Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

Background: In many cases, teacher's teaching has been successful, but since it does not teach his/her students and his favorite surface is hard. The courses teacher teaches are also overwhelmed by the course books.
Objective: This objective of this study is to examine the alignment scores in evaluating teachers in different subjects.
Methods: The study population was all of the courses which were evaluated in the first semester at Semnan University in the academic year of 1387-88. Thus, the first nine subjects from senior students using academic discipline, MC, level 5 (very difficult to very easy) resolution and a sample volume of 171 students was selected.
Results: Results showed that the use of a single score for the comparison of performance evaluation forms for teachers is a good way and comparing the scores for teacher evaluation scores must be obtained, are aligned. In this study, to justify the scores of the two methods into a park and z were used.
Conclusion: One of the reasons for non-alignment, differences in the type of student's evaluation of courses is the difficulty level courses.
 

Keywords

منابع فارسی
حوزۀ معاونت پژوهشی دانشگاه سمنان. (1386). مجموعۀ قوانین ومقررات پژوهشی؛ دانشگاه سمنان.
رنجبر منصور، وحیدشاهی، کورش، محمودی، میترا. (1384). بررسی دیدگاه اعضای هیأت علمی و دانشجویان دانشکدهپزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکیمازندران در مورد ارزشیابی استادان توسط دانشجویان مجله دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مازندران. بهمن و اسفند 1385; 16(56): 135-126.
سیف، علی‌اکبر. (1385). اندازه گیری، سنجش و ارزشیابی آموزشی؛ تهران: نشر دوران.
محمدی، فرزانه. اخوان تفتی، مهناز. (1386). بررسی تأثیر ارزشیابی توصیفی بر عزت نفس و رفتارهای کلاسی دانش‏آموزان پایه سوم ابتدایی شهر تهران. فصلنامه تعلیم و تربیت. شماره 23. 100-67.
وزارت علوم تحقیقات و فناوری. (1387). آئین‏نامه ارتقای اعضای هیأت علمی دانشگاه‏ها و مؤسسات آموزش عالی.
 
 
منابع لاتین
Aleamoni LM, Hexner PL. (1980). A review of the research on student evaluation and a report on the effect of different sets of instructions on student course and instructor evaluation. Instructional Sci; 9(1): 67-84.
Gay-L.R. (1991).Educational Evaluation and Measurement (2nd ed.) Maxwell Macmillan,International.
Marsh, H.W., & Roche, L.A. (1994). The Use of Student's Evaluations of University Teaching to Improve Teaching Effectiveness, Final Project Report (A Report for the Evaluations and Investigations Program of the Department of Employment and Education): Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.
MC Kinney, K. (1997). What do student Ratings Means? Retrieved March 13, 1997 from: http://www.ntlf.com.
Rifkin, T. (1995). Eric Review: Faculty Evaluation in Community College, Community College Review, 23, 63-73.
Vardi, I. (2000). An Introduction to Teaching Curtin University of Technology, Center for Education Advancement,Retrieved Februrary 16, 2000, from:
      http://www.cea.curtin.edu.au/.