Instructor Evaluation and Measurement Method to Enhance Instructor - Standard of Architecture Program, Higher Education Thailand

Transcription

1 Instructor Evaluation and Measurement Method to Enhance Instructor - Standard of Architecture Program, Higher Education Thailand Pornphan Verapreyagura, Thammasat University, Thailand Vimolsiddhi Horayangkura, Thammasat University, Thailand ABSTRACT This research had two principle objectives: to study types and methods of instructor evaluation and measurement method of Architecture Program, Higher Education in Thailand and to compare types and methods of instructor evaluation and measurement method of Architecture Program between eleven government and five private universities. The significance of the study was to determine the criteria for Thai architecture instructor standard. The findings are as follows: There are three evaluation and measurement methods, two processes, two aspects, and two application methods. Theoretical propositions show that in the previous time, sixteen universities stressed on efficient teaching structure in the parts of personality, teaching skills, media, teaching methods, and in-class relationship ordinarily. Nowadays, every part of efficient teaching structure is considered integrated. Key words: Instructor Evaluation, Measure Method, Instructor- Standard, Architecture Program INTRODUCTION Under the National Education Act B.E (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E (2002) BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ REX enacted on the 14th Day of August B.E The Act mentions that all instructors of both the government or state and private universities should be promoted to the standards, shall have professional licenses as provided by the law, and shall enjoy the status of civil servants under the jurisdiction of the Teacher Civil Service Organization. Moreover the educational institutions and agencies concerned shall enable instructors to create the ambiance, environment, instructional media and facilities for learners to learn and be all-round persons, able to benefit from research as part of the learning process. The Ministry of Education, Religion and Culture of Thailand has to promote development of a system for teachers and educational personnel, including production and further refinement of this category of personnel, so that teaching will be further enhanced and become a highly respected profession. So, sufficient funds shall be allocated by the State for the budget required and for establishing the Fund for Development of Teachers, Faculty Staff and Educational Personnel. The significance of the Act reflects that all faculties in Thailand especially the Faculty of Architecture must reform to the standards. The architecture instructors should get the quality assurance. From reviewing the previous studies there are no evidence about the standards of architecture instructors, teachers, faculty staff and educational personnel. Logically, if the faculties have standardized instructors, the faculties will get more advantages about quality assurance; ranking and bench marking. So, this background leads to many research questions: 1) How many types and methods of instructor evaluation and measurement method of Architecture Program, Higher Education Thailand are there? 2) Which types and methods are suitable for Architecture Program, Higher Education Thailand most? 3) How many items are there in the instructor evaluation and measurement forms and how do they be counted? 4) How should the instructor The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May

2 - standard of Architecture Program, Higher Education Thailand be? In addition, these research questions lead to this research significantly. OBJECTIVES Study types and methods of instructor evaluation and measure method of Architecture Program, Higher Education in Thailand. Compare types and methods of instructor evaluation and measure method of Architecture Program between government and private universities. METHODOLOGY This quantitative research used both secondary and primary sources of data. The secondary source concerned a lot of concepts and theories such as evaluation, the quality assurance, teaching, instructor and teacher s standard, and Faculty of Architecture in Thailand. Data from this source were investigated the content validity and citation. The primary source, 3 groups of key informants of the Faculty of Architecture both the government or state and private universities, composed of 426 students, 127 instructors, and 5 experts. Questionnaires were main instruments that had high quality both content - construct validity and reliability ( =0.87). It measured 4 main variables. (Fig.1) V1 V4 V3 V2 Fig.1 Correlation between 4 main variables Fig.1, V1 composes of sex, age, and education level, field of study / teaching, and numbers of credits, favorite subject, and experience about instructor evaluation / teaching. V2 means factors of teaching evaluation. V3 means instructor evaluation and measurement method. V4 means instructor - standard of Architecture Program in Thailand. FINDINGS 1. Types and Methods of Instructor Evaluation and Measurement Method of Architecture Program, Higher Education in Thailand Curriculum structure analysis of Architecture Program, Higher Education in Thailand has shown that 16 universities both government and private have 5-year program, Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.) with credit hours consisting of credit hours of general education courses, credit hours of professional courses, and 3-9 credit hours of free elective courses. Exceptionally, Thammasat University has 4+2 year program, Bachelor of Science (B.S.) for 4 years, 145 credits hours and Master of Architecture (M.Arch.) for 2 years, 48 credits hours. The content analysis technique shows that there are 3 evaluation and measurement methods; by student, by instructor, and by organization. The students usually evaluate the instructors (knowledge, skill/ experience, personality, and attitude toward students) and the teaching (the contents: modern, correct, continued, and under course description, the teaching method: content-based, objective-based, and achievement-based, the behavioral teaching: participation, the 124 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May 2006

