FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2735673193> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2735673193 abstract "INTRODUCTION:Education is a major mission for a university, a professor, or an instructor. Improving teaching quality leads to improvement of education at universities. Lecturer evaluation is one of the procedures used to this end. Educational evaluation is a process through which relevant data are collected and converted to information useful for decision-making (Shakurnia et al. 2011). Through evaluation process, the collected information helps us to review diverse aspects of lecturers' performance, and judge about their competence and qualification. It also helps to decide on measures to boost lecturers' competence and improve acquisition process (Peterson 2000).Almost every country that engaged in educational issues, are active on evaluation of lecturers. Asking for students' opinion is one of the common evaluation methods increasingly used at educational centers of the world including Iraq. Easy scoring procedure, pre-defined evaluation behaviors, and great number of studies devoted to its reliability and validity have made it as a golden standard for deciding on employment and promotion of lecturers (Kolitch & Dean 1999). Due to the importance of the process, the evaluation should include variables influential in teaching process. Results of research conducted show that students' evaluations are affected by such factors as scientific status and popularity of lecturers, gender and Personality traits of students, difficulty or simply of the courses, timing of the class, timing of evaluation, expected scores by students, rigor of the lecturer, and amusing teaching procedure, etc. (Shakurnia et al. 2006).Some of studies indicate that students' opinion may be affected by factors not relevant to lecturer evaluation. On this regard, numerous studies have been conducted to approve or reject this type of evaluation. Aultman (2006) believes that lecturer evaluation by students can provide valuable feedbacks to improve education. He has a particular belief to formative evaluation of lecturer by students. On the other hand Mason et al (1995) stated that the lecturers evaluation by students, have not scientific accuracy. Because students don't have enough knowledge and they don't know whether lecturers offer subjects related to their or not. As a result, students' awareness to judge and evaluate this part of the performance of lecturer does not seem enough.Despite harsh criticism of lecturers' evaluation by students, most of the studies show that students are valid sources of information about lecturers. Lecturer evaluation scores are reported to be valid and reliable (Emery et al. 2003). The most prominent goal of evaluation in education and educational systems is awareness of present status and its distance from desirable status. The evaluation data can be used in a comprehensive and strategic plan to improve the existing conditions and optimize the utilization of present facilities and resources to achieve the intended goals (Fich 2003).Educational administrators ask of university-students' opinions about mode of instruction of lecturers and decide based on these opinions about lecturers. This type of evaluation has been used in numerous applications, e.g. deciding on lecturers' careers (promotion, employment, etc.). Consequently, it is important to study its reliability and validity to make sure the precision and accuracy of obtained results (Skakurnia et al. 2011). Due to rapid growth of evaluations by university students in the last decades, researchers have tried to review questionnaires, remove their deficiencies and improve the validity and reliability of the results (Wachtel 1998).Dewinstanley (2007) investigated lecturer evaluation by university students and concluded that the reliability of the results depended on the number of students. An increase in the number of students ends in more reliable results. At least 30 students are needed in each class to obtain reliable results. …" @default.
• W2735673193 created "2017-07-21" @default.
• W2735673193 date "2017-07-01" @default.
• W2735673193 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2735673193 title "STUDENTS' EVALUATION OF GEOGRAPHY-LECTURERS' PERFORMANCE AT UNIVERSITY OF GARMIAN IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2016-2017" @default.
• W2735673193 cites W1865211784 @default.
• W2735673193 cites W2049065259 @default.
• W2735673193 cites W2072051883 @default.
• W2735673193 cites W2117930680 @default.
• W2735673193 cites W2280785441 @default.
• W2735673193 doi "https://doi.org/10.18843/rwjasc/v8i3(1)/16" @default.
• W2735673193 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2735673193 type Work @default.
• W2735673193 sameAs 2735673193 @default.
• W2735673193 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2735673193 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2735673193 hasBestOaLocation W27356731931 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C100521375 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C2780586970 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConcept C98147612 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C100521375 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C111472728 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C138885662 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C145420912 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C154945302 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C15744967 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C17744445 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C199539241 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C2777212361 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C2779530757 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C2780586970 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C41008148 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C509550671 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C71924100 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C77805123 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C94625758 @default.
• W2735673193 hasConceptScore W2735673193C98147612 @default.
• W2735673193 hasLocation W27356731931 @default.
• W2735673193 hasOpenAccess W2735673193 @default.
• W2735673193 hasPrimaryLocation W27356731931 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W1268527351 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W1502399141 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W1978554512 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2015939882 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2037270872 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2060827094 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2061573330 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2186118946 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2187536598 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2195803109 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2223684132 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2376021340 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2376595671 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2385053154 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2494418378 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2729305864 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W2886528937 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W3199828906 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W4531812 @default.
• W2735673193 hasRelatedWork W9701639 @default.
• W2735673193 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2735673193 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2735673193 magId "2735673193" @default.
• W2735673193 workType "article" @default.