فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی در آموزش عالی
ابعاد تصویر دانشگاهی؛ مطالعه نگرش و تصورات دانشجویان
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی دانشگاه کردستان
2 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد رشته برنامه ریزی آموزشی، دانشگاه کردستان
چکیده
هدف این پژوهش شناسایی ابعاد و مؤلفههای تشکیلدهنده تصویر دانشجویان از دانشگاه و همچنین بررسی میزان اهمیت و نقش این مؤلفهها از نظر آنان بود. رویکرد پژوهش از نوع آمیخته (اکتشافی) بود. در بخش کیفی از روش پژوهش پدیدارشناسی توصیفی کلایزی و برای جمعآوری دادهها از ابزار مصاحبه نیمه ساختارمند استفاده شد. مشارکتکنندگان در بخش کیفی20 نفر از دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی از 6 دانشکده با رشتههای تحصیلی مختلف بودند که بهصورت هدفمند انتخاب شدند و فرایند جمعآوری اطلاعات تا رسیدن به اشباع نظری ادامه یافت. نتایج پژوهش در بخش کیفی شامل سه طبقه توصیفی وضعیت آموزشی (کمّی و کیفی)، وضعیت پژوهش و امکانات رفاهی و تسهیلات اسکان و روش پژوهش در بخش کمّی توصیفی- پیمایشی بود. ابزار پژوهش پرسشنامه محقق‌ساخته و شامل 9 بخش و محتوای آن برگرفته از دادههای بخش کیفی و ادبیات موضوع بود. ضریب پایایی برای پرسشنامه با استفاده از ضریب آلفای کرونباخ 874/0 بهدست آمد. جامعه آماری در بخش کمّی 270 نفر از دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی دانشگاه کردستان بودند که بر اساس فرمول تعیین حجم نمونه کوکران انتخاب شدند. دادهها با استفاده از نرم‌افزارهای SPSS و AMOS و با بهرهگیری از آمارههای توصیفی و استنباطی تجزیه و تحلیل شدند. نتایج آزمون تحلیل عاملی نشان داد که سؤالات پرسشنامه برای معرفی مؤلفههای تشکیلدهنده تصویر سازمانی دانشگاه دارای برازش مطلوبی بودند و نتایج آزمون فریدمن نشان داد که بُعد اسم و رسم و قدمت دانشگاه بیشترین و بعد هزینههای دانشگاه کمترین اهمیت را در شکل دادن به تصویر دانشگاهی دانشجویان داشته است. همچنین نتایج آزمون همبستگی نشان داد که میان بیشتر ابعاد تشکیلدهنده تصویر دانشگاهی دانشجویان در ارتباط با یکدیگر رابطه معنادار وجود دارد و نتایج آزمون t مستقل نشان داد که بر اساس تفکیک جنسیت فقط در بُعد اجتماعی میان دانشجویان زن و مرد اختلاف معنادار وجود دارد. در تفکیک بر اساس مقطع تحصیلی هم در بُعد کارکرد اجتماعی و هم هزینههای دانشگاه میان دانشجویان کارشناسی و تحصیلات تکمیلی تفاوت معنادار وجود داشت.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Dimensions of the university image; a study of studentâs attitudes and perceptions
نویسندگان [English]
- Jamal Salimi 1
- Keyvan Bolandhemtan 1
- Arash Abdi 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Kurdistan University, Kurdistan
2 Master student in Educational Planning, Kurdistan University
چکیده [English]
The purpose of this study was to identify dimensions and components of university image and evaluating its importance and the role of each based on students' perspectives. A mixed-exploratory research method approach was chosen for this study. In qualitative section, Colaizzi's descriptive phenomenology and semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. Twenty student in 6 colleges at University of Kurdistan participated in this study. The process of data collection continued until the data reaches saturation. The results of the qualitative part consisted of 3 categories: 1) educational status (quantitative and qualitative), 2) research status and 3) welfare and dormitory facilities. In quantitative part, descriptive research method was used. A self-made questionnaire consisting of 9 parts was developed. The content of the research tool was derived from qualitative data and the literature. Reliability coefficient was obtained for the questionnaire by using Cronbach alpha (α= .754). Statistical sample in the quantitative part included 270 graduate students that studied in 6 colleges. Data were analyzed by using SPSS and AMOS softwares and utilizing descriptive and inferential statistics. The results of factor analysis showed that the questionnaire for the presentation of the constituent components of university organizational image had a good fit. Friedman test results revealed that university's reputation, tradition and antiquity had the most and the costs had the least significance effects in forming university image. Furthermore, correlation test results revealed that there are significant relations between most dimensions of university image. Independent t-test results indicated that-on the basis of gender segregation-there are significant differences among male and female students just in social function dimension. But, on the basis of educational level segregation, there are significant differences between undergraduates and graduate students in two social function and university costs dimensions.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- University image
- University functions
- Higher Education
- Student attitude
- perceptions
- Kurdistan
2. Akbari, A. A. (1993). National research center for genetic engineering and biotechnology campus plan. University of Tehran (in Persian).