3 medias: electronics and non-electronics model, etc. and the evaluation: under the development and subjects goals). While the evaluation and measurement methods by the faculty stress 5 tasks of instructors such as teaching, research, academic service, culture, and environment See the Fig.2 Instructor Evaluation and Measurement Methods by students by instructors by faculty - Instructor - Teaching 5 tasks: teaching, research, academic service, culture, and environment Instructor: knowledge, skill/ experience, personality, and attitude toward students Teaching: 1) Contents: modern, correct, continued, and under course description 2) Teaching method: content-based, objective-based, and achievement-based 3) Behavioral teaching: participation 4) Medias: electronics and non-electronics model, etc. 5) Evaluation: under the development and subjects goals Fig.2 Instructor Evaluation and Measurement Methods As can be seen, there are 2 processes for instructor evaluation and measurement; periodical and judgment processes with 2 aspects and applications; objective and subjective and formative and summative. See Fig.3 Processes, Aspects and Applications Periodical process (process) Judgment process (output) 1) Objective: rating scale 3-5 levels & online rating scale 2) Subjective: open-ended question & online opinion (both formative and summative) Fig. 3 Process, Aspects and Applications of Instructor Evaluation and Measurement Methods Despite opinion of experts about instructor evaluation and measurement, IC score indicated that the instructor evaluation and measurement form should compose of 4 main parts, in rating scale with suitable criteria and transparency. Evaluation details in the form should consist of evaluation objectives, course concept, instructor s knowledge, teaching method, teaching technique, learning evaluation technique, personality, ethics and moral (on timing, justice and responsibility), and environment (medias, instruments, textbooks and etc.) Furthermore, the comparison between opinion of students and instructors and state and private universities indicated that students and instructors had different in mean being statistically significant (<0.05) about knowledge in the subjects, teaching methods, ethics and moral, instructor s attitude toward subject, teaching skills, teaching techniques, and evaluation technique orderly.(see Table1) State and private universities had different in mean being The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May

4 statistically significant (<0.05) especially about knowledge in the subjects, teaching techniques, and instructor s personality. (See Table2) Table 1. Comparison of mean of students and instructors opinion about the factors of evaluation instructor student results opinion about the factors of evaluation 1. teaching methods * 2. teaching techniques * 3. teaching skills * 4. instructor s attitude toward students instructor s attitude toward subject * 6. knowledge in the subjects * 7. medias and instruments in teaching instructor s personality evaluation technique * 10. ethics and moral * 11. in class climate Total * Table 2. Comparison of mean of state universities and private universities opinion about the factors of evaluation State universities Private universities results opinion about the factors of evaluation 1. teaching methods teaching techniques * 3. teaching skills instructor s attitude toward students instructor s attitude toward subject knowledge in the subjects * 7. medias and instruments in teaching instructor s personality * 9. evaluation technique ethics and moral in class climate Total All differences indicated that instructors should have knowledge in the subjects, teaching methods, ethics and moral, positive attitude toward subject, teaching skills, teaching techniques, evaluation technique, and instructor s personality. The important and accomplishment scores of opinion about the types and methods of evaluation showed that instructors and students had many different opinions statistically significant (<0.05) such as 126 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May 2006

