«شما باید بدانید» چالش‌های تدریس در دانشگاه چیست؟!
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسی
سمیه شاه طالبی
1
(
1دانشجوی دکتری برنامه ریزی درسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
)
فروغ تصدیقی
2
(
2دانشجوی دکتری برنامه ریزی درسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
)
احمدرضا نصر
3
(
3استاد دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
)
کلید واژه: آموزش عالی, اعضای هیأت علمی, دانشجویان علوم تربیتی, چالش‌های تدریس, مهارت‌های تدریس,
چکیده مقاله :
هدف از این پژوهش بررسی ادراک دانشجویان علوم تربیتی از تدریس اساتید در دانشگاه است که بخشی از داده‌های آن در این مقاله آورده شده است. روش مورد استفاده، روش تحقیق کیفی از نوع پدیدار شناسی بود و جمع‌آوری اطلاعات نیز با استفاده از مصاحبه عمیق نیمه ساختار یافته و به صورت گروهی انجام شد. مدت زمان مصاحبه‌ها از 50 تا 60دقیقه متغیر بود و تا رسیدن به اشباع اطلاعات ادامه داشت. شرکت کنندگان شامل دو گروه از دانشجویان کارشناسی ارشد علوم تربیتی دانشگاه اصفهان و دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد خوراسگان بودند که مجموعاً 23 نفررا تشکیل می‌دادند. مصاحبه‌های انجام شده با استفاده از دستگاه MP3 ضبط و سپس به منظور تجزیه و تحلیل بر روی کاغذ پیاده شدند. تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها با استفاده از تحلیل محتوا، تحلیل شد. نتایج نشان داد که چالش‌های تدریس اساتید شامل دو مؤلفه اصلی و پنج زیرمؤلفه است. مؤلفه‌های اصلی شامل ناکارآمدی‌های فنی (شامل روش تدریس، مدیریت زمان) و ناکارآمدی‌های حرفه‌ای (شامل دانش، محتوا و ارزشیابی) بود.
Studying about the educational science students' perceptions about teaching at universities is what being focused in this research: some of the data are presented in this paper. The method used was a phenomenological- qualitative type. To collect the data, deep semi-structured interviews as well as group discussions were used. The time allocated for the interviews varied from 50 to 60 minutes. The Participants were consisted of M.A Educational Sciences students at Isfahan University and Islamic Azad University of Khorasgan, which they made up a total of 23 people. The Interviews were recorded with MP3 Devices and, then, they were written down to be analyzed contently. The results showed that the challenges of teaching are consisted of two main components and five subcomponents. The technical inefficiency (including teaching methods, time management) and Professional incompetence (including knowledge, content and evaluation) are recognized as the main components
Adib Haj Bagheri, M ;Parvizi, S; Salsali, M.(2007).Qualitative research methods, First edition, Tehran: Boshra Publications, [Persian]. Dargahi, H; Hamozade, P; Sadeghi, J; Rad Abadi, M; Roshani, M; Salimim, M; Naz Soltan, P. (2010). Evaluation criteria for effective teaching students a formidable master of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Journal of School Health Pyavrd Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Number 4 (3,4), [Persian]. Devlin, M. (2007a). Improving teaching in tertiary education: Institutional and individual influences. Keynote address at Excellence in Education and Training Convention ,Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore. Devlin, M. (2007b). An examination of a solution-focused approach to university teaching development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Australia. Dinavand, H.(2011). Instructional Design for Teaching Effectiveness, Tehran: Aeej Publications, [Persian]. Ehtesabi, A; Moshiri, Z; Baghaee, R.(2005). Students evaluate a good teacher, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Iranian journal of medical Education, [Persian]. Ferguson, R. (2010). student perceptions of teaching effectiveness discussion brief national center for teacher effectiveness and the achievement gap initiative, Harvard University Festner micher, G; Soltis, H. (2011). Approaches to Teaching, Translate by Ahmad reza Nasr & et al, Tehran: Mehr Vista Publications, [Persian]. Gal, M; Borg, V; Gal, J. (2004). Qualitative and quantitative research methods in education and psychology, Translate by Ahmad reza Nasr & et al, Tehran, Samt Publications, [Persian]. Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). exemplary university teachers: knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 699–729. Kember, D., & McNaught, C. (2007). enhancing university teaching. London and New York:Routledge Kember, D., Ma, R., & McNaught, C. (2006). excellent university teaching. Hong Kong: TheChinese University Press. Kreber, C. (2002). teaching excellence, teaching expertise and the scholarship of teaching.Innovative higher education, 27(1), 5–23. Lonenberg, F; Orneshtain, A. (2011). Curriculum Planning, Analysis and Improvement of Teaching, Translate by Mostafa Sharif, Esfahan, Jahad university Publications, [Persian]. Marsh, H.W., & Roche, L.A. (1994). the use of students’ evaluations of university teaching to improve teaching effectiveness. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Mazlome Mahmod Abad, S; Ehramposh, M H; Soltani, T; Rahaee, Z. (2008). Characteristics of an excellent master students of Yazd University of Medical Science, Journal of Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Year 14, Number 3, [Persian]. McMillan, W .J. (2007). ‘then you get a teacher’: guidelines for excellence in teaching. medical teacher, International Journal of Medical Education, 29(8), 209–218. Moezi, M; Shirzad, H; Zaman Zad, B; Rohi Borijeni, H. (2009). Faculty and student perspectives on teacher evaluation and criteria of effective teaching at the University of Medical Sciences, Journal of Medical Sciences Sahrekord university, [Persian]. Mohadesi, H; Feizi, A; Salem Safee, R. (2011). Comparison of indicators of effective teaching from the perspective of faculty members and students of Oromye University of Medical Sciences,2 Monthly of Nursing and Midwifery School, Department of Oromye, [Persian]. Niaz Azari, k; Maddah, M T, Amoee, F. (2008). Evaluate the effectiveness of university teachers in classroom management, Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, Islamic Azad university of Garmsar, Number 2(2), p: 147-164, [Persian]. Paulsen, M. B. (2002). evaluating teaching performance. new directions for institutional Research, 114(Summer 2002), 5–18. Raofee, S; Shaykhian, A; Ebrahim Zade, F; Tarahi, M J, Ahmadi, P. (2010). Designing a novel sheet to evaluate theoretical teaching quality of faculty members based on viewpoints of stakeholders and charles E. Glassick's scholarship principles, Journal of Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Yrae: 14 (3) :167-176, [Persian]. Saroyan, A., Amundsen, C., McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Winer, L., & Gandell, T. (2004).Assumptions underlying workshop activities. In A. Saroyan and C. Amundsen (Eds.), rethinking teaching in higher education (pp. 15–29). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Shahtalebi, S. (2009). Management women's experiences of leadership in higher education: A qualitative study, Master of art thesis, Islamic Azad University, [Persian]. Shoare nejad, A A. (2005). Teacher training, teacher training show, Journal of Educational Technology, Number. 179, [Persian]. Skelton, A. (2004). Understanding ‘teaching excellence’ in higher education: A critical evaluation of the national teaching fellowships scheme. Studies in higher education, 29(4) 451–468. Sterberg,C J.( 2005). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences, Translate by Ahmad Pour Ahmad, Ali Shamaee Zade, Yazd university Publications, [Persian]. Vulcano, B.A. (2007). Extending the generality of the qualities and behaviors constituting effective teaching. teaching of psychology, 34(2), 114–117. Young, S., & Shaw, D.G. (1999). profile of effective college and university teachers. journal of higher education, 70(6), 670–686. Zare, H. (2005). Classroom management, barriers and strategies, In the era of knowledge-based teacher conference, Isfahan University, [Persian]. Zohor, A R; Eslami nejad, T. (2003). Indicators of effective teaching professor of medical students, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Medical Education, Tehran, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, [Persian].
_||_