Determining the Factors Effective on the Instructor Profile of Teacher Candidates through Conjoint Analysis

Year 2023, Volume: 52 Issue: 240, 2411 - 2440, 01.11.2023

Bilge Gök , Özgür Sirem

https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1172846

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the factors that affect the profile of the instructor in the minds of teacher candidates. For this purpose, the cross-sectional survey model was used, as the research aimed to reveal the existing situation as it is, and in which data were collected from a predetermined sample at a certain time. The study group of the research consists of a total of 271 students studying at the Basic Education Department of the Faculty of Education of a state university located in the Eastern Anatolia Region. In the research, a conjoint questionnaire and a questionnaire for determining the qualification of the instructor, consisting of open-ended questions, were used in order to reveal the ideal instructor profile in the minds of teacher candidates. In order to determine the factors that affect the teacher candidates' academic staff profile, the data obtained were analyzed using percentage, frequency and conjoint analysis methods. Conjoint analysis was performed by writing the appropriate program in the "Syntax" editor of the SPSS 23 package program. According to the results obtained from the teacher candidates in the research, middle-aged, titled Dr. Instructor member or Assoc. Dr. can be defined as "ideal", a good scientist, objective, understanding, female, and a faculty member who communicates with all of the students.

Keywords

pre-service teacher, instructor profile, ideal instructor, student evaluations, conjoint analysis

Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğretim Elemanı Profili Üzerinde Etkili Olan Faktörlerin Konjoint Analiziyle Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmen adaylarının zihnindeki öğretim elemanı profili üzerinde etkili olan faktörleri belirlemektir. Bu amaçla yapılan araştırma, var olan durumu olduğu gibi ortaya koymayı amaçladığından ve belli bir zamanda önceden belirlenmiş örneklemden veriler toplandığından kesitsel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi’nde yer alan bir devlet üniversitesinin Eğitim Fakültesi’nin Temel Eğitim Bölümü’nde öğrenim gören toplam 271 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada, öğretmen adaylarının zihnindeki ideal öğretim elemanı profilini ortaya koyabilmek için konjoint anketi ve açık uçlu sorulardan oluşan öğretim elemanı niteliğini belirleme anketi kullanılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının öğretim elemanı profili üzerinde etkili olan faktörleri belirlemek amacıyla elde edilen veriler yüzde, frekans ve konjoint analizi yöntemleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Konjoint analizi SPSS 23 paket programının “Syntax” editöründe uygun program yazılarak yapılmıştır. Araştırmada öğretmen adaylarından elde edilen sonuçlara göre orta yaşlı, unvanı Dr. Öğr. üyesi veya Doç. Dr., iyi bir bilim insanı, objektif, anlayışlı, cinsiyeti kadın olan ve öğrencinin tamamı ile iletişim kuran bir öğretim elamanı "ideal" olarak tanımlanabilmektedir.

Keywords

öğretmen adayı, öğretim elemanı profili, ideal öğretim elemanı, öğrenci değerlendirmeleri, konjoint analizi

