Volume 15, Issue 55 (5-2026)
Haft Hesar J Environ Stud 2026, 15(55): 5-14 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Aslani P, Zandi K. Identification, Prioritization, and Evaluation of Educational Activities Quality Components from Students’ Perspective
(A Study of Architecture and Urban Planning Engineering Departments at the University of Kurdistan). Haft Hesar J Environ Stud 2026; 15 (55) :5-14
URL: http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-2358-en.html
URL: http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-2358-en.html
Abstract: (407 Views)
Extended abstract
Introduction: In recent decades, the quality of teaching and learning has emerged as a strategic issue in
higher education systems worldwide, and improving the quality of university education has become a
central focus of many discussions in higher education management across countries. The primary
objective of this study was to evaluate students’ satisfaction with the quality of educational activities in
the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Kurdistan. To achieve this
objective, it was first necessary to validate and assign weights to the components representing the
quality of educational activities and then to measure students’ satisfaction with the status of these
components.
Methodology: The study was applied in terms of purpose and employed a descriptive-survey research
method. Using a stratified random sampling technique, a sample of 244 students was selected and
studied. The data collection instrument was a questionnaire on satisfaction with the quality of
educational activities consisting of 24 items and six components: instructor characteristics, content,
teaching methods, assessment of academic achievement, educational facilities, and course organization.
The face validity of the questionnaire was confirmed based on experts’ opinions, and its reliability was
verified using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. In another part of the study, the components representing
the quality of educational activities were prioritized using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The
data collection instrument in this section was a pairwise comparison matrix questionnaire administered
to 30 experts. The validity of these comparisons was confirmed through the calculation of the
inconsistency ratio. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, the Analytic Hierarchy
Process technique, a one-sample t-test, and an independent-samples t-test.
Results: The findings confirmed the construct validity of the questionnaire on satisfaction with the
quality of educational activities comprising six components. The most important components
representing the quality of educational activities, in descending order of importance, were content,
instructor characteristics, assessment methods, facilities, teaching methods, and course organization.
Students’ satisfaction with the quality of educational activities overall, as well as with the four
components of instructor characteristics, facilities, teaching methods, and course organization, was
above average, whereas satisfaction with content quality and assessment methods was reported to be at
an average level. Finally, no significant difference was observed between the quality of educational
activities in the Architecture and Urban Planning groups.
Conclusion: The findings of this study highlight the importance of the quality of curriculum content and
the enhancement of instructors’ competencies in increasing students’ satisfaction
Introduction: In recent decades, the quality of teaching and learning has emerged as a strategic issue in
higher education systems worldwide, and improving the quality of university education has become a
central focus of many discussions in higher education management across countries. The primary
objective of this study was to evaluate students’ satisfaction with the quality of educational activities in
the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Kurdistan. To achieve this
objective, it was first necessary to validate and assign weights to the components representing the
quality of educational activities and then to measure students’ satisfaction with the status of these
components.
Methodology: The study was applied in terms of purpose and employed a descriptive-survey research
method. Using a stratified random sampling technique, a sample of 244 students was selected and
studied. The data collection instrument was a questionnaire on satisfaction with the quality of
educational activities consisting of 24 items and six components: instructor characteristics, content,
teaching methods, assessment of academic achievement, educational facilities, and course organization.
The face validity of the questionnaire was confirmed based on experts’ opinions, and its reliability was
verified using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. In another part of the study, the components representing
the quality of educational activities were prioritized using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The
data collection instrument in this section was a pairwise comparison matrix questionnaire administered
to 30 experts. The validity of these comparisons was confirmed through the calculation of the
inconsistency ratio. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, the Analytic Hierarchy
Process technique, a one-sample t-test, and an independent-samples t-test.
Results: The findings confirmed the construct validity of the questionnaire on satisfaction with the
quality of educational activities comprising six components. The most important components
representing the quality of educational activities, in descending order of importance, were content,
instructor characteristics, assessment methods, facilities, teaching methods, and course organization.
Students’ satisfaction with the quality of educational activities overall, as well as with the four
components of instructor characteristics, facilities, teaching methods, and course organization, was
above average, whereas satisfaction with content quality and assessment methods was reported to be at
an average level. Finally, no significant difference was observed between the quality of educational
activities in the Architecture and Urban Planning groups.
Conclusion: The findings of this study highlight the importance of the quality of curriculum content and
the enhancement of instructors’ competencies in increasing students’ satisfaction
Keywords: Quality of Educational Activities, Students, Content, Instructor Characteristics, Architecture and Urban Planning Departments
Type of Study: Research |
Received: 2024/12/29 | Revised: 2026/06/28 | Accepted: 2025/05/2 | Published: 2026/06/4 | ePublished: 2026/06/4
Received: 2024/12/29 | Revised: 2026/06/28 | Accepted: 2025/05/2 | Published: 2026/06/4 | ePublished: 2026/06/4
References
1. آراسته، حمیدرضا؛ سبحانی نژاد، مهدی؛ همایی رضا. (1387). وضعیت دانشگاه¬های شهر تهران در عصر جهانی شدن از دیدگاه دانشجویان. پژوهش و برنامهریزی در آموزش عالی، 14 (4)، 66-47.
