اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 347 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,870 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,260,538 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,395,587 |
بررسی سطح رضایتمندی دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی گرایش‌های معماری در قیاس با دانشجویان 5دانشگاه برتر معماری ایران | ||
| نشریه علمی اندیشه معماری | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 3، شماره 6، مهر 1398، صفحه 110-125 اصل مقاله (1.06 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/at.2019.10287.1137 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| یوسف گرجی مهلبانی* 1؛ نگار صادقی2 | ||
| 1دانشیار دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی(ره)، قزوین، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد معماری و انرژی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی(ره)، قزوین، ایران. | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 26 اسفند 1397، تاریخ بازنگری: 11 شهریور 1398، تاریخ پذیرش: 26 شهریور 1398 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| دانشگاه بستر اصلی شکل گیری استعداد و تفکر خلاق در میان دانشجویان شناخته می شود. دانشجویان نیروهای انسانی آینده ی جوامع بوده و توجه به رشد و شکوفایی آنها زمینه ی توسعه و پیشبرد همه جانبه ی یک کشور را فراهم می آورد. از این رو تلاش برای افزایش رضایتمندی دانشجویان در مقاطع تحصیلات تکمیلی نه تنها در آن ها جهت ارتقا سطح علمی و اجتماعی ایجاد انگیزه می کند بلکه بستری مناسب را برای تضمین آینده ی کشور مهیا می سازد. از سوی دیگر بی توجهی به این قشر تاثیرگذار می تواند تبعات جبران ناپذیری را به آینده ی یک جامعه تحمیل کند. یکی از عواملی که موجب توجه به افزایش کیفیت و جلب رضایت دانشجویان شده است، رقابت میان مراکز آموزش عالی است که چالش هایی اثر بخش برای بهبود هرچه بیشتر شرایط آن ها به همراه می آورد. خدمات ارائه شده در مراکز آموزش عالی باید به شکلی باشد که دانشجویان ضمن آرامش روانی، انگیزه ی کافی را جهت یادگیری بهتر و عمیق تر دروس دریافت کنند. حساسیت توجه به این امر در آن است که این مراکز در حال رشد و پرورش انسان هایی هستند که در آینده نقشی اساسی را در وامع ایفا می کنند. هدف پژوهش حاضر اعتباریابی و سنجش میزان رضایتمندی تحصیلی دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی معماری به تفکیک 5 دانشگاه برتر کشور در حوزه ی آموزش معماری در قیاس با سایر مراکز آموزش عالی و دانشگاهی بوده است. جامعه ی آماری تحقیق شامل کلیه‌ی دانشجویان گرایش های آموزشی گروه معماری و هنرهای ساخت در مقاطع آموزش عالی بوده که از آنها به عنوان نمونه ی تحقیق، نظرسنجی به عمل آماده است. ابزار گردآوری داده ها یک پرسشنامه ی الکترونیکی طراحی شده توسط محققان بوده است که روایی و پایایی آن با تعیین ضریب القای کرونباخ مورد تأیید قرارگرفته است همچنین همبستگی میان نتایج به دست آمده از دو گروه متغیر دانشگاهی توسط آزمون همبستگی پیرسون مورد قیاس و ارزیابی قرار گرفته است. یافته های پژوهش نشان می دهد که از میان 6 حوزه ی بررسی شده در این پژوهش متغیر دانشگاه محل تحصیل تنها در 3حوزه ی رضایت از شرایط آموزشی و سرفصل های ارائه شده، رضایت از محیط آموزشی و همکلاسی ها معنادار بوده و دارای همبستگی با نتایج می باشد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| آموزش عالی؛ تحصیلات تکمیلی؛ رضایتمندی دانشجویان؛ معماری؛ دانشگاه | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Surveying Level of Satisfaction of Graduate Students in Architectural Attitudes Compared to Students in 5th Superior Architecture University of Iran | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Yousef Gorji Mahlabani1؛ Negar Sadeghi2 | ||
| 1Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin. | ||
| 2MSc Student in Energy and Architecture, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Students are considered to be the main elements of educational environments and higher education institutions. In other words, satisfaction and performance of students indicate the quality and weakness of the educational system, the effectiveness and services provided in these educational centers. Hence, increasing the academic satisfaction among them will not only help to improve the level of science, work and social, but also will lead to scientific progress and achievement at the highest levels of societies. With the development of graduate education courses in undergraduate and doctoral degrees and the development of science-related architecture, the need for a more specialized view of this field and the formulation of theoretical knowledge in thematic and interdisciplinary fields have become more and more important. Hence, attempts to increase the satisfaction of students in postgraduate education motivate not only them to promote the level of scientific and social education, but also provide a suitable basis for guaranteeing the country's future. On the other hand, without noticing this influential stratum, it can impose irreparable consequences on the future of a community. One of the factors that has led to increased quality and satisfaction of students is the competition between higher education institutions, which is a challenge to improve their conditions. The services offered at Higher Education Institutions should be such that students, while relaxing, get an incentive to learn better and deeper. The sensitivity to this is that these centers are growing and cultivating humans who will play a major role in the future in livelihoods. The purpose of the present study was to validate and measure the academic achievement level of graduate students in architecture among the top five universities in the field of architecture education in comparison with other higher education institutions. The statistical population of the study is graduate students in different disciplines of architecture, which is divided into two groups of students from the top 5 universities in architecture based on the recent rankings of the Graduate Student Admission Scoreboard And students from other colleges have been divided. 