International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR) ISSN 2249-6947 Vol.

3, Issue 1, Mar 2013, 33-40 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

ACADEMIC STAFF MEMBERS AND POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS VIEWS ABOUT QUALITY OF ENGLISH LEARNING (QEL) (CASE STUDY UNIVERSITY OF GUILAN, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES)
ABBAS SADEGHI1, NADER OFOGHI2 & ATEFEH SADEGHI3 1 Associate Professor, University of Guilan, Iran 2 Assistant Professor, University of Guilan, Iran 3 English Literature Student, University of Guilan, Iran

ABSTRACT
This study uses objective measures the perceptions of academic staff members and post graduate students about Quality of English Learning (QEL) which held by 120 students at the Faculty of humanities. These academic staffs and students randomly selected from the Faculty. A 40 items scale questionnaire was developed based on QEL to indicate to Likert 5 points scale the degree to which what they exhibited their perceptions to the items. Their responses were first analyzed for the identifying those items, most frequently and highly rated. Following, factor analysis were performed to identify the factors which affect the QEL. Five areas were investigated such as lecturer motivation, post graduate student motivation, writing essays, student involvement and teaching and learning situation. The results showed all 5 areas, affect on QEL.

KEYWORDS: Quality, Postgraduate Student, Learning INTRODUCTION

According to Murphy, T. Maclaren, I and Flynn, S (2009) definition of quality it is recognized that the task of assessing the nature quantity and quality of teaching is a highly complex activity. Jafary and Osouly (2000) believed that quality consisted of characteristics of a product or opportunity which cover its abilities to gain specific needs. Jose. J. C. et. al (2005) quality learning can be defined as changes in learners' actions and interactions that take place as a result of being fully engaged in a quality learning experience. The definition of quality is a little difficult but there is definition for quality in terms of different matter as Melia (1994) indicated, if quality in education is difficult to define, it is dependent on many important factors. Quality in education is to do with all that which supports teaching and learning such as sense of order and structure; the good lecture has been carefully plotted and organized, maximum student engagement, having appropriate standards. Goodwin and Stevens (1993) considered that although there is no clearly definitive answer to the question (what is good learning), there are some generally accepted characteristics of good teachers and teaching situation: enthusiasm, knowledge area, organization, clarity, concern and caring for students, use of higher cognitive levels in discussions and examination, use of visual aids encouragement, feedback and avoidance of harsh criticism. Murphy Maclaren (2004) emphasized that it is not easy to arrive at a consensus of what constitutes good or effect teaching. Also, Booth Brain and Booth Clive (1989) and Green (1994) indicated that the quality in Higher Education depends primarily upon the commitment of the academic community to the maintenance and improvement of standards and the concept of standards is straighter forward than that of quality. In fact, we can even attempt a definition along the lines that standards refer to levels of achievement against which performance can be assessed. Loder (1990) concluded that the question of academic standards is bedeviled by the fact that HE is seen as having several purposes, and there is no universal agreement on priorities among them.

34

Abbas Sadegh, Nader Ofoghi & Atefeh Sadeghi

Most of people who are interested in the study and enhancing the quality in education, believe, there is a need for more comprehensive studies which will provide a data base programmed of improvement; provided, of course, that they are well designed and carefully conducted. In many cases, the differences in viewpoints about the roles of research and action in QEL reflect not only personal preferences of the investigations, staff developers, managers, but also different understanding about development in the area and how one might best proceed to improve ones understanding of it. According to Dunkin and Barens (1986) there are many varied ways to proceed, and surely the scientific community now studying for better understanding of QEL will choose among those ways. In addition, many individuals and groups are concerned with actual improvement to QEL, among these are university manager, staff developers, ASMs, students and some members of general public. Naturally, each of the groups has a different set of perceptions of purposes and reasons for their concerns about the QEL. Managers and administrators often are interested in it, as an aid in making personnel decisions, staff developer, as a direct means to program improvement, students interests are very clear and direct since they are ones who will benefit or not from qualitative character of the teachers performance. Mckeachie (1979) believes that Students opinions and perceptions about their teachers may be used by themselves and others to make better choices of courses and teachers. Finally, in a research which has been done by Lag Rosen S, Seyye D, Ltashemi R, Leitner, M (2004) concentrated on eleven quality aspects such as: group cooperation, accountability, information, suggested syllables, university facilities, teaching activities, internal evaluation, external evaluation, computer facilities, after study comparison and library study. Students may manifest their desire to understand and improve QEL for purposes of diagnosis and selfdevelopment and students progress in order to meet the teaching and learning process aims. The conceptual framework of the study in relating to QEL as Anderson (1991) pointed out, are teacher characteristics, student characteristics, curriculum (academic work and opportunity to learn), Teaching process (lesson structure, communication), learning process (students involvement and succeed) and classroom situation (physical and psychological environment, and management and organization). Any way, the term student cent red learning is widely used in the teaching and learning literature. Many terms have been linked with student cent red learning such as flexible learning (Taylor 2000). Experimental learning (Bernard 1999) self directed learning (O' Neill McMahon 2005)

