Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(teaching) for all classes (11 items), (c) student assessment of instruction (teaching) for online classes only (6 items), (d) student assessment of course content (3 items), and (e) assessment of web-based technology (3 items, online classes only). Students used a 5- point Likert-type rating scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree with a “not applicable” option). Results Reliability Analysis The student course assessment instrument attempted to measures four different areas: Self-Assessment of Learning (SAL), Assessment of Teaching (AT), Assessment of Course Content (ACC), and Assessment of Web-Based Technology (AWT). A reliability analysis showed the extent to which the items that made up each of these areas were internally consistent (i.e., the items, in general, measured the students’ ratings in these areas in a consistent fashion). The reliability index used was Cronbach’s Alpha (α). Alpha levels of .70 or higher indicate reasonable reliability. Onsite Questions • SAL: The 7 questions in this area were highly reliable (α = .93). Moreover, there were no individual items that stood out as problematic (e.g., highly skewed ratings, low correlation with other items). • AT: The 11 questions in this area were also highly reliable (α = .96) and there were no individual items that stood out as problematic. • ACC: The 3 questions in this area were reasonably reliable (α = .84). There were no individual items that stood out as problematic, although in general these items were not as consistent as the SAL and AT items. Online Questions • SAL: Same as Onsite • AT: The first 11 questions were the same as the onsite questions. Additional 6 questions were especially tailored for the onsite classes. These additional questions were highly reliable (α = .91), and no individual items stood out as problematic. • ACC: Same as Onsite • AWT: The 3 questions in this area were very reliable (α = .90). There were no individual items that stood out as problematic. Comparative Analysis This analysis showed how different groups (e.g., schools, faculty ranks, class types) compare with respect to critical variables (e.g., GPA, student assessment of learning, assessment of teaching). In general, the analysis revealed a few important facts (see Tables 1-4 in the Appendix). The common conception that online classes receive lower evaluations than onsite classes was confirmed (see Table 1). Also, the GPA for online classes tends to be lower than for onsite classes (see Table 1). As to be expected, the GPA for graduate classes was higher than for undergraduate classes (see Table 2), but the 177
assessment ratings for graduates versus undergraduates were very similar (also see Table 2). Comparisons among the college/schools revealed very little (see Table 3), except that the College of Letters and Science (COLS) did the best job of balancing low GPAs with high assessment ratings. Finally, full-time and associate faculty (compared to adjuncts) did better at keeping the GPA low and the assessment ratings high (see Table 4). Validity Analysis One way to assess validity is through factor analysis. Factor analysis is a statistical technique that shows whether items tend to fall into meaningful clusters. Ideally, if the assessment instrument were valid, we would expect the items listed for Student Assessment of Learning (SAL) to form one unique factor, items under Assessment of Teaching (AT) to form another unique factor, and items under Assessment of Course Content (ACC) to form a third unique factor. (Assessment of Web-Based Technology could not be included because only the online students received these items.) The set of assessment questions did not yield a three-factor solution. Instead, two distinct factors were uncovered. In general, the items listed under AT formed one factor, and the items under SAL and ACC formed the second factor. Although this factor analysis was not completely consistent with the expected factor structure, the results give some credence to the validity of the assessment because the factors suggest that the instrument measures teaching ability and some combination of learning and course content. Another way to examine validity is to see if the assessment instrument is related to other variables as expected. In the comparative analysis the ratings were related to the type of class and faculty rank in ways that we would expect a valid instrument to behave (e.g., online classes get lower rating, full-time and associate faculty get higher ratings). Another variable of interest is grades. Although most instructors believe that assessment ratings are related to grades, the empirical data have not always supported this presumed relationship. However, most studies have only looked at linear relationships and have not considered the possibility that the relationship might be curvilinear. Indeed, when we look at the function that relates GPA to the question that asks for an overall assessment of the teacher (“Overall, the instructor was an effective teacher”), we see a non-linear trend (see Figure 1). The traditional Pearson correlation coefficient was not significant (r = .007, p = .242) and the linear trend was not significant [F (1, 30396) = 1.37, p = .242]. The curvilinear (quadratic) trend, however, was statistically significant [F (1, 30395) = 44.25, p < .000]. This finding and the positive nature of the relationship shows that student satisfaction was positively related to grades in that students who earn higher grades tend to give their instructors higher evaluations. As noted below, this finding can be interpreted in at least two ways. One way to view these results is to argue that student ratings are associated with student performance and thus supports the validity of the assessment instrument. 178