200 students were evaluated as a sample. The tool for collecting the information needed for this research was an electronic questionnaire designed by the researchers, which included 51 questions that questioned the six main areas that affected the field of education in order to measure students' satisfaction in each of these subgroups Six items categorized in this questionnaire included satisfaction with educational requirements (9 items), satisfaction with professors (9 items), satisfaction with the educational environment (9 items), satisfaction with student assessment methods (9 questions) ), Satisfaction with interactions among classmates (8 questions), and finally, satisfaction with their future career and education. The score of each of the statements in this questionnaire has a range of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 meaning superiority of the proposition and ruling conditions, and the score of 1 is the lowest level of satisfaction and desirability. Given the electronicity of the questionnaire, this confidence will be strong among respondents whose information is completely confidential and more responsive to the questions as well as access to a wider statistical society beyond the scope of the possible distance. Acceptable. The data gathering tool was an electronic questionnaire designed by the researchers whose validity and reliability were confirmed by determining the coefficient of Cronbach's induction. Also, the correlation between the results of the two groups of academic variables was compared by Pearson correlation test and evaluation Is located. The findings of the research show that among the 6 areas studied in this study, the variables of the university of education were only three areas of satisfaction from the educational conditions and the proposed headings, satisfaction with the educational environment and classmates were significant And correlates with the results. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Higher Education, Graduate Studies, Student Satisfaction, Architecture, University | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
دادرس، محمد؛ خوران، زهرا؛ یوسفی، مجید و فرجیدهسرخی، حاتم (1396). ارزیابی کیفیت خدمات دانشگاهی از منظر دانشجویان: مقایسهی دانشکدههای فنیمهندسی یک دانشگاه جامع و یک دانشگاه صنعتی در تهران. فصلنامه آموزشی مهندسی ایران، 19(74)، 129-149. Ali, F., Zhou, Y., Hussain, K., Nair, P. K., & Ragavan, N. A. (2016). Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty? A study of international students in Malaysian public universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(1), 70-94.
Aliari S, et al. Survey on viewpoints and opinions of last year students of faculty of military nursing about practical training education. 1386. Scientific and Research Journal of Yazd Shahid Saduqi University of Medical Sciences and Health Services. 2007; 15(5): 19.
Arambewela, R., & Hall, J. (2007). A model of student satisfaction: International postgraduate students from Asia. ACR European Advances.
Burgess, A., Senior, C., & Moores, E. (2018). A 10-year case study on the changing determinants of university student satisfaction in the UK. PloS one, 13(2), e0192976.
Butt, B. Z., & Ur Rehman, K. (2010). A study examining the student’s satisfaction in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5446-5450.
Christou, P., & Fragouli, E. (2018). Internationalization strategy of British Higher Education Institutions and student satisfaction. International Journal of Higher Education Management, 4(2).
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (pp. 146-166).
Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality assurance in education, 14(3), 251-267.
García-Aracil, A. (2009). European graduates’ level of satisfaction with higher education. Higher Education, 57(1), 1.
Hanssen, T. E. S., & Solvoll, G. (2015). The importance of university facilities for student satisfaction at a Norwegian University. Facilities, 33(13/14), 744-759.
Kärnä, S., & Julin, P. (2015). A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with university campus facilities. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 47-66.
Koshkin, A. P., Rassolov, I. M., & Novikov, A. V. (2017). Monitoring social media: student’s satisfaction with university administration activities. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2499-2522.
Lenton, P. (2015). Determining student satisfaction: An economic analysis of the National Student Survey. Economics of Education Review, 47, 118-127.
Martirosyan, N. (2015). An examination of factors contributing to student satisfaction in Armenian higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(2), 177-191.
Moafvand, Z., Zanganeh, F., Ghahremani, M. (2018). Assessment of the quality of educational life of students of Shahid Beheshti University. Journal of Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies, 7(17), 57-78.
Munasinghe, M. A. T. K., & Rathnasiri, U. A. H. A. (2010). QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: WHAT SAY THE UNDERGRADUATES? ICBI, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka, pp. 1-9.
Pennington, C. R., Bates, E. A., Kaye, L. K., & Bolam, L. T. (2018). Transitioning in higher education: an exploration of psychological and contextual factors affecting student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(5), 596-607.
Soria, K. M., Stebleton, M. J., & Huesman Jr, R. L. (2013). Class counts: Exploring differences in academic and social integration between working-class and middle/upper-class students at large, public research universities. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 15(2), 215-242.
Telford, R., & Masson, R. (2005). The congruence of quality values in higher education. Quality assurance in education, 13(2), 107-119.
Wilkins, S., & Stephens Balakrishnan, M. (2013). Assessing student satisfaction in transnational higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(2), 143-156.
Yusoff, M., McLeay, F., & Woodruffe-Burton, H. (2015). Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 86-104. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 970 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 708 |
||