PURPOSES OF THE STUDY

The main purpose of the study was to identifying the factors which affect the QEL, according to the opinions of academic staff members and post graduate students at the University of Guilan, faculty of humanities. The study results were to be used to help provide (1) a better understanding of the factors which affect the QEL which academics and students believe are important and (2) a body of information useful is developing and implementing programs for the improvement of university learning. Although, the contribution that academic and student opinions about learning should make to the evaluation of Higher Education learning performance is for from settled, clearly there is a significant place for kinds of understandings in individual and institutional endeavors to improve QEL. Dunkin and Barens (1986) discuss these ideas in a very recent and comprehensive review of research on learning.

METHODOLOGY
Three separate groups of postgraduate students were included in this investigation. The first group was Behavioral Sciences (BS), including Psychology, Management, Political Sciences, Social Sciences, Geography and Law, the second one was Languages Sciences (LS) including Persian, Arab and English post graduate students and Academic Staffs (AS) contributed for the purpose of obtaining a body of data from students, concerning their opinions about QEL. These groups

Academic Staff Members and Postgraduate Students Views about Quality of English Learning (QEL) (Case Study University of Guilan, Faculty of Humanities)

35

were composed of 120 students (45 BS, 45 LS and 30 AS). They were asked to react to 40 close- ended in which they selected one option, and one open-ended question in which most of them briefly described their viewpoints about the factors which affect the QEL. The sample represented approximately 30% of the target population, and it was proportionally stratified according to professional programmed. The instrument was individually answered by the participating students at a specific period date. The general objectives of the investigation and the importance of issue of study were emphasized in first page of questionnaire. Data treatment included descriptive and inferential statistical analysis. The descriptive statistical analysis of the data included the computation of frequencies and Percentages, Mean, Standard Deviation of the staffs responses to each items. Later, a preliminary factor analysis was performed on the responses to the scaled items in section two, using the SPSS, with the purpose of determining the intermediate inference dimensions-potential factors composing the QEL in Higher Education, as revealed in these academic staffs and post graduate students opinions. The data were, then, analyzed by T-test for comparison between two groups, One-way ANOVAs for comparison three groups.

RESULTS
Some of the results derived form the descriptive analysis about the respondents indicated that 83% of the sample was male and 17% female. The range of age 59% were 20-39 and 31% were 40-up. There is no way of sorting out the impact, if any, of this factor on neither the participants selection of teachers nor their expressions of opinion about what constitutes effectiveness in university learning. According to Feldman (1976), Cohon (1981), Scheurich et al (1983) this is true, not only for this study, but also for investigation developed with the specific purpose of understanding such relations. The participants responses were first analyzed with purpose of simply identifying those items most frequently and highly. It was found that the items rated at the major and moderate importance, scale pointed by more than 50% of all respondents in three groups was the following. Lecturer Motivation The set of three items refer to lecturer motivation such as attitudes, skills as well as his knowledge of subject matter. Different groups marking the items, which generated factor 1 for QEL. The items included: Table 1: Lecturer Motivation Questionnaire Items 1-Lecturer should be simulating 2-Lecturer should be organized (BS) % 84.27 69.66 (LS) % 75.86 67.24 (AS) % 80.95 66.67

