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.
• Avery, R.J., Bryant, W.K., Kang A.M.H., & Bell, D. (2006) Electronic course evaluations: Does an online delivery system influence student evaluations? Journal of Economic Education 37, 21–37.
• Bedard, K., & P. Kuhn (2008). Where class size really matters: Class size and student ratings of instructor effectiveness. Economics of Education Review 27(3), 253-265.
• Bélanger C.H. & Longden, B. (2009). The effective teacher’s characteristics as perceived by students. Tertiary Education and Management 15(4), 323-340.
• Beran, T.N., & Rokosh, J.L. (2009). The consequential validity of student ratings: What do instructors really think? Alberta Journal of Educational Research 55(4), 497-511.
• Berk, R.A. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 17(1): 48-62.
• Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Chen, Y., & Hoshower, L.B. (2003). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: An assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 28(1), 71-88.
• Dommeyer, C.J., Baum, P., Hanna, R.W., & Chapman, K.S. (2004). Gathering faculty teaching evaluations by in-class and online surveys: Their effects on response rates and evaluations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 611-623
• Gravestock, P., & Gregor-Greenleaf, E. (2008). Student course evaluations: Research, models and trends. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario: Toronto, ON.
• Griffin, B.W. (2004). Grading leniency, grade discrepancy, and student ratings of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology 29(4), 410-425.
• Harris T. & Twiname, L. (2012). Student evaluations of teaching: The students’ perspective. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 9(1), 145-156.
• Kasasen, K. & Rӓty, H. (2002). You be sure now to be honest in your assessment: Teaching and learning self- assessment. Social Psychology of Education 5, 313-328.
• Kelly, M. (2012) Student evaluations of taching effectiveness: Considerations for Ontario Universities. Retrieved May 14, 2014 from http://cou.on.ca/publications/academic-colleague-papers/pdfs/ac-paper---student- evaluations-may-23-12
• Martinson, D.L., & Ryan, M. (1981). What do J-students think about teacher evaluations? Journalism Educator, 36(2), 53-55.
• Marsh, H.W. (1984). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(5), 707-754.
• Marsh, H.W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Education Research 11(3), 253-388.
• Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (2000). Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students' evaluations of teaching: Popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology 92(1), 202-228.
• McKeachie, W.J. (1979). Student ratings of faculty: A reprise. Academe 62, 384-397.
• McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1218 - 1225.
• Naftulin, D.H., J.E. Ware, & Donnelly, F.A. (1973). The Doctor Fox Lecture: A paradigm of educational seduction. Journal of Medical Education 48(7), 630-635.
• Nulty, D.D. (2007). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment and Evaluation in Education, 33(3), 301-314.
• Olivares, O.J. (2001). Student interest, grading leniency, and teacher ratings: A conceptual analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology 26(3), 382-399.
• Park, G.P., & Lee, H. W. (2008). The characteristics of effective English teachers as perceived by high school teachers and students in Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(2), 236-248.
• Seldin, P. (1999). Current practices – good and bad –nationally. In P. Seldin & Associates (Eds.), Changing practices in evaluating teaching: A practical guide to improved faculty performance and promotion/tenure decisions (pp. 1–24). Bolton, MA: Anker
• Spencer, K.J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (2002). Student perspectives on teaching and its evaluations. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 397-409.
• Theall, M., & Franklin, J. (2001). Looking for bias in the all the wrong places: A search for truth or a witch hunt in student ratings of instruction? New Directions for Institutional Research, 27(5), 45-56.
• Van Diggelen, M., den Brok, P., & Beijaard, D. (2012). Teachers’ use of a self-assessment procedure: The role of criteria, standards, feedback and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(2), 115-134.
• Wheeler, A. E., & Knoop, H. R. (1982). Self, teacher, and faculty assessments of student teacher education. Journal of Educational Research, 75(3), 178-191.