Monitoring of Educational Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Comparison of Perceptions

Abstract

AbstractThe purpose of this study is to explore whether there is a statistically significant difference between the ideas of university administrators and faculty members regarding how strictly Educational Performance Indicators for Educators (EPIE) should be monitored in the educational process. The responses of university directors were compared with those of faculty members, and the responses of public universities were compared to those of private universities. Improving the quality of education depends on the performance of teachers. Determining the objective indicators that measure the performance levels of teachers is necessary for maintaining quality assurance. In order for a university to maintain high standards, administrators and faculty members must cooperate with each other. The twelve point EPIE Index used in this study contains three components and nine indicators. No statistically significant relationship was found between the average component scores of university administrators and faculty members, and no statistically significant relationship was found between the average component scores of public and private universities. However, a statistically significant relationship was found between two factors from EPIE's self-appraisal scores. The model and data do not match the conceptual structure of the three components in the EPIE. Thus, further studies and analyses should be conducted. It was found that most faculty members think like academicians from private universities, and most university directors think like academicians from public universities.Keywords: Faculty educational performance indicators * Performance indicators in higher education * Teaching appraisals * Educational performance indicators for educatorsMonitoring of educational performance indicators for educators (EPIE) has gained importance for those interested in designing education processes appropriately, improving education, and forming these processes creatively and innovatively. It is not possible for department chairs and deans to form and monitor EPIE alone. Instead, they need to cooperate and work with the other faculty members. Without this, data related to EPIE could not be collected or analyzed, and preparing and submitting meaningful knowledge to university directors would be impossible. This situation is encountered when EPIE is determined solely by university directors. University directors have a problem determining how to collect and appraise EPIE from their faculty members. What level should be monitored in collecting data from EPIE; how should it be analyzed and reported? These are all topics of recent discussion. Faculty members want to observe the benefits of collecting data for EPIE. Increasing the preparation, learning, and satisfaction levels of students; the quality and sensitivity in the education process; the transformation of faculties from the role of knowledge transmitter to the role of initiator of thought; research; and appraisal; these are all convincing factors for faculty members. This study compares the perceptions and ideas of university professors with the directors in order to determine at what level EPIE should be monitored. It was assumed that university directors would be more sensitive and have higher expectations about EPIE. One finds that organizations cause similar findings for the expectations of university directors and faculty members. At what level does the sensitivity of the EPIE for these groups bring them together? If it is at low levels, it will not only render EPIE useless, but will also put the focus on protecting internal balance instead of developing innovative and creative processes. Forming and monitoring EPIE with collaboration in higher education are important for protecting and improving the quality of education.Literature ReviewDevelopmental Process of EPIE: Observation of EPIE started at the end of the 1980's and beginning of the 1990's. During this time, performance reporting was considered as a main tool for policy developers and for providing information to the public (Cabrera, Colbeck, & Terenzini, 2001), (Shin, 2010). …