تدوین واعتباریابی مدل فرایند ارزشیابی ارتقاء وترفیع اعضای ‌هیأت‌ علمی

نوع مقاله : علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری رشته سنجش و اندازه‌گیری دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

2  استاد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

3 دانشیار، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

10.22055/edus.2021.35580.3135

چکیده

فرایند کنونی ارزشیابی ارتقاء و ترفیع اعضای هیأت علمی با ادبیات آموزش‌عالی وتجربه‌های دانشگاه‌های برترجهان همسویی ندارد. لذا این پژوهش با هدف تدوین و اعتبا‌ریابی ‌فرایند ارزشیابی ارتقاء و ترفیع اعضای علمی انجام شد. ابتدا با استفاده از مطالعه تطبیقی، فرایند ارزشیابی در دانشگاه‌های برترجهان وایران مقایسه شد. بر‌اساس یافته‌های مطالعه‌تطبیقی ‌و ادبیات پژوهش مدل اولیه تدوین‌شد. در بخش پیمایشی براساس یافته‌های مطالعه تطبیقی پرسشنامه محقق ساخته تدوین شد. روایی محتوای پرسشنامه از طریق متخصصان و پایایی آن با روش بازآزمایی بررسی و تأیید‌شد. جامعه آماری بخش مطالعه تطبیقی اسناد و مدارک فرایند ارزشیابی دانشگاه‌های برترجهان بود که به روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند انتخاب شدند وجامعه آماری بخش پیمایشی پژوهش اعضای‌علمی دانشکده‌های علوم‌انسانی و اجتماعی بودند که با روش نمونه‌گیری دردسترس انتخاب شدند. نتیجه مطالعه تطبیفی نشان‌داد که در اکثر دانشگاه‌های برتر مورد مطالعه چند نکته برجسته است1) نقش‌اساسی نهادهای درون دانشگاهی در ارزشیابی اعضای علمی2) انتخاب بهترین منبع ارزشیابی و تأکید بر ارزشیابی عمیق3) اهمیت شفافیت و پاسخگویی در ارزشیابی. نتایج بخش کمی پژوهش نشان‌‌داد که ازدیدگاه اعضای‌علمی اقداماتی‌مانند ارزشیابی‌عمیق‌پژوهش، بررسی ‌دقت ‌و عدالت در ارزشیابی به‌وسیله کمیته ‌دانشگاه، فرصت فرجام‌خواهی بعد ازارزشیابی ‌به‌وسیله هریک ازکمیته‌ها بیش‌ترین ضرورت را به‌ویژه در ارزشیابی ارتقاء دارند. برای فرایند ارزشیابی ارتقاء فعلی پیشنهاد می‌شود1)تخصصی‌تر کردن مراحل ارزشیابی کیفیت با اقداماتی مانند افزایش نقش گروه‌های علمی در فرایند و تعیین ملاک‌های ارزشیابی2) شفاف‌سازی درمورد مرجع نظارت‌کننده برکمیته‌های ارزشیابی3)افزایش‌شفافیت و پاسخگویی ‌ارزشیابی با اضافه‌کردن اقداماتی مانند ارائه گزارش تفضیلی از چگونگی ارزشیابی و دلایل رد و قبول متقاضی به کمیته‌های ارزشیابی بالاتر و متقاضی.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Development and validation a model of the evaluation process of promotion of faculty members

نویسندگان [English]

