Teaching Competencies in Higher Education: A Needs Analysis Study Regarding to Develop Instructional Planning and Evaluation Course

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1, 1 - 16, 30.04.2019

Ahmet Doğanay Melis Yeşilpınar Uyar

https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.299220

Cited By: 2

Öz

The aim of this
study was to conduct a needs analysis regarding to develop Instructional
Planning and Evaluation in course. This study was based on case study design.
Eight research assistants and two instructors participated in this study.
Interview method was used in data collection and inductive content analysis
approach was adopted in data analysis. The result of the analysis identified
that goals, content, learning-teaching and measurement-evaluation processes of
instructional planning and evaluation course did not completely meet the needs
and expectations of research assistants. It was seen that this situation
resulted from content and implementations that were not integrated into higher
education and field-specific situations. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

instructional planning and evaluation course, teaching competences, higher education

Yükseköğretimde Öğretim Yeterlikleri: Öğretimde Planlama ve Değerlendirme Dersinin Geliştirilmesine Yönelik Bir İhtiyaç Analizi

Öz

Araştırmanın amacı, öğretimde planlama ve
değerlendirme dersinin geliştirilmesine yönelik bir ihtiyaç analizi çalışması
yapılmasıdır. Araştırma, durum çalışması yöntemiyle desenlenmiştir.
Araştırmanın katılımcılarını maksimum çeşitlilik örneklemesiyle seçilmiş sekiz
araştırma görevlisi ve ölçüt örnekleme yöntemine göre belirlenmiş iki öğretim
elemanı oluşturmuştur. Verilerin toplanmasında görüşme yöntemi kullanılmış,
veriler araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan iki farklı yarı yapılandırılmış
görüşme formu aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. 
Verilerin analizinde ise tümevarımsal içerik analizi yaklaşımından
yararlanılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda; öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme dersi
amaçlarının, içeriğinin, öğrenme-öğretme ve ölçme-değerlendirme süreçlerinin
araştırma görevlilerinin ihtiyaç ve beklentilerini tam anlamıyla karşılamadığı
belirlenmiştir. Bu durumun yükseköğretimle ve alana özgü durumlarla
bütünleştirilmeyen içerik ve uygulamalardan kaynaklandığı sonucuna
ulaşılmıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

: Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme dersi, öğretim yeterlikleri, yükseköğretim

