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 8.4 Measurement Issues - UCD - CTAG
    validity of SET Section 8 4 1 Measuring Good Teaching Section 8 4 2 Single item indicators Section 8 4 3 Questionnaire construction Back to 8 3 Continue to Section 8 4 1 Back To Section 8 Retrieved from http www ucdoer ie index php title Section 8 4 Measurement Issues oldid 1984 Page tools Printable version A Z glossary of terms Who s online Most recent additions Your account

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_8.4_Measurement_Issues (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Section 8.4.1 Measuring Good Teaching - UCD - CTAG
    into these nice little categories that are numerically controlled where if you do XYZ then you re a good teacher Not only is such a unified definition lacking in literature Cannon 2001 but Lemos et al 2010 claim that the implicit conceptions of good teaching used in SET have not been subjected to stringent psychometric tests to determine their appropriateness In contrast the following quote from Ramsden 1991 suggest that the dimensions of good teaching are not as intensely diverse as some infer There is a widely held belief that teaching quality is a many sided yet ultimately elusive phenomenon This conviction has led several commentators to doubt whether an unambiguous scale of measurement suitable as a performance indicator could ever be devised This conclusion seems altogether too pessimistic It is important to realise that research from different but related standpoints has produced similar results Although good teaching is undoubtedly a complicated matter there is a substantial measure of agreement among those empirical studies about its essential characteristics Ramsden 1991 p 131 Academic developers regularly list aspects of teaching as more e g active student centred or less e g didactic teacher centred indicative of quality teaching for example Chickering and Gamson s 1987 seven principles for good practice It may be argued that a general adherence to such principles could form a basis for quality teaching based on a combination of current conceptualisations of effective teaching from literature empirical research of established SET tools and correlation with other quality checks to ensure validity Activity 8 4 1 To what extent do you think you can measure good teaching What is your definition of good teaching Does this issue apply to formative SET How does this reflect your SET focus see task in Section 2 4 Submit your answers Resources

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_8.4.1_Measuring_Good_Teaching (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 8.4.2 Single-item indicators - UCD - CTAG
    dimensional indicators What does this actually mean in basic everyday English Why is this important for summative SET What does this mean for the UCD SFM survey tool Submit your answers Resources Spooren P Mortelmans D Denekens J 2007 Student evaluation of teaching quality in higher education development of an instrument based on 10 Likert scales Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education 32 6 667 679 Back to 8 4 1

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_8.4.2_Single-item_indicators (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 8.4.3 Questionnaire construction - UCD - CTAG
    questions or statements using semantic differential or Likert type scales there is frequently no criteria or labels for the ratings and little reflection from wither staff or students as to what they actually means in real terms Edström 2008 As a result Edström speculates that in such cases a high rating is more indicative of the lecturer s attitude than any element of their teaching and a feel good factor is rewarded Often in SET surveys efforts are made to include both positively and negatively worded items to prevent a ceiling effect where respondents fall into a pattern of ticking all responses at either the left or the right hand side of the scale Switching from positively to negatively worded items is designed maintain the student s interest and keep them focused on the questions According to Roszkowski and Soven 2010 however engaging in this practice may be adversely affecting the validity of the measure rather than enhancing it Rather than thinking about the survey item most respondents provide a quick unconsidered answer to complete the survey rather than to provide a true indicator of their attitudes or beliefs Krosnick 1991 Consequently students are more likely to respond to the reversed item incorrectly indicating a positive when they mean a negative profoundly affecting the results and the validity of the evaluation Activity 8 4 3 Look at a standardised questionnaire for module evaluation such as the Module Experience Questionnaire MEQ Lucas Gibbs Hughes Jones and Wisker 1997 Which areas does the survey include Do any of the questions seem relevant for your requirements Submit your answers Resources Gibbs G Coffey M 2004 The Impact Of Training Of University Teachers on their Teaching Skills their Approach to Teaching and the Approach to Learning of their Students Active Learning in Higher Education

