A Study on the Development of Teaching Evaluation Indicators for Faculty in Engineering College

공과대학 교수의 교육업적평가 지표 개발 연구

  • Kang, So Yeon (Center for the Innovation of Engineering Education, Yonsei University) ;
  • Choi, Keum Jin (Department of Teacher Education, Cheongju University) ;
  • Park, Sun Hee (Department of Teacher Education, Hannam University) ;
  • Han, Jiyoung (Innovation Center for Engineering Education, Daejin University) ;
  • Lee, Hyemi (National Institute for Lifelong Education) ;
  • Cho, Sung Hee (Center for Teaching and Learning, Kyunghee University)
  • 강소연 (연세대학교 공학교육혁신센터) ;
  • 최금진 (청주대학교 교직과) ;
  • 박선희 (한남대학교 교직부) ;
  • 한지영 (대진대학교 공학교육혁신센터) ;
  • 이혜미 (국가평생교육진흥원) ;
  • 조성희 (경희대학교 교수학습지원센터)
  • Received : 2017.05.17
  • Accepted : 2017.07.31
  • Published : 2017.07.31

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the current evaluation methods on faculty performance at Korean engineering colleges and develop teaching evaluation indicators for faculty performance. We investigated the faculty performance cases in engineering colleges inside and outside of the Korea, the engineering faculty's awareness of evaluation factors for their educational performance, and the appropriate ratios by indicating factors. Also we developed evaluation indicators for educational achievements to improve the current faculty performance system. 227 engineering faculty members answered our survey questionnaire. The result in the case study on faculty performance evaluation is as follows. First, most items of faculty performance evaluation are about quantitative indicators that can easily conduct objective evaluation. Second, evaluation items of faculty performance are mostly focused on instruction in a classroom. Third, the evaluation by students and administrative managers is more dominant than that by professors or their colleagues, document evaluation than on site evaluation, general evaluation than formative evaluation, and static evaluation than dynamic evaluation. Lastly, Some universities tend to substitute outstanding articles for underperforming instruction. The evaluation indicators that we have developed can be implemented by four types of subjects, such as students, professors, their colleagues, and deans. Also, based on the evaluation indicators, faculties can freely select their evaluation domains depending on the their tracks, such as a teaching track, a research track, or an industry-university cooperation track. The mandatory evaluation fields include teaching, student counselling, teaching portfolio evaluation by mentors or colleagues, class management evaluation by deans, and self-evaluation. The other areas are optional and professors can choose their evaluation factors.

Keywords

Team learning;Team based learning;Team based instruction;Teamwork skill;Engineering education

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 한국공학한림원

References

  1. 강병운.백정하(2005). 한국, 미국, 영국의 대학평가 비교연구: 대교협, CHEA, QAA를 중심으로. 비교교육연구, 15(2), 1-32.
  2. 교육인적자원부(2007). 고등교육의 전략적 발전방안. 2007.6.26. 대학총장토론회 발표자료. 교육인적자원부.
  3. 김성열 외(2001). 대학 학사과정 강의평가제 실태분석을 통한 교육업적 평가모형 개발연구.
  4. 민경찬(2008). 대학교육개혁의 과제와 지향. 대학교육개발센터 협의회 제6회 하계워크숍 발표자료, 17-27.
  5. 박남기 외(2006). 대학별 교수업적평가 현황분석 및 교수업적평 가모형개발. 교육인적자원부.
  6. 박인우 외(2007). 학회와 공동 교수업적 평가기준 개발 방안 연구. 고려대학교 고등교육정책연구센터.
  7. 박준완(2000). 전략적 교수업적평가제도 구축 사례. 산경논총, 18, 33-59.
  8. 오희철 외(1999). 교육부문 교수평가제도에 대한 고찰, 한국의학교육, 11(2), 297-312.
  9. 유정아(2014). 싱가포르 국립대학 CTL과 교수개발프로그램 사례연구. Asian Journal of Education, 15 (1), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.15753/aje.2014.15.1.008
  10. 이영호(2004). 대학교수개발의 주요지표 분석과 교수개발에 대한 평생학습원리적용의 기대효과. 교육학연구, 42(4), 615-651.
  11. 이현진(2016). [ACE특집/건양대] 일류.강소.글로컬 대학을 향한 학부교육 혁신. 한국대학신문. http://news.unn.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=162732
  12. 이혜정.이지현(2008). 대학 '교수(teaching)'의 질 제고를 위한 대학교육 평가지표개선방안 연구. 아시아교육연구, 9(3), 173-204.
  13. 이혜정(2014). 서울대에서는 누가 A+를 받는가. 다산에듀.
  14. 정문종(2005). 성과관리시스템으로서 대학교수 연봉제: 한국대학의 도입 타당성을 중심으로. 회계저널, 14(1), 151-172.
  15. 최성해.김운회(2000). 교수평가와 연봉제. 선학사.
  16. 한국공학한림원(2015). 차세대 공학교육혁신방안연구. 한국공학 한림원 차세대공학교육위원회.
  17. Arreola, R. A., Theall, M. & Aleamoni, L. M. (2003). "Beyond Scholarship: Recognizing the Multiple Roles of the Professoriate." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago: April 22. Available at: http://www.cedanet.com /meta/Beyond%20Scholarship.pdf
  18. Berk R. A. (2006). Thirteen Strategies Measures College Teaching. Stylus Publishing. Virginia.
  19. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. N.Y.: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  20. Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., and Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  21. Jill, B. et al. (1997). A Competency framework for effective teaching. from http://www.planning.murdoch.edu.au/docs/acfet.
  22. Latha Pillai & Ponmudiraj B. S. (2001). Making Meaning of Assessment Outcomes: The Indian Context. INQAAHE Conference 2001: Quality, Standard and Recognition.
  23. National Academy of Engineering(2007). Developing Metrics for Assessing Engineering Instruction: What Gets Measured is What Gets Improved. The National Academies Press. p.25
  24. Davidovitch, N., Soen, D. & Sinuani-Stern, Z. (2011). Performance measures of academic faculty: A case study. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 35 (3), pp. 355-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.569012