Article Sidebar

Download
fulltext
Statistic
Read Counter : 95 Download : 44

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research focuses on the status of the lecturer as the foundation of a University , because the have the responsibility to educating a new generation that could bring pride to University, so there is no doubt that lecturer could be called the most valuable asset of the University (Ramírez Córcoles, Santos Peñalver, & Tejada Ponce, 2011; Suyunus, 2011; Ulum, 2012). This research is a case study research with intepretif paradigm, which aim to determine the extent to which the result of a student evaluation of lecturer that measured by Airlangga University cybercampus questionnaires used as references by it’s lecturer and faculty.


Abstrak


Penelitian ini berfokus pada status dosen sebagai fondasi dari sebuah Universitas, karena bertanggung jawab mendidik generasi baru yang dapat mengharumkan nama Universitas, sehingga tidak heran apabila dosen disebut sebagai aset paling berharga dari Universitas (Ramírez Córcoles et al., 2011; Suyunus, 2011; Ulum, 2012). Penelitian ini adalah penelitian studi kasus berparadigma intepretif, yang bertujuan untuk mengetahui sejauh mana hasil dari penilaian mahasiswa terhadap kinerja dosen yang diukur dengan kuisioner cybercampus Universitas Airlangga dijadikan acuan oleh dosen dan fakultas.

