Journal of Practical Engineering Education (실천공학교육논문지)

Korean Institute for Pratical Engineering Education (한국실천공학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Factor Derivation of Course Evaluation and Priority Analysis Using Analytic Hierarchy Process

계층분석법을 이용한 강의평가 요인도출과 우선순위분석

  • Su-Hyun Ahn (College of General Education, Semyung University) ;
  • Sang-Jun Lee (College of General Education, Semyung University)
  • Received : 2022.11.30
  • Accepted : 2022.12.29
  • Published : 2022.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Course evaluation serves as helpful information to improve the quality of college education and improve lectures. This study derived the factors through preceding research and FGI to explore the factors that constitute course evaluation and identified the relative importance and priority of the factors through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). For this, it derived five factors and 15 evaluation items as follows. To secure expertise and fairness in the factor development of course evaluation, the researcher conducted a questionnaire surveying students and teachers and collected a total of 20 valid data. The weight of each evaluation item was calculated based on the data that had been verified for consistency. The analysis concluded that students rated class content, class method, class operation, class evaluation, and class plan as the critical factors in the order of importance, while teachers evaluated class content, class operation, class method, class evaluation, and class plan as important, in that order. Based on the results of this study, I hope that various analyses and studies will be conducted to improve the efficiency and reliability of course evaluation for the quality management of college education.

강의평가는 대학교육의 질을 향상시키고 수업을 개선하는데 유용한 정보로 활용된다. 본 연구는 강의평가를 구성하는 요인을 탐색하고자 선행연구와 FGI를 통해 구성요인을 도출하고 계층분석법(AHP: Analytic Hierarchy Process)을 통해 요인간 상대적 중요도 및 우선순위를 파악하였다. 이를 위해 5개의 구성요인과 15개의 평가항목을 도출하였다. 강의평가 요인개발의 전문성과 공정성을 확보하기 위해 학생과 교원을 대상으로 설문을 실시하여 총 20부의 유효한 자료를 수집하였고, 일치도 검증을 완료한 자료를 토대로 각 평가항목의 가중치를 산출하였다. 분석 결과 강의평가 요인구성에 있어서 학생은 수업 내용, 수업 방법, 수업 운영, 수업 평가, 수업 계획 순으로, 교원은 수업 내용, 수업 운영, 수업 방법, 수업 평가, 수업 계획 순으로 중요하다고 평가하였다. 본 연구 결과를 바탕으로 대학교육의 질 관리 차원에서 강의평가의 효율성과 신뢰성 향상을 위해 다양한 분석과 연구가 있기를 기대한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2022학년도 세명대학교 교내학술연구비 지원에 의해 수행된 연구임.

References

  1. S. I. Han, H. J. Kim, and J. Y. Lee, "A comprehensive study of korean students' evaluations of university teaching," The Korean Educational Administration Society, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 379-403, 2005.
  2. S. Y. Shin and J. H. Kwon, "A study on the improvement of the reliability of the course evaluation: focused on the management of course evaluation system," The Institute of Humanities at Soonchunhyang University, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 115-145, 2016.
  3. S. G. Baek and H. J. Shin, "Multilevel analysis of the effects of student and course characteristics on student course evaluation - focused on the undergraduate liberal education program," Journal of Educational Evaluation, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1-24, 2008.
  4. H. W. Lee and H. R. Min, "Development of concrete method through which the course evaluation feedback system could contribute to improving the quality of higher education," The Journal of Yeolin Education, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 257-283, 2013.
  5. C. H. Ryu and J. H. Lee, "A study on student factors associated with the student evaluation of teaching at universities," Korean Management Review, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 789-807, 2003.
  6. C. H. Ryu and J. H. Lee, "A study on instructor factors associated with the student evaluation of teaching at universities," Korea Business Review, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 249- 279, 2005.
  7. S. S. Kim and H. I. Kim, "Developing and validating midsemester student's evaluations of college teaching," The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 55-78, 2008.
  8. O. S. Ha and M. H. Jung, "A study on the improvement of a student evaluation tool through the analysis of response of student evaluation - Focus on 'D' university student evaluation case," The Journal of Yeolin Education, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 273-294, 2014.
  9. W. S. Lee, H. W. Lee, and Y. K. Tschong, "A study on effects of course evaluation methods on consistent responses in student ratings of college teaching," The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 547-561, 2012.
  10. K. S. Yang and M. H. Park, "A study on the student evaluation of teaching at universities by analytic hierarchy process," The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 589-616, 2012.
  11. I. W. Park, "A study on effects of student ratings of their learning on consistent responses in student ratings of college teaching," The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 257-281, 2012. https://doi.org/10.17927/TKJEMS.2012.24.1.257
  12. J. G. Lee, "A study on the improvement of a lecture evaluation questionnaire in the university," Korean Journal of General Education, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 247-274, 2013.
  13. H. R. Lee and H. B. Lee, "Determining factors and their relative weights for evaluating the instruction by the analytic hierarchy process," The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 49-68, 2005.
  14. T. L. Saaty, Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World, RWS Publications, 2001.
  15. J. H. Kwon, Strategic Decision-making Methods AHP, CRbooks, 2012.
  16. https://www.washington.edu/assessment/course-evaluations/
  17. Y. S. Park, Decision-making by AHP (Theory and Practice), Kyowoo, 2009.
  18. K. E. Kim, H. J. Woo, J. Y. Kim, and W. C. Kim, "A study on improving and validating the lecture evaluation tool: focusing on the K university case," Korean Education Inquiry, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1-26, 2018.