archive-ie.com » IE » U » UCDOER.IE

Total: 813

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Section 6.2 Need for Reflection - UCD - CTAG
    SET Harris Driscoll Lewis Matthews Russell Cumming 2010 propose a cycle of review and development see below in which teaching is continually adapted to reflect changes in the curriculum learning experiences and educational context It is suggested that academics engage in regular two way communication with relevant parties to evaluation where students the curriculum is at in relation to the proposed outcomes creating a cycle of review and development where evaluation has an educative role informing curriculum refinement and delivery practices The model was designed to closely parallel Stufflebeam s Context Inputs Processes Products CIPP model see Section 2 3 3 1 and emphasises the importance of evidence based decision making and communication with peers colleagues and other stakeholders to ensure a match between the intended implemented and attained Harris Driscoll Lewis Matthews Russell Cumming 2010 Activity 6 2 How does the review cycle detailed above fit with the performativity vs professionalism distinction discussed in section 6 1 How does each stage of the cycle differ depending on the purpose of the evaluation Stage Performativity Professionalism 1 2 3 4 5 Back to 6 1 Continue to Section 6 3 Back To Section 6 Retrieved from http www ucdoer ie

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_6.2_Need_for_Reflection (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Section 6.3 Positive Impact of SET on Teaching - UCD - CTAG
    in one place Based on your experience and the literature you ve considered to date use the table below to identify the positive consequences or implications of SET at each level Summative Formative Student Lecturer Module Institution Other Misc Back to 6 2 Continue to Section 6 4 Back To Section 6 Retrieved from http www ucdoer ie index php title Section 6 3 Positive Impact of SET on Teaching

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_6.3_Positive_Impact_of_SET_on_Teaching (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 6.4 Negative Consequences of SET on Teaching - UCD - CTAG
    and universities Section 6 4 1 Students Section 6 4 2 Staff Section 6 4 3 Module Stage or Programme Section 6 4 4 Institutional Section 6 4 5 Other Negative Consequences Back to 6 3 Continue to Section 6 4 1 Back To Section 6 Retrieved from http www ucdoer ie index php title Section 6 4 Negative Consequences of SET on Teaching oldid 1855 Page tools Printable version

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_6.4_Negative_Consequences_of_SET_on_Teaching (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 6.4.1 Students - UCD - CTAG
    than inattention to their comments see Section 5 As a consequence students become increasingly disenfranchised and more cynical towards the process Spencer Schmelkin 2002 limiting the quality of the information provided and depending on how data are used posing a serious threat to individual academics An additional negative outcome cited by Algozzine et al 2004 comes from the following quote from Platt I cannot think that the habit of evaluating one s teacher can encourage a young person to long for the truth to aspire to achievement to emulate heroes to become just or to do good To have one s opinions trusted utterly to deliver them anonymously to have no check on their truth and no responsibility for their effect on the lives of others are not good for a young person s moral character To have one s opinions taken as knowledge accepted without question inquiry or conversation is not an experience that encourages self knowledge Platt 1993 33 34 Activity 6 4 1 To what extent to you agree with the comment expressed by Platt 1993 above What does this suggest about their role in the SET process Is there a way this concern could be remedied

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_6.4.1_Students (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 6.4.2 Staff - UCD - CTAG
    minor issues criticised by students The other staff related concerns mentioned in Section 3 arise from the lack of clarity of the purpose of the evaluation and to what use the data could be put Suspicion can foster cynicism and this can be exacerbated if the stated reason for gathering or using feedback gathered is different from the real one Nichols Glass Berliner 2006 Watanabe Curtis 2004 In many cases academics regard evaluation particularly summative evaluation in the same way that students do as a bureaucratic process with very little beneficial impact but with the added concern of its potential for control Newton 2000 Harvey 2002 Kember Leung and Kwan 2002 suggest that there are several reasons for the lack of commitment to changing teaching practices following SET including Faculty perception that there s little incentive to improve teaching Emphasis on audit is at odds with the developmental aspect of evaluation Reliance on questionnaires that focus on the act of teaching of the teacher him herself Activity 6 4 2 What are your personal concerns perceived negative consequences about SET Based on the issues listed above which would be classified as summative and which as formative Formative Issues Summative Issues

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_6.4.2_Staff (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 6.4.3 Module, Stage, or Programme - UCD - CTAG
    is due to grade inflation In many North American universities decisions for salary or promotion increases are based predominantly on SETs Grimes Millea Woodroff 2004 assuming these ratings to act as a proxy for teaching quality Langbein 2008 Consequently because of the pressure associated with securing higher evaluations lecturers may be tempted to be lenient with students to ensure good evaluations Brown 2008 This process has been referred to as grade inflation i e greater grading leniency or tendency to award higher grades in the hope of higher student ratings This positive correlation between grades and SET scores with higher expected grades giving higher ratings has been reported many times in literature Blackhart peruche DeWall Joiner 2006 Marsh Roche 1997 2000 and has been found to persist across differences in prior interest in the subject student motivation level of course class size differences in grading norms across academic disciplines demographic variations and differences in student grade expectations Johnson 2003 For example in one study researchers reported that 22 of teachers admitted to giving easy courses to ensure your popularity with students Tabachnick Keith Speigel Pope 1991 The negative conations grade inflation are huge impacting on the quality of teaching modules offered the credibility of the lecturer and the institution and invalidating the entire SET As Strathern 1997 notes when a measure becomes a target it ceases to be a good measure The issue of grade inflation is particularly relevant in Ireland at present where a recent report has suggested significant grade inflation in Irish universities with an increase in number of first class honours degrees awarded in 2004 and 2008 ranging from 167 to 900 Walshe 2010 Activity 6 4 3 What can be done to prevent limit threats to the credibility and validity of the process presented by grade

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_6.4.3_Module,_Stage,_or_Programme (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 6.4.4 Institutional - UCD - CTAG
    cognitively demanding Given the list of factors known to impact on the validity of student feedback see Section 8 as well as methodological issues such as sample bias non response low participation rates and students growing cynicism with the process see Section 6 4 1 there is much that could negatively impact upon the reputation of a university regardless of the quality of its programmes Blackmore 2009 claims that for many academics the external demands to perform audits which distract from real improvement leads to a struggle between the competing agendas of accountability and improvement between system wide concerns for performance efficiency and academic achievement and an educator s sense of care and investment in broader cognitive social emotional and moral development Meadmore 1998 Activity 6 4 4 If you haven t already read Blackmore s 2009 paper on professionalism and performativity and then look at the UCD SFM survey process How many of his concerns are potentially valid within UCD Submit your answers Resources Blackmore J 2009 Academic pedagogies quality logics and performative universities evaluating teaching and what students want Studies in Higher Education 34 8 857 872 Back to 6 4 3 Continue to Section 6 4 5

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_6.4.4_Institutional (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 6.4.5 Other Negative Consequences - UCD - CTAG
    Are there any issues that you feel are left out or do not stand up to scrutiny Submit your answers Back to 6 4 4 Continue to Section 6 5 Back To Section 6 Retrieved from http www ucdoer ie index php title Section 6 4 5 Other Negative Consequences oldid 1866 Page tools Printable version A Z glossary of terms Who s online Most recent additions Your account 91

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_6.4.5_Other_Negative_Consequences (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive