مطالعات اندازه گیری و ارزشیابی آموزشی

مطالعات اندازه گیری و ارزشیابی آموزشی

تدوین و اعتبارسنجی الگوی ارزیابی جامع عملکرد اعضای هیات علمی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 گروه حکمرانى آموزشى و سرمایه انسانى، واحد تهران شمال، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامى، تهران، ایران
2 گروه مدیریت آموزش عالى، دانشگاه شهید بهشتى، تهران، ایران
10.22034/emes.2025.2046084.2607
چکیده
هدف: هدف از پژوهش حاضر، تدوین و اعتبارسنجی الگوی ارزیابی جامع عملکرد اعضای هیئت علمی با رویکردی ترکیبی و مبتنی بر شواهد است. با توجه به کاستی‌های مدل‌های ارزیابی رایج که عمدتاً کمّی، تک‌بعدی و محدود به خروجی‌های قابل شمارش هستند، این مطالعه تلاش کرده است تا الگویی مبتنی بر تنوع شاخص‌ها، منابع ارزیابی و زمان‌بندی‌های مختلف ارائه دهد.
روش: پژوهش به شیوه آمیخته (کیفی–کمّی) انجام شد. در مرحله نخست، از طریق مرور نظام‌مند متون داخلی و خارجی، ۴۵ نشانگر اولیه شناسایی شد. در ادامه، با بهره‌گیری از دو نوع پرسشنامه لیکرت (برای سنجش مطابقت با نظر خبرگان) و بازپاسخ (تحلیل کیفی موضوعی)، نشانگرها پالایش شده و در قالب چهار مؤلفه اصلی شامل «ملاک‌های ارزیابی»، «ارزیاب‌ها»، «ابزارهای گردآوری داده» و «زمان ارزیابی» سازمان‌دهی شدند. سپس، ۱۷ نشانگر منتخب در یک نمونه آماری ۳۱۳ نفری تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی شدند.
یافتهها: یافته‌ها حاکی از آن بود که الگوی نهایی از چهار عامل اصلی شامل «ارزیابی تکوینی»، «ارزیابی تجمیعی»، «کیفیت آموزش» و «کیفیت پژوهش» تشکیل شده است که در مجموع ۴۸.۹ درصد از واریانس کل را تبیین می‌کنند. ارزیابی تکوینی با رویکرد مستمر (خودسنجی و همتا) و ارزیابی تجمیعی با رویکرد سالانه (پرسشنامه آنلاین)، ابزاری برای بهبود لحظه‌ای عملکرد و تصمیم‌گیری‌های راهبردی فراهم می‌سازند. همچنین، دو مؤلفه مربوط به کیفیت آموزش و پژوهش با تأکید بر نوآوری، توسعه حرفه‌ای و اثرگذاری اجتماعی، فراتر از سنجش صرف کمیت فعالیت‌ها حرکت می‌کنند.
بحث: در مجموع، مدل طراحی‌شده با تقویت عدالت، جامعیت و کاربردپذیری، الگویی عملی برای نظام‌های آموزشی و سیاست‌گذاری منابع انسانی دانشگاهی فراهم می‌کند. پیشنهاد می‌شود این مدل به‌عنوان چارچوب راهبردی در مراکز آموزشی و پژوهشی مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Compilation and Validation of the Model of Comprehensive Evaluation of Faculty Member Performance

نویسندگان English

Mohammad Mahdi Ahmadi 1
Zahra Sabbaghian 2
Narges Hasan Moradi 1
1 Department of Educational Governance and Human Resources, NT.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Higher Education, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

