بررسی ساختار عاملی ابزار سنجش انگیزش تدریس اعضای هیئت‌علمی در آموزش عالی ایران (مورد: دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان)

محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسی

اصغر سلطانی ¹ ( دانشیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، کرمان، ایران. )
زهرا رستگاری ² ( دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، کرمان، ایران. )

تاریخ دریافت : 1398/03/14 تاریخ پذیرش : 1399/05/27 تاریخ انتشار : 1399/06/01

کلید واژه: آموزش عالی, اعضای هیئت‌علمی, ساختار عاملی, انگیزش تدریس,

چکیده مقاله :

هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی ساختار عاملی پرسشنامه 25 سؤالی سنجش انگیزش تدریس اعضای هیئت‌علمی در آموزش عالی بود. جامعۀ آماری پژوهش شامل همۀ اعضای هیئت‌علمی دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان در سال تحصیلی 97-1396 بود (621 نفر) که با روش نمونه‌گیری نسبتی، 244 نفر به‌عنوان نمونه پژوهش انتخاب شدند. همسانی درونی پرسشنامه پژوهش از طریق محاسبه ضریب آلفای کرونباخ 86/0 برآورد گردید. برای بررسی ساختار عاملی پژوهش، از روش تحلیل عاملی تأییدی (CFA) در نرم‌افزار تحلیل ساختار‌های لحظه‌ای نسخۀ 23 استفاده شد. به‌منظور تحلیل نتایج، از دو گروه شاخص اصلی نیکویی برازش تطبیقی و مقتصد استفاده گردید. نتایج نشان داد که چهار عامل کارآمدی فردی، علاقه، تلاش و کارآمدی برونداد دارای وزنی معنی‌دار در تبیین سازه انگیزش تدریس اعضای هیئت‌علمی هستند. همچنین دو زیرمقیاس‌ کارآمدی فردی: زمینه و کارآمدی فردی: عمومی، دارای وزنی معنادار در تبیین سازه کارآمدی فردی هستند. بر این اساس، این پرسشنامه با حذف 6 سؤال، ابزار مطلوبی برای سنجش انگیزه تدریس اعضای هیئت‌علمی در آموزش عالی ایران است و عوامل تلاش، علاقه، کارآمدی فردی و کارآمدی برونداد، به ترتیب بیشترین تأثیر را در سنجش انگیزش تدریس آنان دارد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the factor structure of 25 items questionnaire of faculty members’ teaching motivation measurement in higher education. The study population was included all the faculty members of Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman in academic year of 2017-2018, that were about 621 faculty members. Research sample was included 244 faculty members who were selected by multi-staged cluster sampling. The internal consistency of questionnaire was measured through Cronbach’s alpha and was estimated to be.86. In order to investigate the factor structure, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used via AMOS 23 software. Data were analyzed by comparative and parsimony goodness-of-fit indices Results showed that the four factors of personal efficacy, interest, effort and outcome efficacy have a significant weight in explaining the construct of faculty members’ teaching motivation. Also, two subscales of personal efficacy: context and personal efficacy: general, have significant weights in defining the personal efficacy. Accordingly, after elimination of its six items, this questionnaire is a suitable instrument to measure the faculty members’ teaching motivation in Iranian higher education, and the factors of effort, interest, personal efficacy and outcome efficacy have the most effect in measuring their teaching motivation, respectively.

منابع و مأخذ:

Abdolmaleki, S., Maleki, H., & Asadi, F. (2018). Effective teaching component of teachers in curriculum planning. Research in Curriculum Planning, 15, 95-114.

Alibeygi, A. H., Barani, S., & Karami Dehkordi, M. (2019). Designing a comprehensive model for teaching quality evaluation of faculty members: the case of Razi University. Research in Curriculum Planning, 16, 21-34.

Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal ofManagement, 25, 231–292.

Angeline, V. R. (2014). Motivation, professional development, and the experienced music teacher. Music Educators Journal, 101, 50 – 55.

Bailey, J. G. (1999). Academics’ motivation and self-efficacy for teaching and research. Higher EducationResearch & Development, 18, 343–359.

Bandura A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exerciseof Control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

Dybowski, C. & Harendza, S. (2015). Validation of the physician teaching motivation questionnaire (PTMQ). BMC Medical Education, 15, 1-12.

Dybowski, C., Sehner, S. & Harendza, S. (2017). Influence of motivation, self-efficacy and situational factors on the teaching quality of clinical educators. BMC Medical Education, 17, 1-8.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.

Esdar, W., Gorges, J. & Wild, E. (2016). The role of basic need satisfaction for junior academics’ goal conflicts and teaching motivation. Higher Education, 72, 175-190.

Fernet, C., Senécal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Dowson, M. (2008). The work tasks motivation scale for teachers (WTMST). Journal of careerassessment, 16, 256–279.

Ghasemi, V. (2013). Structural equation modeling in social researches using Amos Graphics. Tehran: Jameshenasan.

 

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 76, 569–582.

Graham, S. (1991). A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 5–39.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7^th Ed.). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Kaveshi, Z., Akhlaghi, M., & Soltani, A. (2018). Developing a structural model to predict the teaching quality of faculty members based on their philosophical mentality and their job motivation. Studies in Learning & Instruction, 9, 59-86.

Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4^th ed.). New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30, 607-610.

Lee, J. A., Kang, M. O., & Park, B. J. (2019). Factors influencing choosing teaching as a career: South Korean pre-service teachers. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20, 467-488.

Lodahl, T. M. and Kejner, M. M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33.

Menges, R. J. (1997). Fostering faculty motivation to teach: Approaches to faculty development. In J. L. Bess (Ed.), Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach effectively. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University.

Mohammad Alizadeh, S., & Fasihi Harandi, T. (2006). Motivational factors affecting educational performance from the point of view of faculty members. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 2, 102-108.

Norouzi, D., Vahdani, M. R., Asadi; Rouhani, Z., Jamshidzadeh, M. (2015). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of teachers’ vocation duty motivation. Educational Psychology, 11, 79-110.

Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H., & Berge, J. M. T. (1994). Psychometric theory (3^rd Ed.). New York: McGraw-hill.

Postareff, L., Lindblom-Yla¨nne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 571–577.

Schiefele U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Study of Reading, 3, 257–80.

Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–337.

Soltani, A., & Kaveshi, Z. (2016). Forecasting teaching quality of faculty members based-on their Philosophical Mindset and Occupational Motivation. Traning & Learning Researches, 2, 29-48.

Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401–411.

Stes, A., Coertjens, L., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: Impact on teaching approach. Higher Education, 60, 187–204.

Stupnisky, R. H., BrckaLorenz, A., Yuhas, B., & Guay, F. (2018). Faculty members’ motivation for teaching and best practices: Testing a model based on self-determination theory across institution types. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 15-26.

Trigwell, K., Ashwin, P., Lindblom-Yla¨nne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2004). Variation in approaches touniversity teaching: the role of regulation and motivation. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) Higher Education Special Interest Group conference, Stockholm, Sweden.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teachingand Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944–956.

Visser-Wijnveen, G.J., Stes, A. & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Development and validation of a questionnaire measuring teachers’ motivations for teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 64, 421–436

Wilson-Kennedy, Z. S., Huang, L., Kennedy, E., Tang, G., Kanipes, M. I., & Byrd, G. S. (2019). Faculty motivation for scholarly teaching and innovative classroom practice: An empirical study. In Research and Practice in Chemistry Education (pp. 65-88). Springer, Singapore.

Woolfolk A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (2008). What motivates teachers? Important work on a complex question. Learning andInstruction, 18, 492–498.

Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137–148.