5 1) Evaluation form should divide into descriptive, operative, descriptive-operative, and seminar forms. 2) Evaluation form should present all evaluation results to the public. 3) Evaluation form should evaluate the behavioral objectives, teaching process, and instructor s personality. 4) Evaluation form should evaluate both the instructors and learning environment. 5) Evaluation form should evaluate a lot of aspects that have different items. (See Table3) While the comparison of mean of state and private universities opinion about the types and methods of evaluation showed that they had all different opinions no statistically significant (<0.05). That meant the state and private universities should use the same types and methods of evaluation under the same criteria. (See Table4) Table 3. Comparison of mean of instructors and students opinion about the types and methods of evaluation instructor student results opinions about the types and methods of evaluation 1. Evaluation form should divide into descriptive, operative, descriptive-operative, and seminar * forms. 2. Should use only one form for all subjects * 3. Should evaluate the behavioral objectives, teaching process, and instructor s personality * 4. Should evaluate only instructors * 5. Should evaluate the instructors and learning environment * 6. Should evaluate a lot of aspects that have different items * 7. Students should be the evaluators Should be rating scale Should be published Should evaluate online, unbiased Should present all evaluation results to the public * Total * Table 4. Comparison of mean of state universities and private universities opinion about the types and methods of evaluation State Private opinions about the types and methods of evaluation universities universities results 1. Evaluation form should divide into descriptive, operative, descriptive-operative, and seminar forms Should use only one form for all subjects Should evaluate the behavioral objectives, teaching process, and instructor s personality The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May

6 4. Should evaluate only instructors Should evaluate the instructors and learning environment * 6. Should evaluate a lot of aspects that have different items Students should be the evaluators Should be rating scale Should be published Should evaluate online, unbiased Should present all evaluation results to the public Total The Comparison of Types and Methods of Instructor Evaluation and Measurement Method of Architecture Program between 11 Government or State and 5 Private Uuniversities Table 5. The Comparison of Types and Methods of Instructor Evaluation and Measurement Method of University KU, KKU, CU, CMU, SU, KMITL, MITT, NU, MU 3 evaluation and measurement methods Architecture Program 2 aspects 2 processes 2 application methods student instructor faculty objective subjective process output individual institute Government universities * * * * TU * * * * Private universities KBU * * * RU, SPU * * * * VU * * * * * * Table 5 indicated that almost of the state and private universities usually use student method, objective aspect, periodical process, and individual application method for instructor evaluation and measurement method of Architecture Program. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS However, there are similar to the findings of Patty dewinstanley (2000) Cashin, W.E. (1995) and Aleamoni, L.M(1999): the teaching- structure efficiency of instructors leans on 1)curriculum structure 2)instructor s communication skill 3)in-class interaction 4)students tasks 5)evaluation and grading and 6)self-evaluation of students. The widely accepted view that state and private universities have the same instructor-standard of Architecture Program. There are 2 main standards; instructor standard and environment standard. The instructor standard consists of 9 indicators such as degree of instructor, academic position, teaching experience or professional experience, teaching 128 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May 2006

7 subject, teaching skills and techniques, skills and techniques in evaluation, personality, attitude toward the subjects, attitude toward the students, and ethics and moral. The environment standard are medias and instruments and textbooks or documents. Under the standardized form of instructor evaluation which has 2 main parts; direction part and evaluation and measurement part. However this is the first study for Architecture Program, it should provide the groundwork for further studies in other research designs. REFERENCES Ashcroft, K and Foreman-Peck, L. (1996). Quality Standards and Reflective Tutor, in Quality Assurance in Education. West Yorkshire: MCB University Press, 4(4): Bass Publishers. Wiggins, Grant. (1998). Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Brown and Others. (1997). Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Corwin. Miller, R.T. (1974). Evaluating Faculty Performance. San Francisco: Jossey Dressel, P.L. (1967). Handbook of Academic Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey - Bass Publishers. Guskey, T.R. (2002). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin. Guskey, T.R. (2002). Does It Make a Difference? Evaluating Professional Development. Educational Leadership. 59 (3), Hopkins, C.D. and Antes, A.L. (1990). Educational Research. Indiana: Peacock Publishers. Hopkins, C.D. and Antes, A.L. (1990). Classroom Measurement and Evaluation. Illinois: Publishers, Inc. Miller, R.T. (1974). Evaluating Faculty Performance. San Francisco: Jossey - Bass Publishers. Popham, W. J. (1999). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. (2 nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Press. Guskey, T.R. (2002). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, California Publishers. Ellis, R. (1993). Quality Assurance for University Teaching. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Wiggins, Grant. (1998). Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance. San Francisco: Jossey - Bass Publishers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Thank you Professor Dr. Vimolsiddhi Horayangkura, Associate Professor Dr. Boonchom Srisaard, Dr.Chavalit Meennuch, instructors, officers, and students of Architecture Program of 16 universities for research participation. Next, thank you the Commission on Higher Education, the Ministry of Education and The Thailand Research Fund for funding. * Corresponding author. Tel: Fax: extension 703; Dr_namfon@yahoo.com The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning * May