Teknik ve Mesleki Üniversitede Öğretim Kalitesini Etkileyen Faktörlerin Açıklanması

Yıl 2019, , 395 - 405, 15.01.2019

Shahram Eskandaripour Gholamreza Hajihosseinnezhad Majid Aliasgari Ali Hosseinikhah

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3175

Öz

Bu çalışma, öğretimin kalitesini etkileyen faktörleri açık-lamayı ve bunların öğretim kalitesi üzerindeki etkilerini belir-lemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Verilerin toplanması için karma araştırma yaklaşımı ve sınıflandırma modelinin sıralı keşif stratejisi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma evrenini (nitel yöntem), 2011-2016 yıllarında teknik ve meslek üniversitenin merkezi biriminde görev yapan personel ve teknik ve mesleki üniversi-te araştırmacıları ile üst düzey teknisyenleri oluşturmaktadır.  Katılımcılar karışık örnekleme (homojen ve kartopu) metodu kullanılarak seçilmiştir. Araştırmanın nicel boyutu için katı-lımcılar 2016 yılında görev yapan eğitim asistanları, araştır-ma ve eğitim bölümleri başkanları ve öğretim üyelerinden oluşmaktadır. Nitel bölümde, verilerin toplanması için keşfe-dici görüşmeler ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler kullanıl-mıştır. Nicel bölümde, nitel verileri kodlamadan türetilerek belirlenen kategoriler, eşleştirilmiş karşılaştırma anketleri oluşturmak için kullanılmıştır. Bu kategoriler öğretimin kali-tesini etkileyen faktörleri içermektedir. Expert Choice Softwa-re kullanarak, sonuçlar AHP yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular öğretmen, eğitim ortamı ve öğrencilerin katkısının sırasıyla yüzde 41, 33 ve yüzde 26 olduğunu göstermiştir. Öğretmen bileşenleri arasında, öğretmenlerin mesleki beceri-leri (ağırlığı: 1000 üzerinden 361) en önemli bileşen olarak belirlenmiştir; öğrenci bileşenleri arasında, akademik kayıtlar ve deneyimler (ağırlığı: 1000 üzerinden 385) en önemli bile-şen olarak belirlenmiştir. Eğitim ortamı bileşenleri arasında, çevre kalitesi ve eğitim koşulları (ağırlığı: 1000 üzerinden 341) en önemli bileşen olarak belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

eğitim kalitesi, teknik ve mesleki üniversite, analitik hiyerarşi süreci, karışık araştırma yöntemi.

Determination of the Factors Affecting the Quality of Education in Technical and Vocational Universities

Öz

This study aimed to explain factors affecting quality of teaching and determine their impact on teaching quality. The mixed research approach and sequential exploratory strategy of classification model were used to collect the data. The population (qualitative method) consisted of staff at central organization of a technical and vocational university and top technicians and researchers of a technical and vocational university in 2011- 2016; they were selected using mixed sampling (homogeneous and snowball) method. The population (quantitative method) also consisted of educational assistants, heads of research and education department, and faculty members in 2016. In qualitative study, the exploratory interviews and semi-structured interviews were used for collecting the data. In quantitative study, the identified categories which were derived from encoding qualitative data were used to create paired comparison questionnaires; they included factors affecting quality of teaching. Using Expert Choice Software, the results were analysed by AHP method. The findings indicated that the contribution of teacher, educational environment, and students were estimated to be 41, 33, and 26 percent, respectively. Among teacher components, the professional skills of teacher (weight 361 out of 1000) was determined to be the most important component; among student components, the academic records and experiences (weight 385 out of 1000) was determined to be the most important component; and among educational environment components, quality of environment and educational conditions (weight 341 out of 1000) was determined to be the most important component.

