AN INQUIRY INTO IRANIAN ENGINEERING STUDENTS LIFE EXPERIENCES OF THE EVALUATION OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS

Authors

  • Seiied Abdollah Hojjati Department of Educational sciences, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
  • Mohammad Hossein Yarmohammadian Health management and economics Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical sciences, Isfahan, Iran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
  • Narges Keshtiaray Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran, Iran, Islamic Republic of

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.86587

Keywords:

educational progress of evaluation, engineering students, life experiences

Abstract

 

The present study is a phenomenological inquiry into the life experiences of Iranian engineering students on the educational progress of evaluation at university. For the purpose of the data collection, twelve engineering students, electronic, mechanics, industrial, aerospace, etc. were interviewed by the lead author. The participants volunteered for the study and each interview lasted approximately 35 minutes. The adapted design was flexibility and purposeful sampling. Qualitative data collection was employed for the present study. Data were analysed through inductive analysis and creative synthesis (Glaser's seven steps). The findings revealed important patterns and themes behind evaluation. The participants had the life experiences of evaluation as being unfair, not fully based on the classroom syllabus, and call for raising professors' awareness on evaluation. They advocated a synthesis of a theoretical and practical evaluation. The participants also supported formative evaluation during a semester. The present study has a number of pedagogical implications for teacher education, teachers, testing professionals, among others. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Mohammad Hossein Yarmohammadian, Health management and economics Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Professor of  Health management and economics Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical sciences, Isfahan, Iran

References

  1. Amini, N.S. (2000). Faculty evaluation process by faculty academic members. In Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Medical Education. Tehran, Iran: Tehran University of Medical
  2. Anderman, E.M., C.C. Austin, & Johnson, D.M. (2002). The development of goal orientation. In Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J.S. (Eds.). The Development of Achievement Motivation (pp.197-220). NY, USA: New York Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012750053-9/50010-3
  3. Aronson, L, Niehaus, B, Hill-Sakurai L., Lai C, & O'Sullivan, PS. (2012.). A comparison of two methods of teaching reflective ability in Year 3. Medical students. Medical Education, 46(8),807-814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04299.x
    |
  4. Best, J & Kahn, J. (2006). Research in Education. Pearson Education Inc.
  5. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., &Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for Learning: Putting it into practice.Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
  6. Blank, R. (1993). Developing a System of Education Indicators: Selecting, Implementing, and Reporting Indicators. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (1, Spring), 65- 80. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737015001065
  7. Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for customers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  8. Dym, C.L. (2004). Design, systems, and engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 305-312.
  9. Filsecker, M. & Kerres, M. (2012). Repositioning formative assessment from an educational assessment perspective: a response to Dunn &Mulvenon (2009). Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(16), 2-9.
  10. Hein, P. & Maddox, N.( 2009). Student perceptions of the faculty course evaluation process: An exploratory study of gender and class differences. Research in Higher Education Journal, 3(16), 121-130.
  11. Hofer, B. (2002). Personal epistemology as a psychological and educational construct: An introduction. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 3-14). New York, NY: Routledge.
  12. House, E. R. (2015). Evaluating: Values, biases, and practical wisdom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
  13. Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
  14. Kiran Banga, Ch. (2010). Higher education and curriculum innovation for sustainable development in India. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(2), 141-152. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371011031865
    |
  15. Klein, J. ( 2014). Assessing university students` achievements by means of standard score (Z score) and its effect on the learning climate. Journal of Studies in Educational Evaluation, 40, 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.12.002
  16. Komeili, G. & Rezai, G. 2002. Methods of student assessment used by faculty members of basic medical sciences in medical university of Zahedan. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 1(4) 52-7.
  17. Kushins, J. (2007). Case portraits of innovation in undergraduate studio art foundations curriculum. Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio University.
  18. Larsen, D.P., Butler, A.C. & Roediger, H.L. (2008). Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Medical Education, 42(10), 959-966. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03124.x
    |
  19. Le, K.N. & Tam, W.Y. (2007). A survey on effective assessment methods to enhance student learning. Global. Journal of Engineering Education, 13(2),13-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2007.11464004
  20. Mirzaei, A.R, Kawarizadeh, F, Lohrabian, V, &Yegane, Z. (2015). Evaluation methods of the academic achievement of students. Journal of Education Strategies in Medical Sciences, 8(2), 91-97.
  21. Pattison, S., Cohn, S., &Kollmann, L. (2013). Team-based inquiry: practical guide for using evaluation to improve informal education experiences. Retrieved January 1, 2013 from: http://www.nisenet.org/catalog/tools_guides/team-based_inquiry_guide.
  22. Sirotova, M. (2015). Causal attributes of university students and their preferences in the process of evaluation of their learning activity results. Journal of Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2361-2367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.901
  23. Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Education Researcher, 29(7), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x029007004
    |
  24. Shakurnia, A. (2011). Faculty attitudes towards student ratings: Do the Student Rating Scores Really Matter? Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 11(2), 84-93.
  25. Stetler, C, Legro, M, & Smith J, et al. (2006). The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience. J Gen Intern Med, 21, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-006-0267-9
    |
  26. Terzer, M & Ozrecberoglu, N. (2015). Students` view of the problems faced with the measurement and evaluation system in the primary school mathematics education system. Journal of Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 856-861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.196
  27. West, C & Sadoski, M. (2011). Do study strategies predict academic performance in medical school? Journal of Medical Education, 45(7), 696-703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03929.x
    |

Downloads

Published

2017-11-11

How to Cite

Hojjati, S. A., Yarmohammadian, M. H., & Keshtiaray, N. (2017). AN INQUIRY INTO IRANIAN ENGINEERING STUDENTS LIFE EXPERIENCES OF THE EVALUATION OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS. Advanced Education, 4(8), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.86587

Issue

2017: Issue 8

Section

Education

License

Copyright (c) 2017 seiied Abdollah Hojjati, Mohammad Hossein Yarmohammadian

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).