As can be seen, all groups rated the highest percentage (major and moderate importance) on the rating scale (more than fifty percent) on the items of teacher is stimulating (over 75%) and lecturer is organized (over 50%). Then, all respondents confirmed that for QEL the lecturer should be stimulating and organized. Postgraduate Student Motivation The set of three items refer to academic staff and postgraduate student motivation such as aptitude, attitudes, skills as well as his knowledge of subject matter. Different groups marking the items, which generated factor 2 for QEL. The items included:

36

Abbas Sadegh, Nader Ofoghi & Atefeh Sadeghi

Table 2: Postgraduate Student Motivation Questionnaire Items 1-Students exhibit positive attitudes (BS) % 74.91 (LS)% 60.34 (AS) % 66.67

As can be seen, all the groups rated the highest percentage (moderate and major importance) on the rating scale (more than fifty percent) on the item of students exhibit positive attitude (over 50%).Then, all respondents confirmed that for QEL, the students should exhibit a behavior which indicates a positive attitude towards their situation as learners. Writing Essays The set of two items refer to research activities such as writing essays and any other work relating to the learning process. Postgraduate students and academic staffs in different groups marking the items, which generated factor 3 for QEL. The items included: Table 3: Writing Essays Questionnaire Items 1-Writing essays facilitate learning 2-AS and Postgraduate students accept the importance of writing essays (BS) % 67.42 55.06 (LS) % 62.07 55.17 (AS) % 61.90 52.38

As can be seen, all groups the highest percentage (moderate and major importance) on the rating scale (more than fifty percent) on the items of assigned work tasks are designed to facilitate learning (over 50%) and student accept the importance of doing assigned work (over 50%).Then, all respondents confirmed that for QEL essays facilitate learning and post graduate students should accept the importance of doing assigned work. Table 4: Research Activities Split on Students and Academic Staffs ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE Sum of Mean Source D.F F Souares Squares BETWEEN 1 1.6581 1.6581 6.2385* WITHIN 119 45.9803 .2658 Total 120 47.6385 Pgraduate students with academic staffs. t=2.50 D.F=119 (P<0.013)* *Significant P<0.05 Postgraduate Students Involvement The set of two items refer to postgraduate student involvement such as class discussion and question response with student, relating to the teaching and learning process. Different groups marking the items, which generated factor 4 for QEL. The items included: Table 5: Postgraduate Students Involvement Questionnaire Items 1. Academic staffs try to have discussion with and among students (BS) % 65.17 (LS) % 56.90 (AS) % 66.67

Academic Staff Members and Postgraduate Students Views about Quality of English Learning (QEL) (Case Study University of Guilan, Faculty of Humanities)

37

As can be seen, all the groups rated the highest percentage (moderate and major importance) on the rating scale (around fifty percent) on the item of academic staffs try to have discussion with and among students. (Over 50%). *Significant P<0.05 Table 6: Post Graduate Students Involvement Split on Age ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE Sum of Mean Source D.F F Souares Squares BETWEEN 1 1.2616 1.2616 4.467* WITHIN 119 48.0096 .2824 Total 120 49.2713 20-30. with 40-up. t=2.11 D.F=119 (P<0.05)*

Teaching and Learning Situation The set of two items refer to teaching and learning situation such as environment and climate and also organization and management. Different groups marking the items, which generated factor 5 for QEL. The items included: Table 7: Teaching and Learning Situation Questionnaire Items 1. Class physical situation is proper 2-Class psychological atmosphere is acceptable (BS) % 55.06 82.02 (LS) % 58.62 67.24 (As) % 61.90 52.38