Objective: The present study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive performance evaluation model for university faculty members, using an evidence-based and multi-dimensional approach. Recognizing the limitations of conventional evaluation models—often quantitative, one-dimensional, and restricted to countable outputs—this research sought to introduce a model based on diverse indicators, multiple sources of evaluation, and varied timing.
Method: The study employed a mixed-method (qualitative–quantitative) design. In the first phase, a systematic review of domestic and international literature led to the identification of 45 preliminary indicators. These indicators were then refined using two types of questionnaires: a Likert-scale questionnaire (to assess alignment with expert opinions) and an open-ended response format (for thematic analysis). The refined indicators were structured into four main components: “criteria,” “evaluators,” “tools,” and “timing.” Subsequently, 17 selected indicators were subjected to exploratory factor analysis with a sample of 313 participants.
Findings Findings confirmed a four-factor structure consisting of “formative evaluation,” “summative evaluation,” “quality of teaching,” and “quality of research,” which together explained 48.9% of the total variance. The formative component—focused on continuous self- and peer-assessment—and the summative component—based on annual online questionnaires—provide mechanisms for real-time improvement and strategic decision-making. The quality-oriented components of teaching and research emphasize innovation, professional development, and social impact, moving beyond the mere quantity of activities.
Discussion: Overall, the proposed model strengthens fairness, comprehensiveness, and applicability in faculty performance assessment. By integrating formative feedback with summative results and focusing on operational quality, the model offers a practical framework for policymaking and continuous improvement in higher education. It is recommended that this model be adopted as a guiding document in various academic and educational institutions.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Keywords: Academic Staff Evaluation
Total Quality Management
Formative Evaluation
Summative Evaluation
Exploratory Factor Analysis
References
Abdollahpour, E., Nejat, S., Nourozian, M., & Majdzadeh, R. (2010). The process of content validity in instrument development. Iranian Epidemiology, 6(4), 66-74.
Abdullahi, Bijan and colleagues (2015). Investigating the effective factors on the validity of student evaluation results from the professor: a mixed research. Quarterly Scientific Research Journal of Marine Science Education.
Afshar, M.; Hassanzadeh Taheri, M.; Riasi, H; Naseri, M. (1389). Evaluation of faculty members by students with different levels of academic achievement. Scientific Journal of Birjand University of Medical Sciences, 17 (2), 118-126.
Akerlind, G. (2005). Learning about phenomenography: Interviewing, data analysis and the qualitative research paradigm. Doing developmental phenomenography, 63.
Alizadeh, A. (2014). The degree of reliability of the evaluation scores of undergraduate students on the educational performance of faculty members. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Quarterly, 5(12), 27-47.
Asar, sh; Jalalpur, Sh. Ayubi, F; Rahmani, M. and Rezaian, M. (2015). prism; Preferred cases in reporting systematic review articles and meta-analyses. Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences. 15. 63-80
Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2015). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. John Wiley & Sons.
Bauernschmidt, S., & Stenger, M. (2020). Von studentischer zu professioneller Dialogischer Evaluation–theoretische Überlegungen zur Weiterentwicklung eines Evaluationsformats 2. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung15(4), 103-121.
Bazargan Herandi, A. (1401). Educational evaluation, concepts, models and operational process. Tehran: Organization for Studying and Compiling Humanities Books of Universities (Samt).
Beckers, J. J., Belder, R., & Van Den Berg, B. A. (2019). Faculty performance appraisal: An exploration of content and implementation in practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(3), 366-381.
Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Brook, P. A., Chen, W., & Luo, Q. (2003). A comparison of faculty evaluation systems between China and Canada. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education.
Brown, G. T., & Moore, D. (2017). Conceptualizing and validating sources of teaching self-efficacy: A phenomenographic study of pre-service elementary teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 356-369.
Campbell, J. P. (2005). Evaluating teacher performance in higher education: The value of student ratings. University of Central Florida.
Cangur, S., & Ercan, I. (2015). Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods14(1), 14.
Centra, J. A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 495-518.
Dargahi, H; Mohammadzadeh, N. (2012). Evaluation of faculty members by students: valid or invalid. Irans Journal of Education in Medical Sciences. 13 (1).39-48.
Davies, A., & Fleisher, C. (2017). Peer observation of teaching: A case for engaging in critical conversations about teaching and learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(6), 1142-1156.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2013). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 329-365.