Page 2 and 3:
Journal of Research in Innovative T
Page 4 and 5:
Table of Contents Editor’s Column
Page 6 and 7:
Editor’s Column National Universi
Page 8 and 9:
training-based method for integrati
Page 10 and 11:
The Editorial Board invites the rea
Page 12 and 13:
The Influence of Social Worlds on E
Page 14 and 15:
experience in a strong group settin
Page 16 and 17:
Table 1 Example Scenario of a Burea
Page 18 and 19:
hierarchy ensures a social position
Page 20 and 21:
(see Figure 5). Each member is affo
Page 22 and 23:
through four types of instructional
Page 24 and 25:
Hierarchic (high grid, strong Group
Page 26 and 27:
Figure 10. Didactic Task Structure
Page 28 and 29:
Stansberry, S., & Harris, E. (2005)
Page 30 and 31:
Utilizing current research-based co
Page 32 and 33:
teachers. The instructor kept a mas
Page 34 and 35:
References Coburn, C. E. (2001). Co
Page 36 and 37:
Organizing for Instruction Carefull
Page 38 and 39:
Accelerated Learning 33
Page 40 and 41:
the learning process but rather to
Page 42 and 43:
Csikszentmihalyi (1982) has written
Page 44 and 45:
term (intersession) gets its name b
Page 46 and 47:
Some Important Issues Scott and Con
Page 48 and 49:
esponsibilities). A higher percenta
Page 50 and 51:
them in such a way that the likelih
Page 52 and 53:
makes a valuable contribution to ou
Page 54 and 55:
North American Association of Summe
Page 56 and 57:
E-learning 51
Page 58 and 59:
Academic Learning Today Academic in
Page 60 and 61:
In the original publication by the
Page 62 and 63:
• Individual (1) — Group (2) co
Page 64 and 65:
Challenges and Opportunities From t
Page 66 and 67:
About the Authors Cynthia (Cindy) L
Page 68 and 69:
AGILE TEACHING: A CASE STUDY OF USI
Page 70 and 71:
the scope-by-name feature of Ruby e
Page 72 and 73:
need to deal with. Students learned
Page 74 and 75:
experiment with different options f
Page 76 and 77:
the students evaluate the optimum s
Page 78 and 79:
Using Bibliotherapy as a Tool for C
Page 80 and 81:
different clients and their present
Page 82 and 83:
supervisees with a brief synopsis o
Page 84 and 85:
Stick Figure, by Lori Gottlieb As t
Page 86 and 87:
psychological awareness to encourag
Page 88 and 89:
on the Internet. To keep the classr
Page 90 and 91:
The third portion of the discussion
Page 92 and 93:
Henry, S. (2005). A different appro
Page 94 and 95:
elementary-age students. Linked wit
Page 96 and 97:
considered in multicultural literat
Page 98 and 99:
In Finding One, the conclusion was
Page 100 and 101:
Stephanie: “I learned that some p
Page 102 and 103:
importance in society and in school
Page 104 and 105:
published in the United States. Ret
Page 106 and 107:
Reading Practices in Elementary Sch
Page 108 and 109:
groups of students reading by apply
Page 110 and 111:
Table 2 Participant-Reported Teachi
Page 112 and 113:
Table 5A Teachers’ Reading Task P
Page 114 and 115:
Because electronic texts are increa
Page 116 and 117:
Conclusion As teachers work to impr
Page 118 and 119:
Bilingual Education and Second Lang
Page 120 and 121:
successful in hiring enough qualifi
Page 122 and 123:
Five Innovative Strategies That Wor
Page 124 and 125:
The third strategy is “Determinin
Page 126 and 127:
the categories, synthesized and def
Page 128 and 129:
Fereshteh, M. H. (1995). Multicultu
Page 130 and 131:
Can Balanced Bilingualism Be Achiev
Page 132 and 133: As may be seen from this discussion
Page 134 and 135: Alternatives to Current Methodologi
Page 136 and 137: education when students are isolate
Page 138 and 139: Conclusion SL learning must be a tw
Page 140 and 141: Language as Tool for a Global Educa
Page 142 and 143: encouraging passive learning. Such
Page 144 and 145: Similarly, their actions or what go
Page 146 and 147: should therefore not be glued to th
Page 148 and 149: Supplementary Reading Since there i
Page 150 and 151: Bruce, M. G., Podemski, R. S., & An
Page 152 and 153: • Sentence combination (using con
Page 154 and 155: The Motivational and Attitudinal Ch
Page 156 and 157: Other researchers have challenged t
Page 158 and 159: education classes were taught in Ru
Page 160 and 161: Participants also described how the
Page 162 and 163: Implications and Suggestions for Fu
Page 164 and 165: National University Carlsbad, CA Em
Page 166 and 167: Assessment and Evaluation 161
Page 168 and 169: affordance of opportunities for sel
Page 170 and 171: An examination of the peer-comment
Page 172 and 173: language used in the description an
Page 174 and 175: promotes self-discovery (Saulnier e
Page 176 and 177: Appendix A Sample Language from an
Page 178 and 179: Student Evaluations of Courses and
Page 180 and 181: that there is a consistent positive
Page 184 and 185: Figure 1. The Nonlinear Relationshi
Page 186 and 187: About the Authors Nataliya Serdyuko
Page 188 and 189: Best Practices 183
Page 190 and 191: The Textbook Elementary Statistics
Page 192 and 193: If the mean number of visits was as
Page 194 and 195: discussion in such courses is slow;
Page 196 and 197: Table 1. A grade list for a class o
Page 198 and 199: Sloboda, B. W. (2005). Improving th
Page 200 and 201: The Journal of Research in Innovati
Page 202: About the Author In the end of your
show all

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?