CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …

Tiêu đề

Use of instructional feedback and modification methods among university faculty

Tác giả

Shannon D.M.; Twale D.J.; Hancock G.R.

Năm xuất bản

1996

Source title

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education

Số trích dẫn

DOI

10.1080/0260293960210104

Liên kết

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0000445296&doi=10.1080%2f0260293960210104&partnerID=40&md5=298c355181617eb5dfb9abecdf946008

Tóm tắt

This study focused on methods used by faculty to gather feedback and how this feedback was used to modify instruction. Data were gathered to determine the degree to which these methods of feedback and modification of instruction were dependent upon variables such as class size, teaching experience, pedagogical training, academic rank and status, gender and academic discipline. It was found that the amount of feedback and modification of instruction did not vary significantly across the variables of teaching experience and class size. The analyses examining the effects of the remaining independent variables (i.e. college of study, pedagogical training, gender, rank, status) did detect statistically significant results. Specifically, those instructors who had received some training in pedagogical methods gathered feedback about their teaching more than those instructors without such pedagogical training. Also, faculty from the Colleges of Education and Liberal Arts used more methods to gather feedback than those faculty from the College of Science and Mathematics. Faculty in the College of Science and Math also did the least in terms of course and instructional modification, significantly less than faculty in the Colleges of Agriculture, Business, Education, Engineering and Liberal Arts. © 1996 Journals Oxford Ltd.

Từ khóa

Tài liệu tham khảo

Adams M., Tenuring and promoting junior faculty, Thought and Action, 5, 2, pp. 55-60, (1989); Aleamoni L., Typical faculty concerns about student evaluation of teaching, New Directions For Teaching and Learning, 31, pp. 25-31, (1987); Aleamoni L., The usefulness of student evaluations in improving college teaching, Instructional Science, 7, pp. 95-105, (1978); Amundsen C., Gryspeerdt D., Moxness K., Practice-centered inquiry: Developing more effective teaching, Review of Higher Education, 16, 3, pp. 329-353, (1993); Barnes L., Barnes M., Academic discipline and generalizability of student evaluations of instruction, Research In Higher Education, 34, 2, pp. 135-149, (1993); Centra J., Formative and summative evaluation: Parody or paradox?, New Directions For Teaching and Learning, 31, pp. 47-55, (1987); Cohen P., Effectiveness of student-rating feedback in improving college instruction: A meta analysis of findings, Research In Higher Education, 13, 4, pp. 321-341, (1980); Cole C., Improving Instruction: Issues and Alternatives For Higher Education, (1982); Cross K.P., Angelo T.A., Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook For Faculty, (1988); Katula R., Doody A., The collegiality model: An alternative for evaluating faculty productivity, ACA Bulletin, 74, pp. 74-82, (1990); Machina K., Evaluating student evaluations, Academe, 73, 3, pp. 19-22, (1987); Magnusen K., Faculty evaluation, performance, and pay: Application and issues, Journal of Higher Education, 58, 5, pp. 516-529, (1987); Marsh H.W., Students' evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research, International Journal of Educational Research, 11, pp. 253-388, (1987); Marsh H., Roche L., The use of students' evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness, American Educational Research Journal, 30, 1, pp. 217-251, (1993); McKeachie W., The role of faculty evaluations in enhancing college teaching, National Forum: Phi Kappa Phi, 63, 2, pp. 37-39, (1983); McKeachie W., Can evaluating instruction improve teaching?, New Directions For Teaching and Learning, 31, pp. 3-7, (1987); Miller R., Evaluating Faculty For Promotion and Tenure: The Jossey Bass Higher Education Series, (1987); Monroe C., Borzi M., Methodological issues regarding student evaluation of teachers: A pilot study, ACA Bulletin, 70, pp. 73-79, (1989); Murray H., Acquiring student feedback that improves instruction, New Directions For Teaching and Learning, 32, pp. 85-96, (1987); Pittman R., Slate J., Faculty evaluation: Some conceptual considerations, Journal of Personnel Evaluation In Education, 3, 1, pp. 39-51, (1989); Rudmann J., Guidelines and Resource References For Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation and Development Program, (1990); Scriven M., Summative teacher evaluation, Handbook of Teacher Evaluation, pp. 244-271, (1981); Seldin P., Evaluating college teaching, College Teaching and Learning: Preparing For New Commitments, New Directions In Learning, 33, pp. 47-56, (1988); Seldin P., The Teaching Portfolio: A Practical Guide to Improving Performance and Promotion/ Tenure Decisions, (1991); Shannon D.M., Hancock G.R., Twale D.J., Perry C.N., Assessment of College Teaching Strategies: Using Evaluation Techniques to Modify Instruction, (1993); Shulman L.S., Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 15, 2, pp. 4-14, (1986); Sullivan A., The role of two types of research on the evaluation and improvement of university teaching, New Directions For Teaching and Learning, 23, pp. 71-82, (1985); Weimer M., Study your way to better teaching, New Directions In Teaching and Learning, 42, pp. 117-130, (1990)