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_8.4.3_Questionnaire_construction (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 8.5 Confounding Variables - UCD - CTAG
    2007 5 Charisma of lecturer Naftulin 1973 6 Chocolate Youmans Lee 07 7 Class size Min Baozhi 1998 Light Cox 2001 8 Class time Zabaleta 2007 9 Core or elective module Marsh and Roche 1997 10 Course difficulty Felder 1992 Felton Litchell Stinson 2004 11 Course level Barkhi Williams 2010 12 Discipline Cerrito Obenchain Abernathy Wiest 2001 Felton Koper Mitchell Stinson 2008 13 Easier curricula Johnson 2003 14 Lecturer enthusiasm expressiveness Shevlin Banyard Davies Griffiths 2000 15 Expected grade Marsh Roche 2000 16 Experience of instructor Zabaleta 2007 17 Gender of instructor Basow Silberg 1987 Sinclair Kunda 2000 18 Gender of student Heck Todd Finn 2002 19 Grading leniency Greenwald Gillmore 1997 20 Graduate level of student Braskamp Brandenberg Ory 1984 21 How result will be used Braskamp Brandenberg Ory 1984 Marsh 1984 22 Humour Adamson O Kane Shevlin 2005 23 Instructor s first language Zabaleta 2007 24 Instructor s humour charisma Adamson O Kane Shevlin 2005 Shevlin Banyard Davies Griffiths 2000 25 Lecturer status Braskamp Brandenberg Ory 1984 26 Lecturer presence Marsh 1984 27 Lecturer rank d Apollonia Abrami 1997 28 Lecturer presence during evaluation Marsh 1997 29 Prior experience of subject Langbein 2008 Marsh 1987 30 Race of instructor Rao 1995 31 Research productivity of lecturer Cashin 1988 32 Sexiness of the professor Felton Mitchell Stinson 2004 33 Student interpretation of SET items Alderson 1992 Kalayci 2009 34 Student motivation Langbein 2008 35 Students expectations of high grades Worthington 2002 36 Surface or deep learners Entwistle Tait 1990 37 The halo effect Algozzine et al 2004 38 Time of day Greenwald Gilmore 1997 39 Times lecturer taught same course Marsh and Overall 1981 40 Timing format distribution of evaluations Youmans Lee 2007 Activity 8 2 Which of the above confounding variables did you most expect to see Which

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_8.5_Confounding_Variables (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 8: Reliability & Validity - UCD - CTAG
    Rates Section 8 3 Response Error Bias Section 8 4 Measurement Issues Section 8 5 Confounding Variables Evaluation Sections Continue to Section 8 1 Retrieved from http www ucdoer ie index php title Section 8 Reliability 26 Validity oldid 2050 Page tools Printable version A Z glossary of terms Who s online Most recent additions Your account 91 105 69 17 Talk for this IP address Log in create account

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_8:_Reliability_%26_Validity (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 9.1 Context - UCD - CTAG
    combination of national and institutional factors Section 9 1 1 National Context Section 9 1 2 UCD Context Back To Section 9 Continue to Section 9 1 1 Retrieved from http www ucdoer ie index php title Section 9 1 Context oldid 2007 Page tools Printable version A Z glossary of terms Who s online Most recent additions Your account 91 105 69 17 Talk for this IP address Log

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_9.1_Context (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Section 9.1.1 National Context - UCD - CTAG
    of education as an economic diver at both a national and institutional level High Level Group on International Education 2010 there is a need to demonstrate excellence not only in research but also in teaching which is traditionally been more difficult to objectively quantify Langbein 2008 Consequently and in line with the call for institution level feedback systems in the Bologna Declaration one recommendation from the recent report of the National Strategy Group on Higher Education 2011 stated that Higher Education institutions should put in place systems to capture feedback from students and use this feedback to inform institutional and programme management p 50 Accordingly the introduction of summative SET to Irish and all European universities is an inevitable component of demonstrating commitment to teaching quality Activity 9 1 1 Which of the recommendations from the Hunt Report do you think will have the greatest impact on a how you teach over the next decade b the role of students in education over the next decade How does this fit in with Blackmoore s 2009 and Arthur s 2009 discussion of the changing nature of HE Sections 6 1 and 6 4 4 Submit your answers Resources Hunt Report http

    Original URL path: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php?title=Section_9.1.1_National_Context (2016-02-14)
    Open archived version from archive