Teachers’ Perception of Student assessment by Teacher
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X40519Keywords:
Teaching Performance Evaluation, Federal University of Santa Maria, Self-Assessment of the Institution, Survey ResearchAbstract
The objective of this work was to evaluate the perception of the Faculty of the Federal University of Santa Maria regarding the Teacher Evaluation by the Student in order to verify deficiencies and propose improvements in the evaluation process. An analysis was made of the Faculty's Student Assessment tool and, thus, a questionnaire was prepared sent to all teachers able to participate in the research. The results showed that most teachers are satisfied mainly with the assessment instrument, the assessment made by the students and the obligation of application. However, there is significant dissatisfaction with the fact that students are not required to respond, with poor student adherence and the influence of assessment on teacher progression.
Downloads
References
BRASIL. Portaria n. 554 de 20 de junho de 2013, Diretrizes gerais para o processo de avaliação de desempenho para fins de progressão e de promoção dos servidores pertencentes ao Plano de Carreiras e Cargos de Magistério Federal das Instituições Federais de Ensino vinculadas ao Ministério da Educação. Diário Oficial da União, Poder Executivo, Brasília, DF, 23 jul. 2013. Seção 1, p.10.
BRASIL. Lei n. 10.861, de 14 de abril de 2004, Institui o Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior – SINAES e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Poder Executivo, Brasília, DF, 15 abr. 2004. Seção 1.
BRASIL. Portaria n. 2.051, de 9 de julho de 2004, Regulamenta os procedimentos de avaliação do Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior (SINAES), instituído na Lei no 10.861, de 14 de abril de 2004. Diário Oficial da União, Poder Executivo, Brasília, DF, 12 jul. 2004. Seção 1. p. 16.
MALHOTRA NK. Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada. 6. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2012.
MATUICHUK M, SILVA MC. Avaliação do docente pelo discente na melhoria do desempenho institucional: UTFPR/SIAVI. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação. 2013;21(n):323-348.
MCDANIEL CD, GATES R. Pesquisa de marketing. São Paulo: Thomson Learning, 2006.
MOTA MC. A importância da comissão própria de avaliação no processo de melhoria da qualidade do ensino nas instituições de ensino superior brasileiras. AMPLIANDO, Revista Científica da Facerb, 2016;3(1):6-22.
RIBEIRO, JLLS. Avaliação das universidades brasileiras as possibilidades de avaliar e as dificuldades de ser avaliado. Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior. 2011; 16(1):57-71.
UFSM em Números. Disponível em: https://portal.ufsm.br/ufsm-em-numeros/publico/index.html. Acesso em: 30/08/2017.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