3. Alamdari, A. K., & Afson, E. (2004). Barriers to conducting research from viewpoint of faculty members of Yasouj University. Journal Knowldage Armaghan, 8 (29), 27-34 (in Persian).
4. Ali-Choudhury, R., Bennet, R., & Savani, S. (2009). University mark directors’ views on the components of a university brand. Int Rev on Public and Nonprofit Mark, 6(1), 11-33.
5. Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). The influence of university image on student behavior. The International Journal of Educational Management, 24 (1), 73-85.
6. Arpan L., Raney, A., & Zivnuska, S. (2003). A cognitive approach to understanding university image. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8(2), 97-113.
7. Bagheri, M., & Erfanifar, A. (2010). Design factors affecting corporate image Imam Sadegh University. Sterategic Management Thought, 4(2), 43-77 (in Persian).
8. Bazargan, A. (2015). Qualitative and mixed methods research. Tehran: Didar publication, 5 Edition. (In Persian).
9. Belanger, C., Mount, J., & Wilson, M. (2002). Institutional image and retention. Tertiary Education & Management, 8(3), 217-30.
10. Bennett, P. N., Iverson, M. J., Rohs, F. R., Langone, C. A., & Dwards, M. C. (2002). Job satisfaction of agriculture teachers in Georgia and selected variables indicating their risk of leaving the teaching profession. Paper Presented at the Southern Agricultural Education Research Conference, Orlando, pp. 555-567.
11. Diaz Mendez, M. (2013). Drawing attention to institutional soft tools: Thecase of lipdubs. Communication & Society/Comunication y Sociedad, 26(1), 129-148.
12. Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G.M. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 110-119.
13. Duarte, P.O., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). Understanding university image: A structural equation model approach. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 7(1), 21-36.
14. Enayati, T., & Dazdary, M. (2014). Identify organizational image dimensions in universities. Government Organizations Management Journal, 2 (2), 107-120 (in Persian).
15. Entwistle, N. (2002). Research-based university teaching. Psychology of Education Review, 26 (2), 3-9.
16. Fazilatkhah, M. (1992). Study of the barriers and problems in Iran for social research. (Master thesis). Faculty of Humanities, Tehran University (in Persian).
17. Fombrun, S., & Rindova, V. (2000). The road to transparency: Reputation management at Royal Dutch. Shell, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Holten, M.H. (Eds). The Expressive Organization. 1st ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
18. Fram, E. (1982, May). Maintaining and enhancing a college or a university, Twenty-second Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, (16-19 May): ERIC Reports, ED 220 044.
19. Gashmard, R., Moaetamedi, N., & Vahedparast, H. (2011). Faculty members' and students’ veiwpoints on characteristics of a good university teacher in Boushehr University of Medical Sciences. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 11(1), 48-57(in Persian).
20. Ghazizadeh, B. (1991). Principles and design criteria of educational space, Tehran: Publication of modernization, development and equipping of schools (in Persian).
21. Gillespie, M. (2005). Student-teacher connection: A place of possibility. Journal of Advance Nurse, 52 (2), 211-219.
22. Goodarzi, A., & Gaminian, V. (2003). Principles of organizational culture and climate. Isfahan University: Jahade Danesgghahi Publication.
23. Gray, B., Fam, K., & Llanes, V. (2003). Branding universities in Asian markets. J. Prod Brand Manag, 12(2), 108-118.
24. Gregory, J. (1999). Marketing corporate image-the company as your number one product. 2nd edn. Illinois, NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood.
25. Gutman, J., & Miaoulis, G. (2003). Communicating a quality position in service delivery: An application in higher education. Journal of Managing Service Quality, 13(2), 105-111.
26. Hashemiannezhad, F. (1997). Management problems faculty members at public universities in Mashhad. (Master thesis). Faculty of Educational Sciences, Tehran University (in Persian).
27. Hoseini, M., Farhadi Nahad, R. (2012). Identify measures of brand image of the University. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3(8), 109-132 (in Persian).
28. Hoseinnezhad, G., H., & Akhash, S. (2013). Study of professors benefiting from active teaching methods. Journal of Metropolitan Police Disciplinary Expertise, 2(17), 7-20 (in Persian).
29. Hossler, D., Bean, J. P., & Associates (1990). The strategic management of college enrolments. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, Inc.
30. Huddleston, T., J. R., & Karr, M. B. (1982). Assessing college image. College and University, 57(4), 364-370.
31. Husserl, E. (2007). The idea of phenomenology. Translation: Rashidian, A., Tehran: Scientific and Cultural (in Persian).
32. Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y., & Moffit, M.A. (2001). Institutional image: A case study. Corporate Communication: An International Journal, 6 (4), 205-216.