References

• Abrami, P. C. (1989). How should we use student ratİngs to evaluate teachİng? Research in Higher Education, 30(2), 221-227.
• Ahmadi, M., Helms, M. M., & Raiszadeh, F. (2001). Business students’ perceptions of faculty evaluations. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(1).
• Algozzine, B., Gretes, J., Flowers, C., Howley, L., Beattie, J., Spooner, F., Mohanty, G., & Bray, M. (2004) Student evaluation of college teaching: A practice in search of principles, College Teaching, 52(4), 134-141, DOI: 10.3200/ CTCH.52.4.134-141.
• Aljubaily, Y. H. (2010). Measuring university students’ perceptions of characteristics of ideal university instructors in Saudi Arabia and the United States: An application of non-parametric item response theory. Doctoral Thesis, University of Northern Colorado, Colorado.
• Akgöl, H. (1994). Comparison of the views of the faculty members and students in education faculties about the qualifications of an ideal instructor and the suitability of the instructors in their own institutions for these qualifications. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, Social Sciences Institute, İzmir.
• Açan, B. & Saydan, R. (2009). Evaluation of academic quality characteristics of lecturers: Kafkas University FEAS example. Atatürk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 13(2), 225-253.
• Akman, Y., Kelecioglu, H., & Bilge, F. (2006). Opinions of lecturers on the factors affecting their job satisfaction. H.U. Journal of the Faculty of Education (H.U. Journal of Education), 30, 11-20.
• Arubayi, E. A. (1987). Improvements of instruction and teacher effectiveness are students ratings reliable and valid? Higher Education, 16, 267-278.
• Baker, S. H. (2014). Faculty perceptions as a foundation for evaluating use of student evaluations of teaching. Doctoral Thesis. The University of Vermont, Vermont.
• Balam, E. M. (2006). Professors’ teaching effectiveness ın relation to self-efficacy beliefs and perceptions of student rating myths. Doctoral Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn.
• Balkar, H. (2009). Investigation of the relationship between the self-esteem, job satisfaction and burnout levels of preschool teachers in terms of some variables. Unpublished master's thesis, Adnan Menderes University, Aydın.
• Bedard, K, & Kuhn, P. (2008). Where class size really matters: Class size and student ratings of instructor effectiveness. Economics of Education Review, 27, 253–265.
• Beran, T., Violato, C., Kline, D. & Frideres, J. (2005). The utility of student ratings of instruction for students, faculty, and administrators: a “consequential validity” study. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35(2), 49-70.
• Beran, T. N., & Rokosh, J. L. (2007). Instructors’ perspectives on the utility of student ratings of instruction. Instr Sci, 37, 171–184. Doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9045-2.
• Bianchini, S., Lissoni, F., & Pezzoni, M. (2013) Instructor characteristics and students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness: Evidence from an Italian engineering school. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(1), 38-57, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2012.742868.
• Bilge, F., Akman, Y., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2005). Examining the job satisfaction of instructors. M.Ü. Atatürk Faculty of Education Journal of Educational Sciences, 22, 47-60.
• Buluş, M., (2001). Cognitive consistency preference among teacher candidates. Pamukkale University Faculty of Education Journal, 10, 26-33.
• Centra, A. J., & Gaubatz, B. N. (2000). Is there gender bias in student evaluations of teaching? Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 17-33.
• Cheng, D. A. (2011). Effects of class size on alternative educational outcomes across disciplines. Economics of Education Review, 30, 980–990.
• Corsi, D. J. (2017). The effects of ıncentives on student responses to open-ended questıions on course evaluations ın higher education. Doctoral Thesis, University of Lamar, Lamar.
• Çakmak, M. (2009). Prospective teachers‟ thoughts on characteristics of an “effective teacher”. Education and Science, 34(153), 74-82.
• Çelik, M., & Tümkaya, S. (2012). Relationship between academic staff's marital adjustment and life satisfaction with job variables. Ahi Evran University Kirsehir Education Faculty Journal, 13(1), 223-238.
• Dalgıç, G. (2010). Instructor performance evaluation inventories (iep) validity and reliability study. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9(32), 92-105.
• Devebakan, N, Koçdor H, Musal B., & Güner, G. (2003). Evaluation of students' views on education within the scope of increasing the quality of graduate education at Dokuz Eylül University Health Sciences Institute. Dokuz Eylül University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 5(2),30-44.
• Dilek, O. (1993). Characteristics of a successful teacher, Eğitim, 5, 52-55.
• Endo, J., & Harpel, R. (1982). The Effect of Student-Faculty Interaction On Students’ Educational Outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 16(2),115-136.
• Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (1997). Training and competence of academic staff in higher education institutions. National Education, 133, 20-23.
• Ergün, M., Duman, T., Kıncal, R., & Arıbaş, S. (1999). Characteristics of an Ideal Instructor, Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 1–11.
• Feldman, K. A. (1997). Consistency and variability among college students in rating their teachers and courses: A review and analysis. Research in Higher Education, 6, 223-274.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Ed). McGraw-Hill.
• Gravestock, P., & Gregor-Greenleaf, E. (2008). Student course evaluations: Research, models and trends. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
• Greenwald, A. G., & Gillrnore, G. M. (1997). No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring course workload in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 743-751.
• Gunn, H. D. (2021). Online instructor perceptions of new ınstructor training. Doctoral Thesis, University of Walden, Walden.
• Johnson, M., D., Narayanan, A., & Sawaya, W. J. (2013). Effects of course and instructor characteristics on student evaluation of teaching across a college of engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 289-318.
