Author
Department of Orthosis and Prosthetics, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
,
Document Type : Original Article
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
)