Anahtar Kelimeler

educational quality, technical and vocational university, analytical hierarchy process, mixed research method

Kaynakça

• Altnbach, Ph., Laserzinger, J., Rambley, L. E. (2009). Global Higher Education Trends: Forming an Academic Revolution. Translated by Mohammad Reza Saeed Abadi and Parvin Ahmad Khanloo, Tehran: Institute for Research and Planning for Higher Education, p. 138.
• Bazargan, A. (2010). Introduction to qualitative and mixed research methods. Tehran: Didar.
• Bazargan, A. (2003). Capacity building for evaluation and promotion of quality of higher education system, international expe-riences and national necessities in creating proper structure. Scientific-research publication of Supreme Council of Iran, 41, 141-151.
• Bazargan, A. (2002). Educational evaluation (Concepts, patterns, and operational process). Tehran: Samt.
• Bazargan, A.(2000). Measuring Access to Higher Education and Higher Education Quality: A Case Study from Iran. Prospects. Vol. (3): 365 – 371.
• Berimani, A., Salehi, M., Sadeghi, M.R. (2011). Investigating the factors affecting improvement of higher education quality in postgraduate education from the perspective of students. Educational Management Research, Sixth Year, 26, 1-24.
• Blackmar,D.(2004). “Issues in higher education quality assurance Australian Journal of public Administration, 63(2), 105-116.
• Bulgarelli , avina andedal (2009). Accredi tadian and quality assurance in vocational education and training . luxampourg :publications office of the European union.
• Charmaz, k.(2006). Constructing Grounded theory: a practical Guide through qualitative analysis. Sage publication, London.
• Creswell, J. W., Plano, C. (2007). Mixed research methods. Translated by Ali Reza Kiamanesh and Javid Sarai. Tehran: Ayizh.
• Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research plan: qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches. Translated by Ali Reza Kiamanesh and Maryam Danaei Tous. Tehran: Jahad Daneshghahi.
• Dumond, A. (2010). The evaluation of the ensignments for the study of the impact of the 'encadrement on the pedagogics of the professors: can be HEIG_VD' in M.F.fave_Bonnet, op.cit, pp165_178.
• Fathi Vahjargah, K., Shafiei, N. (2007). Evaluation of quality of academic curriculum (adult education curriculum). Quarterly of curriculum Studies, First Year, 5, 1- 26.
• Fatima, H. E. (2014). Research, higher education and the quality of teaching: Inquiry in a japanese academic context. Research in higher education journal. Vol. 24. Pp. 1-25.
• Gaedi, Y. (2001). Designing a comprehensive system for evaluating educational performance (technical and vocational training courses). Unpublished research project.
• Gakuen, nishimachi, kodaria.(2012). Quality Assurance For Higher education in japan available on :.www.niad.ac.jp
• Ghedin.E & Aquario.D. (2008). "Moving towards multidimensional assessment of teaching in higher education". Higher educa-tion .56 (5), 563_597.
• Ghodsi Pour, H. (2016). Analytical hierarchy process. Tehran: Jahad Daneshghahi, Amirkabir University of Technology.
• Ghonchi, M., Hosseini, S.M., Hejazi, Y. (2012). Factor Analysis of Effective Management Components on the Quality of High-er Education from the Viewpoints of Professors. Agricultural Promotion and education research. Fifth Year, No. 2, pp. 1-18.
• Ghorchian, N., Khorshidi, A. (2000). Studying quantitative and qualitative improvement of access to academic education in Iran. Tehran: Andisheh metacognition publication.
• Harris, M., Cooper (2006). Combined Research. Translation by Mohammad Ali Hamid Rafiee. Tehran: Office of Cultural Re-search.
• Harris, M.C. (2006). Mixed research. Translated by Mohammad Ali Hamid Rafiee. Tehran: Office of Cultural Research.
• Hematinejad, Z., Hematinejad, M.A. (2014). Evaluating quality of educational services at Gilan Physical Education and Sport Sciences College based on SERVQUAL model. Journal of Management Studies in Sport, 1, 3, 28_11.
• Hosseini, M., Farahani, A., Ghareh, M.A. (2013). Quality evaluation in the system of distance education in physical education. Applied Research in Sport Management. Volume 2, Number 2, pp. 124-135
• Jeffreys, D. (1996). Comprehensive quality management training. Translated by Hossein Kakoyi. Tehran: Publications of Uni-versity of Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences.
• Maroofi, Y., Kiamanesh, A.R., Ali Asgari, M., Mehrehmmadi, M. (2007). Assessing quality of teaching in higher education: reviewing some perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, First Year, 5, 81-112.
• Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (2016) Designing Qualitative Research. 6th Edition, SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
