Department of Orthosis and Prosthetics, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
Introduction:An essential indicator of the quality of universities is the ability of professors, which can be measured by evaluation. As a result, professional maintenance and development can be achieved. Evaluation is the most efficient way to improve the quality of education. This study aimed to take a closer look at the evaluation process in these universities, focusing on the education system. In conclusion, a comprehensive model was assessed in Iran for teacher evaluation in the higher education system. Materials & Methods: This comparative study was examined using the Brady model in professor evaluation systems in universities based on the Shanghai ranking table and searching the websites of world-renowned universities. The data were extracted, then the types of university professor evaluation systems were examined. The quality of professors was also addressed through CWUR rankings. Finally, the highlights and experiences of professor evaluation were discussed in these universities and carefully investigated. Results: A total of 15 universities surveyed had a specific website, and they included the professor's educational field as one of the evaluation criteria. The evaluation was done according to the type of university by students, colleagues, and managers. Each university applied the critical approach based on its evaluation protocol, which has already been announced to the professors. In this targeting, the evaluation was considered one of the parts of the learning process and emphasized its promotion. Conclusion: According to the evaluation criteria prepared based on the goals of that university, the role and measurement of the professor's educational performance are critical in achieving the goals. These professors consider evaluation as one of the parts of the learning process and should seek to improve learning.
1. Green ME. Ellis CL. Fremont P. Batty H. Faculty evaluation in Departments of Family Medicine: do our universities measure up? Medical education. 1998;32(6):597-606. 2. Shinkfield AJ. Stufflebeam DL. Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective practice. Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. 3. Dienemann J. Shaffer C. Faculty performance appraisal systems: Procedures and criteria. Journal of professional nursing. 1992;8(3):148-54. 4. Rifkin T. The status and scope of faculty evaluation. Bethesda: ERIC Clearinghouse; 1995. Available from: http://www.ericdigests.org/1996- 1/status.htm 5. Nutter DO. Bond JS. Coller BS. D'Alessandri RM. Gewertz BL. Nora LM. et al. Measuring faculty effort and contributions in medical education. Academic Medicine. 2000;75(2):200-7. 6. Nunn T. Cosker T. Bose D. Pallister I. Immediate application of improvised pelvic binder as first step in extended resuscitation from life- threatening hypovolaemic shock in conscious patients with unstable pelvic injuries. Injury. 2007;38(1):125-8. 7. Glazerman S. Goldhaber D. Loeb S. Raudenbush S. Staiger DO. Whitehurst GJ. et al. Passing muster: Evaluating teacher evaluation systems. Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings. 2011;1(1):1-36. 8. University TMS. Faculty Handbook Proposed Revision for Section evaluation. USA: http://www.missuristate.edu/provest/faculty; 2017. 9. Bland CJ. Wersal L. VanLoy W. Jacott W. Evaluating faculty performance: a systematically designed and assessed approach. Academic medicine. 2002;77(1):15-30. 10. Chambers DW. Boyarsky H. Peltier B. Fendler F. Development of a Mission‐Focused Faculty Evaluation System. Journal of dental education. 2003;67(1):10-22. 11. Madison A. Demonstrating performance and accountability through mission-based evaluation.[cited 2005 Jun 13]. Avalable from: http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/content/view/15 4/28. 12. Dailey A. Accreditation preparation: A Faculty Evaluation Model Based on WCET Best Practice Standards. Park University. 2004;14(1):19-31. 13. Faubert V. School evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review. OECD Publishing; 2009. 14. Gordon P. Running head: Student evaluations of college instructors. Retrieved September. 2005;78(1):18-30. 15. Miller J. Seldin P. Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluations: Can Better Evaluation Make a Difference? Academy. 2014;100(1):10-22. 16. Danielson C. McGreal TL. Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice: Ascd; 2000. 17. Pincavage A. Cifu A. Faculty member feedback reports. The Clinical Teacher. 2015;12(1):50-4. 18. Goe L. Bell C. Little O. Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. 2008;17(1):10-18. 19. Duong T-VT. Do T-D. Nguyen N-P. editors. Exploiting faculty evaluation forms to improve teaching quality: an analytical review. 2015 Science and Information Conference (SAI); 2015. 20. University MS. Faculty Evaluation Procedures for Reappointment USA: www.crlt.umich.edu; 2016. 21. Minnesota Uo. Faculty Evaluation USA: Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC); 2017. 22. TUoT. aculty-evaluation USA: provost.utk.edu/faculty-evaluation; 2017. 23. https://www.ualberta.ca/science/about- us/faculty-and-staff-resources/faculty-evaluation Aou. faculty-evaluation canada: https://www.ualberta.ca/science/about-us/faculty- and-staff-resources/faculty-evaluation; 2018. 24. Cou. faculty evaluation canada: https//:cumming.ucalgary.ca/.../criteria; 2017. 25. College TNs. Faculty/Evaluation USA:2016. nsc.smartcatalogiq.com/en/College...and...Faculty/ Evaluation. 26. Nursing.jhu.edu/TUoJH. faculty evaluation. USA: faculty_research/faculty/handbook/index.html;2018 ;11(1):15-25. 27. Houston TUo. faculty-course-evaluation: www.uh.edu/measurement-evaluation.../faculty- course-evaluation Measurement and Evaluation Center; 2017. 28. Aleamoni L. Who are better at evaluating faculty teaching peers or students. Psychology and Cognitive Sciences – Open Journal. 2016;3(1):15- 30. 29. Kyriakides L. Creemers B. Testing the dynamic model of educational efectiveness: teacher effects on cognetive and affective outcoms. Academia. 2006;77(1):15-30. 30. University KS. Criteria and Procedures on Faculty Evaluation forTenure, and Promotion USA: Department of Chemical Engineering: College of Engineering; 2018. 31. Documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID= 10027 TUomFE. Faculty Evaluation UK: Faculty Evaluation (2016/09) documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID= 10027.2016. 32. University US. faculty evaluation USA: https://www.usu.edu/fsenate/handbook/FSHandboo k; 2016-2017. 33. Provost.uga.edu/index.php/policies/.../1-06-1- written-annual-review UoG. faculty evaluation USA: provost.uga.edu/index.php/policies/.../1-06- 1-written-annual-review; 2016. 34. Carolina TUoN. Faculty Evaluation Model. [Online]. USA: <http://www.uncp.edu/aa/handbook/01- 02/pdf/Chapter_4A-1_11.6.PDF>. [20/06/2005]. 2017
Taheri,َ . (2023). How to evaluate a professor in some prestigious universities in the world: the results of a comparative study. Horizon of Medical Education Development, 14(1), 32-16. doi: 10.22038/hmed.2022.62099.1198
MLA
Taheri,َ . "How to evaluate a professor in some prestigious universities in the world: the results of a comparative study", Horizon of Medical Education Development, 14, 1, 2023, 32-16. doi: 10.22038/hmed.2022.62099.1198
HARVARD
Taheri َ. (2023). 'How to evaluate a professor in some prestigious universities in the world: the results of a comparative study', Horizon of Medical Education Development, 14(1), pp. 32-16. doi: 10.22038/hmed.2022.62099.1198
CHICAGO
َ Taheri, "How to evaluate a professor in some prestigious universities in the world: the results of a comparative study," Horizon of Medical Education Development, 14 1 (2023): 32-16, doi: 10.22038/hmed.2022.62099.1198
VANCOUVER
Taheri َ. How to evaluate a professor in some prestigious universities in the world: the results of a comparative study. Horizon of Medical Education Development. 2023;14(1):32-16 (In Persian). doi: 10.22038/hmed.2022.62099.1198