As can be seen, all three groups rated the highest percentage (Moderate and major importance) on the rating scale (around fifty percent) on the items above mentioned. These findings might be useful for those such as postgraduate students and academic staffs who are directly involved in the implementation of teaching and learning process. As Entwistle (1985) and Taylor, P. G. (2000) indicated that one of the teacher main tasks is to identify learner unique characteristics and problem and create appropriate learning conditions which will enable that individual to reach required level of competence. The findings also might be helpful for those who are indirectly involved in teaching and learning process such as educational managers, administrators and planners, particularly quality standard designers and inspectors especially in Higher Education and so forth. Also, the research found that male samples gave higher scores than females, maybe, firstly, because the males were more concentrated about the affairs relating to the teaching process than females. Secondly, as Getzeles and Jackson (1963), reported the results of Ryans research in the lecturer motivation study in 1960 regarding the comparison between male and female lecturers. The researcher included that the male teachers in elementary schools in the U.S.A were less responsible and businesslike in classroom behavior and more inclined toward democratic classroom practices, permissive, child-centered educational viewpoints and were more emotionally stable that female teacher. In secondary schools female teachers gave higher rating to friendly, responsible, stimulating classroom behavior, favorable attitudes towards pupils, democratic classroom practices, permissive educational viewpoints and verbal understanding. However, male teachers scored significantly higher in emotional stability. Generally, the previous research resembles current where the female samples rated higher than the male samples regarding the learning process.

38

Abbas Sadegh, Nader Ofoghi & Atefeh Sadeghi

Then, all respondents (over 50%) confirmed that for an effective learning, students should not wander and think to other things. These findings might be useful for those such as academic staffs who are directly involved in the implementation of teacher it very important factor to foster understanding students and interaction between teacher and students. In fact through the concentration teacher and students can create a straight line between each other as sender and receiver messages. And also students will contribute in teaching and learning process, if they focus on the teacher explanation and other materials relating to classroom they can understand better and more and if they understand they can participate in analysis and evaluate the content of teaching and if they do that, they can learn better and then the QEL will enhance. The findings also might be helpful for those who are indirectly involved in teaching and learning process, particularly, quality standard designers and inspectors specially in Higher Education and so forth; because they have to teach the skills of example to teachers and also focus on the importance of using example in teaching and learning situation. Then all respondents confirmed that for an effective teaching and learning, students desk, chairs and work areas and the teachers desk and chair and audio-visual aids are placed, so that a clear line of sight are available. These findings might be useful for those such as academic staff members and post graduate students who are directly involved in the implementation of learning process. Therefore, in this study all 3 groups with a top agreement have confirmed that In relation to lecturermotivation area, lecturer should be stimulating, lecturer should be organized, lecturer should be clear. In relating to the post graduate student motivation area, students exhibit a positive attitude towards their situation. In relating to the writing essays area essays should be design to facilitate learning, post graduate students should accept the importance of writing essays. In relating to post graduate students involvement area, academic staffs try to have discussion with and among students. In relating to teaching and learning situation area, class physical situation is proper, class psychological atmosphere is acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

The study reported in this paper was conceived and executed provide a better understanding and specific database for the QEL. What, then, can the researchers derives form the information, post graduate students and academic staffs have presented on what they believe, makes a learning process, effective. The resultant factors representing QEL, as perceived by the postgraduate students and academic staffs involved in this investigation, when thoughtfully interpreted, provide information that maybe useful in the formative evaluation and improvement of quality. Some questions may arise very strongly at this point: how can these results are put into action? How can they be used in improving university teaching and learning? It seems, each of these dimensions could be stimulated and supported through Higher Education progress for enhancing the QEL. The findings of this study, certainly, presented the professional viewpoints of post graduate students and Academic Staff Members about QEL. It seems that information could be significant help to the people who directly or indirectly involve the improvement of quality in Higher Education and especially in QEL. Obviously, the researcher recognizes those post graduate students and academic staffs opinions about QEL are not the only basis for the investigation and evaluation of the QEL. Therefore, the researcher believes that such information could be useful data for those who are working to evaluate and improve the QEL.

Academic Staff Members and Postgraduate Students Views about Quality of English Learning (QEL) (Case Study University of Guilan, Faculty of Humanities)

