New Approaches, Instruments and Emphases
Eddy, S. L., Converse, M., and Wenderoth, M. P., (2015). PORTAAL: A classroom observation tool assessing evidence-base teaching practice for active learning in large science, technology, engineering and mathematics classes. Cell Biology Education, 14 (Summer), 1-16.
Identifies best practices in active learning and designs an observational tool that can be used to document the extent to which instructors incorporate these practices in their classrooms.
Hoon, A., Oliver, E., Szpakowska, K., and Newton, P., (2015). Use of the Stop, Start, Continue method is associated with the production of constructive qualitative feedback by students in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40 (5), 755-767.
A simple feedback mechanism improved the quality of student provided feedback.
Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert. S. L., and Weiman, C. E. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. Cell Biology Education, 12, (Winter), 618-625.
Focuses on what students are doing and what the instructor is doing at 2 minute intervals during a class. Does not offer judgments but identifies behaviors. At 1.5 hours of training, observations are reliable. Can be used in individual faculty, departments and/or institutions.
Veeck, A., O’Reilly, K., MacMillan, A., and Yu, H., (2016). The use of collaborative midterm student evaluations to provide actionable results. Journal of Marketing Education, 38 (3), 157-169.
Working in teams, students comment on the course using an online collaborative document tool. Students took the process seriously, provided better feedback that faculty felt more motivated to act on.
Wieman, C., and Gilbert, S., (2014). The teaching practices inventory: A new tool for characterizing college and university teaching in mathematics and science. Cell Biology Education, 13 (Fall), 552-569.
An inventory that “provides a rich and detailed picture of what practices are used in a course.” (p. 562). It comes with a scoring rubric that gives a measure of the extent to which research-based teaching practices are being used. Can be used by individuals, within or across departments.
Constructively Responding to Course Evaluation Feedback
Brickman, P., Gormally, C., and Martella, A. M., (2016). Making the grade: Using instructional feedback and evaluation to inspire evidence-based teaching. Cell Biology Education, 15 (1), 1-14.
Forty-one percent of 343 biology faculty reported that they were not satisfied with current end-of-course evaluation feedback; another 46% said they were only satisfied “in some ways.” Survey results also explored what kind of feedback faculty want.
Gallagher, T. J. “Embracing Student Evaluations of Teaching: A Case Study.” Teaching Sociology, April 2000, 28, 140-146.
Recounts how a new teacher responded to a case of not-very-good student ratings.
Golding, C., and Adam, L., (2016). Evaluate to improve: Useful approaches to student evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41 (1), 1-14.
Conducted focus groups with teachers who used student evaluations to improve to approach, viewed the data as formative, and focused improvement efforts on those things that improved student learning.
Gormally, C., Evans, M., and Brickman, P., (2014). Feedback about teaching in higher ed: Neglected opportunities to promote change. Cell Biology Education, 13 (Summer), 187-199.
Summarizes a set of best practices for providing instructional feedback; a very practical and helpful analysis.
Hodges, L. C., and Stanton, K. (2007). Translating comments on student evaluations into the language of learning. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 279-286.
Shows how students complaints about quantitative courses, writing-intensive courses and student-active formats can offer important insights into how students understand learning. Explores options for responding to the complaints.
Feedback on Specific Aspects of Instruction
Biggs, J., Kember, D., and Leung, D. Y. P., (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
Widely used instrument that determines whether students are using deep or surface approaches to learning.
Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M. L., Toy, D., and Wright, L. K., (2010). Are student groups dysfunctional? Perspectives from both sides. Journal of Marketing Education, 12 (1), 39-49.
Compares students and faculty assessments of student group dynamics, student group cohesion, conflict and trust, and the effectiveness of student group processes.
Finn, A. N. and Schrodt, P., (2016). Teacher discussion facilitation: A new measure and its associations with students’ perceived understanding, interest and engagement. Communication Education, 65 (4), 445-462.
An instrument that identifies discussion facilitation skills.
Goodboy, A. K., and Myers, S. A. (2015). Revisiting instructor misbehaviors: A revised typology and development of a measure. Communication Education, 64 (2), 133-153.
Revised and updated an instrument that identifies instructor classroom behaviors that interfere with instruction and learning.
Trigwell, K., and Prosser, M., (2004). Development and uses of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16 (4), 409-423.
Research establishes a relationship between the approaches to learning students use and the instructional methods teacher use. This inventory identifies whether the instructional methods being used are teacher-focused or student focuses. Giving students the Biggs, et. al. Study Process Questionnaire while teachers complete the Approaches to Teaching Inventory persuasively shows that teachers can influence how students learn.