ایزدی، صمد؛ صالحی، ابراهیم؛ قره¬باغی، محمدمهدی. (1387). بررسی میزان رضایت¬مندی دانشجویان با توجه به معیار نتایج مشتری مدل EFQM: مطالعه موردی دانشجویان دانشگاه مازندران. آموزش عالی ایران، 1 (3)، 53-19.
تایلر، رالف و. (1387). اصول اساسی برنامه ریزی درسی و آموزشی. ترجمه علی تقی پورظهیر. انتشارات آگاه، چاپ ششم.
زمانیفر، مریم؛ محمدی، رضا؛ صادقیمندی، فاطمه. (1395). ارزیابی درونی و بهبود کیفیت برنامه درسی در گروههای آموزشی مهندسی. آموزش مهندسی ایران، 18 (72)، 67-45.
سماوی، حمیده؛ رضائی مقدم، کورش؛ برادران، مسعود. (1387). مشتری¬مداری و کاربرد آن در نظام آموزش عالی: مورد آموزش عالی کشاورزی در استان خوزستان. پژوهش و برنامه¬ریزی در آموزش عالی، 14 (3)، 143 – 121.
سیف، علی اکبر (1386). سنجش و ارزشیابی آموزشی. ویرایش چهارم، انتشارات آگاه، چاپ بیست و دوم.
سیلور، جی گالن؛ الکساندر، ویلیام ام؛ جی لوئیس، آرتور. (1380). برنامه¬ریزی درسی برای تدریس و یادگیری بهتر. ترجمه غلامرضا خوی¬نژاد. انتشارات آستان قدس رضوی، چاپ ششم.
شعبانی، حسن. (1382). روش تدریس پیشرفته: آموزش مهارت¬ها و راهبردهای تفکر. انتشارات سمت، چاپ اول.
شعبانی¬ورکی، بختیار؛ حسین¬قلی¬زاده، رضوان. (1385). بررسی کیفیت تدریس در دانشگاه. پژوهش و برنامه¬ریزی در آموزش عالی، 12 (1)، 22 – 1.
شیخزاده، مصطفی؛ ثمری، شاهین. (1389). بررسی روش¬های تدریس استادان دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی در استان آذربایجان غربی. تحقیقات مدیریت آموزشی، 1 (3)، 94 – 71.
عارفی، محبوبه؛ زندی، خلیل؛ شهودی، مریم. (1390). بررسی کیفیت رشته علوم تربیتی در دانشگاه کردستان براساس مدل¬های کانو و گسترش عملکرد کیفیت. اندیشه¬های نوین تربیتی، 7 (1)، 150 – 125.
عزیزی، یعقوب؛ صادقی، علیرضا؛ عبداللهی، حسین. (1395). ارزشیابی کیفیت درونی برنامه درسی دروس عمومی دوره کارشناسی از دیدگاه اساتید و دانشجویان. پژوهشهای کیفی در برنامه درسی، 1 (2)، 24-1.
عیاری، لیلا؛ سید کلان، سید محمد؛ آزاد، رسول. (1392). ارزیابی کیفیت برنامه درسی دانشگاههای مناطق محروم با رویکردی انتقادی، مطالعه موردی دانشگاههای مناطق محروم استان اردبیل. مطالعات برنامه درسی آموزش عالی، 4 (8): 88-77.
فتحی واجارگاه، کورش؛ شفیعی، ناهید. (1386). ارزشیابی کیفیت برنامه درسی دانشگاهی: مورد برنامه درسی آموزش بزرگسالان. فصلنامه مطالعات برنامه درسی، 1 (5)، 26 – 1.
فتحی واجارگاه، کوروش. (1384). اصول برنامه ریزی درسی. انتشارات ایران زمین، چاپ سوم.
قادری، حیدر؛ شکاری، عباس. (1393). ارزیابی کیفیت برنامه درسی گروه علوم تربیتی دانشگاه کاشان. پژوهش در برنامهریزی درسی، 11 (14)، 162-147.
قنبری، سیروس؛ زندی، خلیل. (1392). ارزشيابي صلاحيتهاي حرفهاي مدرسان مراكز آموزش عالي با استفاده از فرايند تحليل سلسله مراتبي. مدیریت بر آموزش سازمانها، 2 (2)، 156-127.
کانون، رابرت؛ نیوبل، دیوید. (1384). روش تدریس اساتید دانشگاه در مراکز آموزش عالی. ترجمه رضا ایزدی. محمدجعفر بنی¬اردلان. منصور غلامی. انتشارات دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، چاپ اول.