33. Kennedy, S. H. (1977). Nurturing corporate image. European Journal of Marketing, 11(3), 120-164.
34. Kianpour, M. (1999). Research in Iran is not universal. Neshat Newspaper, (September, 04, 1999) (in Persian).
35. Kilçaslan, H. (2013). Design of living spaces in dormitories. Journal Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 445 - 451.
36. Kotler, P., & Fox, K. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
37. Kotrlik, W. J., Bartlett, E. J., Higgins, C. C., & Williams, A. H. (2002). Factors associated with research productivity of agricultural education faculty. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(3), 110-116.
38. Landrum, R.E., Turrisi, R., & Harless, C. (1998). University image: The assessment and modeling. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(1), 53-68.
39. Litten, L. (1980). Mark higher education: Benefits and risks for the American academic system. J. High Educ, 51(1), 40-59
40. Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, R.F., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Student perceived effectiveness of computer technology use in post-secondary classrooms. Computer and Education, 47,465-489.
41. Mazloomy MahmoodAbad, S. S., Rahaei, Z., Ehrampoush, M.H., & Soltani, T. (2008). The characteristics of an expert faculty member based on view points of medical students - Yazd, Iran. Hormozgan Medical Journal, 14(3), 226-233.
42. McPherson, M., & Schapiro, M. (1998). Meeting need and rewarding talent in American higher education. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Madison. WI. Finance Center.
43. Morey, A. I. (1971, April). Image and selection; an examination of the images of three university of California campuses. Paper Presented at the Meeting of the California Education Research Association, a Diago, Calif, April, 29-30.
44. Naorozzadeh, R., Mahmaodai, R., Fathi Vajargah, K., & Naveh Ebrahim, A. (2006). Devolution of curriculum development in universities, a move to decentralize curriculum in higher education, conferences centralization and decentralization in curriculum development process. Kerman: Curriculum Studies, University of Kerman Bahonar (in Persian).
45. Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students’ retention decisions. Int J Educ Manag, 15(6), 303-311.
46. Paryad, R., Nasresfehani, A. R., & Liaghatdar, M. J. (2004). Structural barriers between faculty members' research in the humanities departments of universities and the West Country. Proceedings of Higher Education and Sustainable Development, Volume II, Tehran: Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education (in Persian).
47. Richardson, A. G., & Arundell, A. (2006). Characteristics of the effective teacher as perceived by pupils and teachers: A Caribbean case study. ERIC Document Reproduction, Service, No. ED 311013.
48. Rush, Sh. (1994). Analysis factors that place student atrisk. J. Educational Research, 4(3), 38-42.
49. Sabeti, M., Sepehr, M. H., & Ahmadi, F. (2014). The role of higher education in national development. Journal Social Development Studies Iran, 6 (4), 59-69 (in Persian).
50. Sayf, A. A. (1994). Educational psychology (Psychology of Learning and Teaching). Tehran, Agah (in Persian).
51. Schneiderman, M. (2010). NIU brand image survey excerpts from executive Summary. Division of University Relation. Derived November, 8.
52. Sevier, R. A. (1992). Recruiting african-American undergraduates: A national survey of the factors that affect institutional choice. College and University, 68, 48-51.
53. Sevier, R. A. (1994). Image is everything-strategies for measuring, changing, and maintaining your institutions image. College and University, 69(2), 60-75.
54. Sharifzadeh, F. (2011). Need to recognize the higher education system and its role in social and scientific development of the country: Research on public administration undergraduate universities and centers of higher education. Community Cultural Studies, 2(1), 79-112 (in Persian).
55. Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (1994). Effects of technology on student achievement, (report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, 1990-1994: executive summary). New York: N.Y.: Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED371726).
56. Stevens, R. E., McConkey, C.W., Cole, H. S., & Clow, K.E. (2008). College image: A strategic marketing dilemma. Service Marketing Quarterly, 29(3), 99-113.
57. Terkla, D., & Pagano, M. (1993). Understanding institutional image. Res High Educ, 34(1), 11-22.
58. Sung, M., & Yang, S. U. (2008).Toward the model of university image: The influence of brand personality, external prestige, and reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(4), 357-376.
59. Treadwell, D. T., & Harrison, T. (1994). Conceptualizing and assessing organizational image: Model images, commitment, and communication. Communication Monographs. 61, 63-85.
60. Trofino, AJ. (2000). Transformational leadership: Moving total quality management to word-class organizations. Int Nurs Rev, 47(4), 232-242.
61. Varma, R., Tiyagi, E., & Gupta, J.K. (2005). Determining the quality of educational climate across multiple undergraduate teaching sites using the DREEM inventory. BMC Med Educe, 21, 8.
62. Weissman, J. (1990). Institutional image assessment and modification in colleges and universities. J. High Educ Manag, 6(1), 65-75.
63. Woodhal, M. (1999). Economic development and higher education. Translated by Shirazi, H., Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 2(1), 99-407 (in Persian).
64. Yost, M., & Tucker, S. (1995). Tangible evidence in marketing a service: The value of a campus visit in choosing a college. J. Market High Educ, 6(1), 47-67.
)