  • zahra tabatabaie jabali 1
  • ali delavar 2
  • Noorali Farrokhi 3
  • mohammad asgari 3
1 Ph.D. Student of Measurement and Assessment, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Professor, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction
The current process of evaluating the promotion of faculty members is not in line with the higher education literature and the world's top universities' experiences. Accordingly, this study was conducted to develop and validate a model of the evaluation process of the promotion of faculty members.
Method
In this study at first, using a comparative study of the evaluation process in the world's top universities and reviewing the research literature, the initial model was developed. Experts in higher education modified the model. Then, by conducting a survey‌ research, the validity and reliability of the model were assessed using an electronic questionnaire in sampling from faculty members of humanities and social sciences, which constitute this study's statistical population.
Results
The results of the comparative study showed that in most of the top universities studied, there are several points: 1) the basic role of in-university institutions in evaluating faculty members 2) choosing the best source of evaluation and emphasizing in-depth evaluation 3) the importance of transparency and accountability in evaluation. Quantitative research findings showed that faculty members approve the proposed model for evaluating faculty members' promotion at three levels of department, college, and university and 10 actions.
Discussion
The proposed evaluation process begins with an annual review to identify strengths and weaknesses in the proposed model. But in the proposed model the formal evaluation process of promotion starts from the department level and by internal and external peer rev iews as the most important source of evaluation. Then, the college committee's evaluation of the promotion at the college level is done, and finally, the evaluation of the faculty promotion is done by the university committee. In this model, the college and the university committee have a more supervisory role in the evaluation process. Besides, the proposed model emphasizes the writing of teaching and research Statements by the candidate and the reporting of written and detailed evaluation results by evaluation committees to increase transparency and accountability in evaluation. Also, in the proposed model, faculty members have the opportunity to appeal to promotion decisions after the evaluation of each committee. In general, the proposed model of the promotion evaluation process emphasizes peer evaluation, transparency, and accountability in the evaluation process.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Evaluation process
  • Promotion system
  • Faculty evaluation
  • Reward system
Amiri Farahabadi, J., Abolghasemi, M., & Ghahremani, M. (2018). Designing and validating the pathology model of the policy research process in Higher education in Iran. Journal of Educational Sciences, 25(1), 109-126. [Persian]
Arreola, R. A. (2000). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: Ahandbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and operating acomprehensive faculty evaluation system. ERI
Bernstein, D. J., Burnett, A. N., Goodburn, A., & Savory, P. (2006). Making teaching and learning visible: Course Portfolios’ and the peer review of teaching. Massachusetts: Anker.
Buller, J. L. (2012). Best Practices in Faculty Evaluation: A Practical Guide for Academic Leaders John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated proquest E book Central.
Bertot, J. (2018). APT Workshop: Promotion University of Maryland the office of Faculty Affairs. Available from https://pdc-svpaap1.umd.edu /policies/documents/promotion.pdf
Colbeck, C. (2002). Evaluating faculty performance New Directions for Institutional Research, Integration: Evaluating Faculty Work as a Whole No. 114. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Ehsani, V., & Najafi, M. B. (2017). Development of Science with a Non-Scientific Approach in Iran, Case Study: Formal Reward System. Journal of Economy and society, 32(1), Available from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/324532649_tws_lm_ba_rwykrdy_ghyrlmy_dr_ayran_mtal_mwrdy_nzam_padash_dhy_rsmy(Persian).
Ghasemi, M., Roshan, M., & Mohammadi, M. (2018). From promotion to free fall: The share of Iranian researchers in the market of invalid scientific journals. Iranian Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), [Persian]
Higher Education Research and Planning Institute (2017-2018). Higher Education Statistics at a glance https://irphe.ac.ir/files/Statistic/files/ Amar1Negah/1396-97.pdf [Persian]
Javadani, H. (2016). Guide to rearranging the reward system and the career path of scientific members of Iranian knowledge production institutions. Higher Education Research and Planning Institute [Persian]
Karimi Munqi, H., Zianifard, A., Jafarzadeh, H., Behnam, Ha., Tavakol & Afshari, J. (2015). Investigating the obstacles and problems of the promotion process: The unspoken words of faculty members. Journal of Educational Development in Medical Sciences, 8(18), 73-85. [Persian]
Ministry of Science, Research & Technology (2016). Regulations for the promotion of faculty members. [Persian]
Mosaddegh, H., & Hoseini, V. S. (2016). A Proposal of an Appropriate Process into the Faculty Employment in Public Universities of Iran's Ministry of Science, Research and Technology Based on Experts' Perspectives Quarterly. Journal of Public Organzations Management, 4(3), 63-84. [Persian]
Nourshahi, N. (2013). Design and development of practical strategies for professional development of faculty members, Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Higher Education Research and Planning Institute. [Persian]
Rezaei, S. (2011). Mehr News Agency. Available from https://www.mehrnews. com/news/1469202
Roshan, M., & Ghasemi, M. (2018). Behavioral analysis of faculty members of humanities and social sciences faculties in the process of scientific promotion. Iranian Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), [Persian]
Romiani, Y., Abili, Kh., Pourkarimi, J., & Farahbakhsh, S (2019). The exploration of Identification and Selection approaches of Talented Faculty Members at Comprehensive Universities with regional performance level. Journal of Educational Sciences. 26(1), 175-196. [Persian]
Shirbegi, N., & Saed Mochshi, L. (2018). Phenomenology of faculty members' experiences of the process of promotion of scientific rank Iranian. Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), [Persian]
Karimi Moonaghi, H., Zhianifard, A., Jafarzadeh, H., Behnam, H. R., & Afshari, T. (2014).A Survey on Obstacles and Problems of Promotion Procedure: An Untold Story of Faculty Members. Journal of Medical Education Development, 8(18), 73-85.
University of Arizona (2019). Guide to Promotion on the Tenure and Continuing-Status Tracks. Available from: http://facultyaffairs.arizona. edu/career-track-faculty
University of California (2020). Appointment and promotion Review and appraisal committees. Available from: https://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-210.pdf
University of Florida. (2020-2021). Guidelines and information regarding the tenure, permanent status And promotion process Available from: http://aa.ufl.edu/media/aaufledu/tenure-and-promotion/TP-Guidelines-2020-21final.pdf
University of Florida (2018). Promotion and Tenure Criteria College of Education. Available from: https://education.ufl.edu/faculty-policy/files/ 2018/09/COE-Tenure-and-Promotion-Criteria.pdf
University of Minnesota (2017). CSE Promotion and Tenure. Available from: http://www.academic.umn.edu/provost/faculty/tenure
University of Minnesota )2013(. Department of Educational psychology policies and procedures concerning faculty review, promotion, and tenure .Available from: http://education.umn.edu/newcollege/default.html
University of Stanford (2019). Chapter 3: Promotion to Tenure. Available from https://facultyaffairs-humsci.stanford.edu/printpdf/174
University of Harvard (2019). Tenure-Track Handbook - Faculty of Arts & Sciences – Harvard. Available from: https://facultyresources.fas.harvard. edu/files/facultyresources/files/final_2018_2019_tenure_track_hbk_
University of Maryland (2020). The APT Manual and Guidelines. Available from: https://faculty.umd.edu/sites/default/files/documents/APTManual_ 0.pdf
University of UBC )2018(. Guide to Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Procedures at UBC .Availablefrom:https://resources-educ.sites.olt.ubc. ca/files/2019/09/SAC-Guide.pdf
University of Manchester (2020). Available from: https://www.staffnet. manchester.ac.uk/human-resources/current-staff/career-development/ academic- promotions-procedures/policy-and-process
University of Alberta (2012). Reference Manual for Faculty Evaluation Committees
University of Portland )2018(. Policies and procedures for the evaluation of faculty for tenure, promotion, and merit increases Available from: https://www.psuaaup.net/assets/docs/2018_PT_Guidelines_06Jun25_ FINAL.pdf
UNESCO (2017). Recalibrating Careersin Academia: apdrvoafnecsesmi eonnta l pp or al icctiiecseasndin a s i a - p a c i f i c, Available from: http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en