مدهوشی، مهرداد؛ زالی، محمدرضا؛ نجیمی، نسیم. (1388). تشکیل خانه کیفیت در نظام آموزش عالی: مطالعه موردی مقطع دکتری مدیریت دانشگاه¬های دولتی. پژوهش و برنامه¬ریزی در آموزش عالی، 15 (1)، 154 – 121.
مهرمحمدی، محمود. (1388). برنامه درسی: نظرگاه¬ها، رویکردها و چشم¬اندازها. ویرایش دوم. انتشارات سمت، چاپ سوم.
نادری، نادره؛ عابدینی، صدیقه؛ اصغری، نسرین؛ حسینی تشنیزی، سعید؛ جهانگیری زرکانی، زهرا؛ نمازی، سید شجاعالدین. (1389). ارزیابی وضعیت موجود آموزشی علوم پایه از دیدگاه دانشجویان دانشکده پزشکی بندرعباس. مجله پزشکی هرمزگان، 14 (3)، 212 – 206.
هیرش، ورنر زد؛ وبر، لوک ای. (1381). چالش¬های فراروی آموزش عالی در هزاره سوم. ترجمه گروه مترجمین (به کوشش رضا یوسفیان). انتشارات دانشگاه امام حسین، چاپ اول.
Arya, P., & Dadwal, S. (2023). Quality Parameters for Higher Education
Institutions in India: A Literature Review. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 8 (6), 2689-2697.
Brown, W O. (2001). Sources of funds and quality effects in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 20 (3), 289–295.
Buck, G A., & Trauth-Nare, A E. (2009). Preparing Teachers to Make the Formative Assessment Process Integral to Science Teaching and Learning. Teacher Education, 20 (5), 475–494.
Butt, B Z., & Ur Rehman, K. (2010). A study examining the students satisfaction in higher education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 5446–5450.
Chen, L H., Lin, H C. (2007). Integrating Kano’s Model into E-learning Satisfaction. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE IEEM.
Chen, L H., & Kuo, Y F. (2011). Understanding e-learning service quality of a commercial bank by using Kano’s model. Journal of Total Quality Management, 22 (1), 99–116.
Chou, S. (2004). Evaluating the service quality of undergraduate nursing education in Taiwan– using quality function deployment. Nurse Education Today, 24 (4), 310–318.
Dragut, B M. (2011). Quality management in higher education services. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3366–3368.
Farahat, B I. (2011). Architectural education future experience in designing a new curriculum for undergraduate university education in architecture. edulearn11 proceedings, 743-757.
Ghiatău, R., Diac, G., & Curelaru, V. (2011). Interaction between summative and formative in higher education assessment: students’ perception. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11, 220–224.
Havas beigi, F., Keramati, M R., & Ahmadi, A. (2011). The quality curriculum evaluation in postgraduate studies of Educational Management and Planning in the public Universities of Tehran City. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3723–3730.
Kohale, N S., Kini, P G., & Mohammed, C A. (2025). Towards a framework for ‘significant’ learning in architectural education. Cogent Education, 12 (1), 1-16.
Liu, M S. (2008). Using the Refined Kano’s Model to Measure University Education Quality: The Case Study on the Department of Food and Beverage Management in Southern Taiwan. The Business Review Cambridge, 11, 111-117.
Mai, L. (2005). A Comparative Study between UK and US: The Student Satisfaction in Higher Education and its Influential Factors. Journal of Marketing Management, 21 (7 & 8), 859-878.
Olweny, M R. (2020). Architectural education in sub-Saharan Africa:
an investigation into pedagogical positions and knowledge frameworks. The Journal of
Architecture, 25 (6), 717-735.
Parpala, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2007). University Teachers' Conceptions of Good Teaching in the Units of High-Quality Education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33 (3), 355–370.
Parpala, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2007). University Teachers' Conceptions of Good Teaching in the Units of High-Quality Education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33 (33 & 34), 355–370.
Pavlina, K., Zorica, M B., & Pongrac, A. (2011). Student perception of teaching quality in higher education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15 (1), 2288–2292.
Pramana, C., Chamidah, D., Suyatno, S., Renadi, F., & Syaharuddin, S. (2021). Strategies to improved education quality in Indonesia: A review. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (3), 1977-1994.
Seyfried, M., & Pohlenz, P. (2018). Assessing quality assurance in higher education: quality managers’ perceptions of effectiveness. European Journal of Higher Education, 8 (3), 258-271.
Singh, V., Grover, S., & Kumar, A. (2008). Evaluation of quality in an educational institute: a quality function deployment approach. Educational Research and Review, 3 (4), 162-168.
Voss, R., Gruber, T., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The role of student expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60 (9), 949–959.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