Farhangi, M.; Farstakh, M. (2013). Examining the competency model of faculty members in the virtual environment in terms of faculty members and students (based on Armaner's model). Iran Information and Communication Technology Quarterly. 7 (21), 1-14.
Feldman, K. A. (2007). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 93-137). Springer.
Felton, P., Koper, R., Pallof, R., & Pratt, K. (2020). The distance education evolution: Issues and case studies. Routledge.
Fendler, Jan. (2013). Are students qualified to evaluate the teaching approach and teaching activities of their teachers? Uni Kaiserslautern.
Georgian, Mohammad Baqir (2007). Identification of criteria for evaluating the performance of academic faculty members of Islamic Azad University. Management Quarterly, Year 5, Number 11.
Grundsätze für die Evaluation von Juniorprofessoren an der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena. 15. Juli 2008.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods18(1), 59-82.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507-542.
Ho, S.K., & Wearn, K. (1995). A TQM model for higher education and training. Training for Quality, 3(2), 25–33.
Hosni, Mohammad and colleagues (2019). Investigating the impact of professors' evaluation by students on professors' performance from the perspective of professors and managers of educational groups. Urmia Nursing and Midwifery Faculty Journal, Tabriz University.
Khadivi, E (2014). Designing and compiling a model for evaluating the effectiveness and performance of faculty members of Islamic Azad Universities in East Azarbaijan province.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. sage.
Lacasse, Y., Godbout, C., & Sériès, F. (2002). Health-related quality of life inobstructive sleep apnoea. Eur Respir J, 19 (3), 499-503. doi:10.1183/ 09031936. 02.00216902
Lawshe, C. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology; 17, 28 (4), 563-75. doi:10. 1111/j.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2015). University students' perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 203-223.
Mahdavi, S.; Zare, S; Naimi, N (2015). Comparison of academic performance evaluation by students with their self-evaluation. Research in medical science education, 6 (2), 51-61.
Martens, T. & Wege, M. (2006). Die „dialogische Evaluation“ als Instrument zur Qualitätssicherung in der Lehre. In G. Krampen & H. Zayer (Hrsg.), Didaktik und Evaluation in der Psychologie (S. 105-118). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Miller, J. Elizabeth. (2014). Can better evaluation make a difference? American Association of University Professors.
Mirzakhani, Marzieh (1400). Presenting a suitable model of performance evaluation standards for members of the academic faculty of the Islamic Azad University of Tehran. Educational Leadership and Management Quarterly. Spring.
Paré, A. (2017). Tracing the work of policy in translational research: A case study of the development of a tool for assessing research impact. Research Evaluation, 26(3), 157-169.
Peterson, B. L. (2017). Thematic analysis/interpretive thematic analysis. The international encyclopedia of communication research methods, 1-9.Here is the reference in APA style:Quinn, A., Lemay, G., Larsen, P., & Johnson, D. M. (2009). Service quality in higher education. Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA.
Rahimi, Masoud et al. (2019). Evaluation of professors by students: a comprehensive approach. Journal of the Center for Studies and Development of Medical Education.
Rajabi, Samia (2009). Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in order to design a tool for evaluating the performance of faculty members. Quarterly Journal of Higher Education Association of Iran.
Raykov, T. (2012). Scale construction and development using structural equation modeling. The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology, 1, 281-294.
Safari, Th. (1389). The role of various information sources in the educational evaluation of academic staff members, Research and Planning Quarterly in Higher Education, 55, 69-85.
Salehi, K., & Golafshani, N. (2010). Commentary: Using Mixed Methods in Research Studies-an Opportunity with Its Challenges. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(3), 186- 191.
Shoraye Ali Enghelab Farhangi (1379). Regulations of the Cultural and Scientific Monitoring and Evaluation Board of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. Retrived 25 October 2022 from https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/100723.
Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598-642.
Supreme Council for Cultural Revolution. Higher education evaluation indicators. Approved by the 550th meeting dated 26/08/2013
Trowler, P. (2018). Cultures and change in higher education: Theories and practices. Palgrave Macmillan.
Turkzadeh, Jafar; Sabbaghian, Zahra; Yemeni Dozi Sarkhabi, Mohammad; Delavar, Ali (2007). Evaluation of the state of organizational development of universities of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology in Tehran. Iran's higher education.
Wellhöfer, Peter. (2002).  Evaluation der Evaluation. Uni Nürnberg.
Yamaguchi, A. M., & Tsukahara, S. (2016). Quality assurance and evaluation system in japanese higher education. Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior (Campinas)21, 71-87.