39

There are some evidences of the credibility post graduate students and academic staffs post graduate students and academic staffs evaluation of learning in terms of their senility to know variations in learning process. Obviously, much more research is needed to demonstrate ways in which post graduate students and academic staffs and any other people who are involving the QEL. For instance, according to Dunkin and Barens (1986) research on the effects of feedback from student ratings upon change in learning process is needed. Lag Rosen S et. al M (2004) Murphy, T and et.al (2009) research emphasize, with the ideas derived from the post graduate students and academic staffs assessment of QEL, it can be started generating programmes which will enhance the dimensions, so highly considered by the post graduate students and academic staffs of learning process. Maybe, it can be concluded as O'Neill, G. X McMahon, T. (2006) that any comprehensive programme for the improvement of the QEL should consider the post graduate students and academic staffs viewpoints as a reliable and valid source of information. And last, not least important, are not all these efforts at enhancing QEL made in order to improve the quality of post graduate students and academic staffs experience and educational performer of applied teaching? If so, should not we get used the idea of listening to what post graduate students and academic staffs say about their motivation, writing essays, post graduate student involvement and teaching and learning situation, in relating to the QEL.

REFERENCES 1. Anderson, L.W (1994) Increasing Teacher Effectiveness. UNESCO. Paris. 2. Bernard, P. (1999) Carl Rogers and Postmodernism: challenged in nursing and health sciences Nursing and Health Sciences 1, 241- 247 3. Booth, Band Booth, Clive (1989) Planning for Quality: Advice Respectfully Tendered to Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Higher Education Quarterly. Volume 43.A.4.) (PP 278-287). 4. Cohen, P. A (1981). Student Ratings of Instructors and Student Achievement: A Meta Analysis of multi sector validity Studies. Review of Educational Research, 51:281-309. 5. Dunkin, M.T and Barent, T. (1986). Research on Teaching in Higher Education. In Wittrock, M. C., ed. Hand Book of Research on Teaching. Third Edition. New York: Mac Millan Publ. Co, (PP 254777). 6. Entwistle, N. (1985). New Directions in Educational Psychology 1. Learning and Teaching The Falmer Press. Great Britain. 7. Feldman, k. (1976). Grades and College Students Evaluation of Their Courses and Teachers. Research in Higher Education, 5 (3): (pp-243-288). 8. Goodwin, L. D, Steven, E.A. (1993). The Influence of Gender on University Faculty Members Perceptions of Good Teaching. Journal of Higher Education. March/April 1993-by the Ohio State University Press-Vol 64.no 5. (pp 166-185). 9. Green. D. (1994). What is Quality in Higher Education. SRHE. Great Britain. 10. Jafary M, Osuly (2000) Total Quality of Management Culture Irasa Institution. Tehran, Iran.

40

Abbas Sadegh, Nader Ofoghi & Atefeh Sadeghi

11. Jose. J. C. et. al (2005) "Teaching for Quality learning in Chemistry" international journal of science education. Vol 27. No 9, 15 July 2005. pp 1123 1137. 12. Lag Rosen S, Seyye D, Ltashemi R, Leitner, M (2004) Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality assurance in education: 12(2):61-9 13. Loder, C. (1990). The Introduction of Staff Appraisal in Universities as a Method of Quality Assurance. In Quality Assurance and Accountability in Higher Education. Edited by Cari Loder. The Bradford Way Series. Institute of Education University of London. 14. Mcheachie, W.J. (1979). Student Ratings of Faculty: A Reprise. Academe October. 15. Mellia, T. (1994) Inspecting Quality in the Classroom. An HMI Perspective. In Diana Green (1994) What is Quality in Higher Education? Great Britain. 16. Murphy, T. Maclaren, I. (2004) Theory and Practice in the Development of Teaching Portfolios. In c. O'Farrell (ed). Teaching portfolio practice in Ireland: a studbook (p. 86-100). Dublis, Ireland: AISHE. 17. Murphy, T. Maclaren, I and Flynn, S (2009) Towards a Summative System for the Assessment of Teaching Quality in Higher education. International journal of teaching and learning in higher education. Volume 20. N.2 pp 226-236 18. O'Neill, G. x McMahon, T. (2006) Student- cent red Learning: what does it mean for students and lectures? University College Dublin, Ireland. 19. Scheurich, V. et al (1983). Expected Grades versus Specific Evaluation of the Teachers as Predictors of Students. Overall Evaluation of the Teachers. Research in Higher Education, 19 (2): (pp: 159-173). 20. Taylor, P. G. (2000) Changing Expectations. Preparing Students for Flexible learning. The international journal of academic development 5(2), 1o7-115