• Kalaycı, N. (2009). Methods Used in the Process of Evaluating the Teaching Performance of Academicians in Higher Education Institutions. Educational Management in Theory and Practice, 15(60), 625-656.
• Kara, A. İzci, E., Köksalan, B., & Zelyurt, H. (2015). Developing the Perceived Instructor Behavior Scale. Jılses, 1(1), 21-32.
• Kazancı Tınmaz, A. (2018). Pedagogical competencies of instructors: Scale development study. İnönü University Faculty of Education Journal, 19(3), 478-493. DOI: 10.17679/inuefd.349882.
• Koçak, R. (2006). Teacher performance evaluation inventory validity and reliability study. Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 6(3), 779-808.
• Korkut, H. (2001). Higher education questioned. Ankara: Nobel Publications.
• Kuh, G., & Hu, S. (2001). The Effects of Student-Faculty Interaction in The 1990s. Review of Higher Education, 24(3),309-332.
• Kuh, G. (1995). The Other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development, Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 123-155.
• Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2013). Instructor presence in online courses and student satisfaction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1-23.
• Lyde, A. R., Grieshaber, D. C., & Byrns, G. (2016). Faculty teaching performance: Perceptions of a multi-source method for evaluation (MME). Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 82-94. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v16i3.18145.
• Mahiroğlu, A. (1988). Evaluation of the teaching behaviors of the instructors involved in the training of primary school teachers with teaching formation programs. Primary Education Symposium on the 75th Anniversary of the Republic. Ankara: H.H.Tekışık Publications. 73-80.
• Miller, R. I. (1988). Evaluating faculty for promotion and tenure. San Francisci: Jossey-Bass.
• Morgan, C. (2003). The qualities that make a good teacher. Learning Matters at Lingnan Teaching and Learning Centre, UK.
• Murray, H.G. (1983). Low-Interence classroom teaching behaviors and student rating of college teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 138-149. Nakip, M. (2003). Marketing research. Ankara: Seçkin Publications.
• Nargundkar, S., & Shrikhande, M. (2014). Norming of student evaluations of instruction: Impact of noninstructional factors. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 12(1), 55-72. DOI: 10.1111/dsji.12023.
• Nasser, F., & Hagtvet, K. (2006). Multilevel analysis of the effects of student and instructor/course characteristics on student ratings. Research in Higher Education, 47(5), 559-590.
• Obenchain, K. M., Abernathy, T. V., & Wiest, L. R. (2001). The reliability of students’ ratings on faculty teaching effectiveness. College Teaching, 49(3), 100-105.
• Oskay, G. (1997). Examining the identity development levels of university students according to their faculties and departments. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 13, 63-73.
• Özgüngör, S., & Duru, E. (2014). Relationship of instructors and course characteristics with evaluations of instructors' performances. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 29(2), 175-188.
• Öztürk, Y. (1999). Applicability of the evaluation of lecturers by lecturers in public universities. National Education, 141, 61-63.
• Petchers, M. K., & Chow, J. (1988). Interpreting students' course evaluations. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 2(2), 51-61.
• Poellnitz, P. D. (2007). Student evaluation of instruction: Traditional 14-week semester versus 7-week accelerated end-of-course faculty ratings. Doctoral Thesis, Wilmington University, Wilmington.
• Pozo-Muñoz, C, Rebolloso-Pacheco, E., & Fernández-Ramírez, B. (2000) The 'Ideal Teacher'. Implications for student evaluation of teacher effectiveness, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(3), 253-263, DOI: 10.1080/02602930050135121.
• Sergiovanni, T.J., & Starratt, R.J. (1998). Supervision: human perspectives. New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 157.
• Sevim, O., Akan, D., & Yıldırım, İ. (2020). Cognitive constructs of teacher candidates on ıdeal qualifications of academicians. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 8(3), 76-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.8n.3p.76
• Spooner, F., Jordan, L., Algozzine, B., & Spooner, M. (1999). Student ratings of instruction in distance learning and on-campus classes. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(3), 132-140, DOI: 10.1080/00220679909597588.
• Tatlıdil, H. (1995). Conjoint analysis. Hacettepe University, Department of Statistics, Published Lecture Notes.
• Terry, C. (2015). Student evaluation ratings: Examining predictive relationships between students’ ratings and course satisfaction. Doctoral Thesis, University of Phoenix, Phoenix.
• Theall, M., & Franklin, J. (2001). Looking for bias in all the wrong places: A search of truth or a witch hunt in student ratings of instruction? New Directions for Institutional Research, 109, 45-56.
• Thompson, M. (2001). Informal student-faculty interaction: Its relationship to educational gains in science and mathematics among community college students. Community College Review, 29(1), 35-57.
• Türkoğlu, A. (1991). Qualified teacher training. Quests in Education Symposium, İstanbul.
• Wachtel, K. H. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-211.
• Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2004). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073001089.
• Wigington, H., Tollefson, N., & Rodriguez, E. (1989). Student's ratings of instructors revisited: Interactions among class and instructor variables. Research in Higher Education, 30(3) 331-344.
• Valeri, H. R. (2008). The ideal professor: Student perceptions of effective instructor practices, attitudes, and skills. Education, 129(1), 125-138.
• Yağcı, E. (1997). The effect of democratic teaching in the classroom on student achievement and academic self-concept. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 13, 171-179.
• Yavuz Konokman, G., & Yanpar Yelken, T. (2014). Perceptions of faculty of education faculty members about lifelong learning competencies. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 29(2), 267-281.
• Zaman Kılıç, S., & Gümüşeli, A., İ. (2010). Job satisfaction levels of lecturers working at vocational schools affiliated to foundation universities in Istanbul. İstanbul University Faculty of Business Journal, 39(2), 290-309.