Keywords

Lecturer Teachings Quality Universities Asset System Questionnaires

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Jeffits Khusnu Alif

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Whisman R. Internal branding: A university’s most valuable intangible asset. J Prod Brand Manag 2009;18:367–70. doi:10.1108/10610420910981846.
  2. El-Tawy N, Abdel-Kader M. Accounting recognition of information as an asset. J Inf Sci 2013;39:333–45. doi:10.1177/0165551512463648.
  3. El-Tawy N. A GROUNDED THEORY ANALYSIS OF THE PRE-MEASUREMENT PHASE FOR THE ACCOUNTING RECOGNITION OF ASSETS. 2010.
  4. Ramírez Córcoles Y, Santos Peñalver
  5. Alif, Tindak Lanjut Evaluasi Mahasiswa … 129
  6. JF, Tejada Ponce Á. Intellectual capital in Spanish public universities: stakeholders’ information needs. J Intellect Cap 2011;12:356–76. doi:10.1108/14691931111154689.
  7. Suyunus M. Mengikuti Perjalanan Pembawa Bendera: Penyebaran Pemikiran Radikal Riset Akuntansi Multiparadigma. J Akunt Multiparadigma 2011;2:104–25.
  8. Prihatni Amrih Rahayuningtyas D, Triana E. Modal Intelektual dan Daya Saing Perguruan Tinggi di Indonesia. J Akunt Dan Investasi 2017;18:153–62. doi:10.18196/jai.180279.
  9. Ulum I. Model Pengukuran Kinerja Intellectual Capital Dengan Ib-Vaic Di Perbankan Syariah. Inferensi 2013;7:185. doi:10.18326/infsl3.v7i1.185-206.
  10. Secundo G, Margherita A, Elia G, Passiante G. Intangible assets in higher education and research: Mission, performance or both? J Intellect Cap 2010;11:140–57. doi:10.1108/14691931011039651.
  11. Ulum I. Konstruksi Komponen Intellectual Capital untuk Perguruan Tinggi di Indonesia. Reviu Akunt Dan Keuang 2012;2:251–62. doi:10.1016/S0167-9473(97)00038-8.
  12. Ulum I, Novianty N. Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Pengungkapan Intellectual Capital Pada Official Website Perguruan Tinggi Indonesia. J Dan Pros SNA - Simp Nas Akunt 2012;15:1–22.
  13. Bronzetti G, Mazzotta R, Puntillo P, Silvestri A, Veltri S. Intellectual Capital reporting practices in the non-profit sector. Sumy Virtus Interpress. Accessed July, vol. 31, 2011.
  14. Cañibano L, Paloma Sánchez M. Intangibles in universities: current challenges for measuring and reporting. J Hum Resour Costing Account 2009;13:93–104. doi:10.1108/14013380910968610.
  15. Basile C. Intellectual Capital and Professional Development Schools 2009:1–7.
  16. Cabrera D, Colosi L, Lobdell C. Systems thinking. Eval Program Plann 2008;Volume:31:299–310.
  17. Fuenmayor R. The roots of reductionism: A counter-ontoepistemology for a systems approach. Syst Pract 1991;4:419–48. doi:10.1007/BF01104460.
  18. Bélanger HC, Bali S, Longden B. Canadian universities use social media. Tert Educ Manag 2014;20:14–29. doi:10.1080/13583883.2013.852237.
  19. Spooren P, Brockx B, Mortelmans D. On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching. vol. 83. 2013. doi:10.3102/0034654313496870.
  20. Darling-Hammond L, Amrein-Beardsley A, Haertel E, Rothstein J. Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan 2012;93:8–15. doi:10.1177/003172171209300603.
  21. García Becerra O. Survey Research on Quality Expectations in Interpreting: The Effect of Method of Administration on Subjects’ Response Rate. Meta J Des Traducteurs 2016;60:542. doi:10.7202/1036142ar.
  22. Abeysekera I. Chapter 7 Findings and interpretation – Survey questionnaire. vol. 21. Elsevier; 2011. doi:10.1108/s1479-3512(2011)0000021015.
  23. Álvarez García J. Los efectos de las prácticas de gestión de la calidad en los resultados clave: muestra de cuestionarios para el sector del alojamiento turístico en España. Rev Bus Manag 2014;16:351–73. doi:10.7819/rbgn.v16i52.1614.
  24. Hemsley-Brown J, Lowrie A, Gruber T, Fuß S, Voss R, Gläser-Zikuda M. Examining student satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measurement tool. Int J Public
  25. Jurnal Riset dan Aplikasi: Akuntansi dan Manajemen, Vol. 4, No.1, September 2019, hlm. 115 – 130
  26. Sect Manag 2010;23:105–23. doi:10.1108/09513551011022474.
  27. Chiaro D, Nocella G. Interpreters’ Perception of Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Factors Affecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web. Meta J Des Traducteurs 2012;49:278. doi:10.7202/009351ar.
  28. Carter S, Yeo ACM. Students-as-customers’ satisfaction, predictive retention with marketing implications: The case of Malaysian higher education business students. Int J Educ Manag 2016;30:635–52. doi:10.1108/IJEM-09-2014-0129.
  29. Marsh HW, Roche L. The Use of Students’ Evaluations and an Individually Structured Intervention to Enhance University Teaching Effectiveness. Am Educ Res J 2008;30:217–51. doi:10.3102/00028312030001217.
  30. Sánchez-Hernández MI, Mainardes EW. University social responsibility: a student base analysis in Brazil. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark 2016;13:151–69. doi:10.1007/s12208-016-0158-7.
  31. Cappelli C, Pirola I, Daffini L, Formenti A, Iacobello C, Cristiano A, et al. Teori-Teori Organisasi 2016;26:197–202. doi:10.1089/thy.2015.0422.
  32. Sunarta S. Konflik dalam Organisasi (Merugikan Sekaligus Menguntungkan). EFISIENSI - Kaji ILMU Adm 2015;10. doi:10.21831/efisiensi.v10i1.3969.
  33. Cresswell JW. PENELITIAN KUALITATIF & DESAIN RISET Memilih di antara Lima Pendekatan. Edisi Indo. Yogyakarta: PUSTAKA PELAJAR; 2013.
  34. Burell G, Morgan G. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Burlington: Ashgale Publishing Company; 1979.
  35. Yin RK. Case study research: STUDY Design and Methods. vol. 4. 4th ed. California: Thousand Oaks; 2009.
  36. Pramudyo A. Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Kinerja Dosen Negeri Pada Kopertis Wilayah V Yogyakarta. J Bisnis Teor Implementasi 2010;1:1–11.
  37. REKTOR UNIVERSITAS AIRLANGGA. PERATURAN REKTOR UNIVERSITAS AIRLANGGA NOMOR 45 TAHUN 2015. Indonesia: 2015.
  38. Hammond D. The Science of Synthesis: Exploring the Social Implications of General Systems Theory. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado; 2003.