Kaynakça

• Addison, W. E. & Stowell, J. R. (2012). Conducting research on student evaluations of teaching. In M. E. Kite (Ed.). Effective evaluation of teaching: A guide for faculty and administrators (pp. 1-12). Society for the Teaching of Psychology.
• Akpınar-Wilsing, N. & Paykoç, F. (2004). Needs of future faculty members in relation to instructional planning, effective teaching and evaluation: A case study. Education & Science, 29(133), 71-82.
• Bergan, S. & Damian, R. (Eds.). (2010). Higher education for modern societies–Competences and values. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
• Boysen, G. A., Richmond, A. S. & Gurung, R. A. (2015). Model teaching criteria for psychology: Initial documentation of teachers’ self-reported competency. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 48-59.
• Brown, G. & Atkins, M. (1988). Effective teaching in higher education. London: Routledge.
• Bümen, N. T. (2006). Doktora eğitimi yapan öğrencilere yönelik yürütülen “öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme” ile “gelişim ve öğrenme” derslerinin değerlendirilmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 6 (1) 7-52.
• Catano, V. M. & Harvey, S. (2011). Student perception of teaching effectiveness: development and validation of the Evaluation of Teaching Competencies Scale (ETCS). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 701-717.
• Colet, N. R. & Durand, N. (2004). Working on the Bologna Declaration: Promoting intergrated curriculum development and fostering conceptual change. International Journal for Academic Development, 9 (2), 167-179.
• Cruickshank, D. R. & Metcalf, K. K. (1993). Improving preservice teacher assessment through on-campus laboratory experiences. Theory Into Practice, 32(2), 86-92.
• Day, C. (1990). United Kingdom: Managing curriculum development at Branston School and Community College. In C. Marsh, C. Day, L. Hannay & G. McCutcheon (Eds.). Reconceptualising school-based curriculum development (pp. 140-172). London: The Falmer Press.
• Deggs, D. M. (2005). An investigation of the relationship between teaching perspective and faculty development activities among faculty in higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, USA.
• Dentith, A. M., Miller, A.C., Jackson, G. & Root, D. (2011). Developing globalized teacher education curriculum through interdisciplinary. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 13(1&2), 77-92.
• Donnelly, R. (2008). Lecturers' self-perception of change in their teaching approaches: Reflections on a qualitative study. Educational Research, 50(3), 207-222.
• Drew, S. & Klopper, C. (2014). Evaluating faculty pedagogic practices to inform strategic academic professional development: A case of cases. Higher education, 67(3), 349-367.
• Eurydice [Education Information Network in the European Community] (2006). Avrupa'da öğretmenlik eğitiminde kalite güvencesi. http://www.eurydice.org. Erişim Tarihi: 10. 01. 2014.
• Gagne, T. A. (1998). College instructors’ perceptions of instructional skills development activities Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alberta University, Canada.
• Ganieva, Y. N., Sayfutdinova, G. B., Yunusova, A. B., Sadovaya, V. V., Schepkina, N. K., Scheka, N. Y., Gutman, E. V. & Salakhova, V. B. (2015). Structure and content of higher professional school lecturer education competence. Review of European Studies, 7(4), 32.
• Gibb, C. A. (1955). Classroom behavior of the college teacher. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 15(3), 254-263.
• Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ERIC/ECTJ Annual Review Paper, 29(2), 75-91.
• Güneş, F. (2012). Bologna süreci işe yükseköğretimde öngörülen beceri ve yetkinlikler. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 2(1), 1-9.
• Gürüz, K. (2008). Yirmi birinci yüzyılın başında Türk milli eğitim sistemi. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
• Güven, M. (2016). Çevrimiçi ortamda yürütülen öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme dersine yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 6(1), 63-83.
• Harvey, L. (2002). Evaluation for what?. Teaching in higher education, 7(3), 245-263.
• Herrington, A. & Herrington, J. (2006). What is an authentic learning environment?. In A. Herrington & J. Herrington (Eds.). Authentic learning environments in higher education (pp. 1-13). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.
• Isaacson, R. L., McKeachie, W. J., Milholland, J. E., Lin, Y. G., Hofeller, M. & Zinn, K. L. (1964). Dimensions of student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(6), 344-351.
• Jacobs, L. & De Wet, C. (2013). Evaluation of the vocational education orientation programme (VEOP) at a university in South Africa. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 68-89.
• Keeley, J., Smith, D. & Buskist, W. (2006). The teacher behaviors checklist: Factor analysis of its utility for evaluating teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 33(2), 84-91.
• Koçyiğit, S. (2014). Otantik öğrenme-öğretme yaklaşımı. G. Ekici (Ed.), Etkinlik örnekleriyle güncel öğrenme-öğretme yaklaşımları-I içinde (s. 348-392). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Kurt, H. & Ekici, G. (2013). Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme dersinin öğretmen adaylarının öğretim süreci öz-yeterlik algısına etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 12(4). 1157-1172.
• Kürüm, D. (2007). Öğretim üyesi adayları için öğretimsel gelişim programının değerlendirmesi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
• Lakkala, M., Toom, A., Ilomäki, L. & Muukkkonen, H. (2015). Re-designing university courses to support collaborative knowledge creation practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(5), 521-536.
• Leahy, R. (2009). Authentic educating. Maryland: University Press of America.
• Lewis, P. A., Tutticci, N. F., Douglas, C., Gray, G., Osborne, Y., Evans, K. & Nielson, C. M. (2016). Flexible learning: Evaluation of an international distance education programme designed to build the learning and teaching capacity of nurse academics in a developing country. Nurse Education in Practice, 21, 59-65.
• Mentkowski, M., Rogers, G., Doherty, A., Loacker, G., Hart, J. R., Rickards, W. & Diez, M. (2002). Learning that lasts: Integrating learning, development, and performance in college and beyond. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 660-666.
• Merriam, S. (2002). Assessing and evaluating qualitative research. In S. Merriam (Ed.), Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp.18-36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Murray, R. & Holmes, S. (1997). Partnerships in staff development: An institutional case-study. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 67-82.
• Patrick, J. & Smart, R. M. (1998). An empirical evaluation of teacher effectiveness: The emergence of three critical factors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 165-178.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
• Rowley, J. & Bennett, D. (2016). ePortfolios in Australian higher education arts: Differences and differentiations. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 17(19), 1-22.
• Semerci, Ç. & Kara, A. (2004). Eğitim derslerinin doktora öğrencilerinin öğretmenlik tutumlarına etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 29(131),70-77.
• Shapiro, D. F. (2003). Failitating holistic curriculum development. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(4), 424-434.
• Smith, K. S. & Simpson, R. D. (1995). Validating teaching competencies for faculty members in higher education: a national study using the Delphi method. Innovative Higher Education, 19(3), 223-234.
• Solomon, D. (1966). Teacher behavior dimensions, course characteristics, and student evaluations of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 3(1), 35-47.
• Stefani, L. (2009). Planning teaching and learning: Curriculum design and development. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 40-57). New York: Routledge.
• Swartz, C. W., White, K. P., Stuck, G. B. & Patterson, T. (1990). The factorial structure of the North Carolina teaching performance appraisal instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50(1), 175-182.
• Şahin, M. & Alkan, R. M. (2016). Yükseköğretimde değişim dönüşüm süreci ve üniversitelerin genişleyen rolleri. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2), 297-307.
• Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409-424.
• Ünver, G. (2013). The effects of the educational training courses on the doctoral students’ conceptions of effective teaching. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 3(2), 82-89.
• Wei, R. C. & Pecheone, R. L. (2010). Assessment for learning in preservice teacher education: Performance-based assessments. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality (pp. 69-132). San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass.
• Wolf, P. (2007). A model for faculating curriculum development in higher education: A faculty-driven, data informed, and educational developer-supported approach. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 112, 15-20.
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
• YÖK [Yükseköğretim Kurulu] (1998). Eğitim fakülteleri öğretmen yetiştirme programlarının yeniden düzenlenmesi raporu. Ankara. www.yok.gov.tr. Erişim Tarihi: 10.08.2013.
• YÖK [Yükseköğretim Kurulu] (1999). Türkiye’de öğretmen eğitiminde standartlar ve akreditasyon. Ankara: Yükseköğretim Kurulu Yayını.
• YÖK [Yükseköğretim Kurulu] (2010). Yükseköğretimde yeniden yapılanma: 66 Soruda Bologna süreci uygulamaları. http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/30217/yuksekogretimde_yeniden_yapilanma_66_soruda_bologna_2010.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 10.09.2014.
• Zeegers, Y. (2012). Curriculum development for teacher education in the Southern Philippines: A simultaneous process of professional learning and syllabus enhancement. International Journal of Educational Development, 32, 207-213.