• Melhaoui, M. (2004), L'echec a univertise marocain: Bilan des Princips causes et attents de la p'edagogic unive sitaire, acts du zle'mc con l'aipa, university cadi Ayyad, marrakech.
• Mirzamohammadi, M.H. (2010). Designing a suitable model for assessing the academic achievement of the art group of Tech-nical and vocational education based on comparative study. Iranian Studies Curriculum Quarterly. 2010, No. 17, pp. 153-173.
• Mohammad Hashemi, Z. (2015). Designing in establishment of performance evaluation system using AHP model. Quarterly of Carafan. Two Scientific and Promotion Journals of Technical and Vocational University. Second Year, 36, 69-70.
• Mojtaba Zadeh, M. (2016). Designing and validating scale to measure quality of universities in Iran. Two Journal of Medical Education Strategies, ninth year, 2, 62-62.
• Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications for health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 362-376.
• Najafi, H.R., Ismaili Rad, A. (2009). The Role of the Assessment System in the Promotion of the Quality of Technical- Engi-neering Training, Educational Conferences. Academy of Sciences, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp. 1-9.
• Neard and camy. (1991). "From pacts to action, expanding the education role of the graduate division”, in communication of the council of Graduate schools, washing ton D.C.
• Nick mardan, A. (2012). Introducing Software Expert choice 11. Tehran: Jahad Daneshghahi. Amirkabir University of Techno-logy.
• Omidian, F., Omidian, M., Safari, M. (2013). Evaluation of the quality of the performance of the training groups, Master's de-gree in Dezful Islamic Azad University based on the European Fundamental Quality Management Model (EFQM). Scientific- Research Quarterly of Jundishapur Education Development. First Year, No. 2, pp. 147-157.
• Philip G, A., Laserizberg, L.A. R. (2009). Awesome global education trends: evaluating an academic revolution. Translated by Mohammad Reza Saeed Abadi and Parvin Ahmad Khanloo. Tehran: Institute for Research and Planning for Higher Education.
• Rahmani, R., Fathi Vahjargah, K. (2007). Assessment of quality of higher education. Quarterly of Studies of Curriculum, Second Year, 5, 1-26.
• Sabetnejad, H.R. (2011). Assessment, validation, and quality assurance in technical and vocational education system. Tehran: Ministry of Cooperatives, Labor, and Social Services: Organization of Technical and Vocational Education of Iran.
• Samari, I., Yamani Dozi Sorkhabi, M., Salehi Omran, E., Geraee Nejad, Gh.R. (2013). Investigating and identifying factors affecting university development process at universities in Iran. Educational Planning Studies, Second Year, 4, 67-100.
• Sarmed, Z., Bazargan, A., Hejazi, E. (2007). Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences. Tehran: Aghah Publication.
• Sobhani Nejad, M., Afshar, A. (2008). Explaining nature and components of higher education system to recognize challenges and develop innovative approaches. Quarterly Journal of Islamic Azad University, 4, 12-40.
• Strauss, A. and Corbin, L (1990). Basics of Grounded Theory Methods. Beverly Hills, CA. Sage.
• Tabarsa, Gh.A., Hasanvand, M., Arefnejad, M. (2012). Analysis and ranking of factors affecting improvement of education quality (Case study: Isfahan University). Quarterly Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 4, 51-74.
• Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitativeapproaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Tedley, Ch., Tashakori, A. (2009). Basics of mixed research: Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. Translated by Adel Azar and Saeed Jahanian. Tehran: Jahad Daneshghahi.
• Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, v. & Fitsilis,P. (2010). Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: an em-pirical study. Quality Assurance in education, 18(2), 227-244.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740105.
• Vieira, Flavia (2002). "Pedagogic quality at university: What teachers and students think", Quality in higher education. VOL.8, www.ebs.co/pdf.
• Wood house, D. (2003). Quality Improvement through Quality Audit. Quality in Higher Education g (2): 133-140.
• Yamani Doozi Sorkhabi, M. (2008). Introduction of performance of academic systems. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University.
• Yamani Doozi Sorkhabi, M. (2012). Quality in higher education. Tehran: Samt.
• Yamani Doozi Sorkhabi, M., Arasteh, H.R. (2006). Guidelines for university development planning. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University.
• Yarmohammadian, M.H., Sadooghi, F., Ehtashami, A., Hossein Salarianzadeh, M., Kasai Isfahani, M. (2010). Proposed model for evaluating pedagogical education. Iranian Journal of Medical Education (Special Education Development