Profiles of Effective College and University Teachers

Young, Suzanne; Shaw, Dale G.

doi:10.2307/2649170

Cited by 93 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, on the basis of our results we cannot determine whether the relationship between expected grades and student ratings is an indication of lenient grading policy as noted by Greenwald and Gillmore (1997) or an indication of teaching effectiveness, i.e., of good instructors, as argued by Marsh (1987) and by Young and Shaw (1999). We believe that each of these two alternative interpretations holds true for some instances but not for others.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 53%

“…The positive relationship between expected grades and student ratings has been given different interpretations. Greenwald and Gillmore (1997), among others, concluded that the correlation between expected grades and student ratings is due to unwanted influence of instructors' grading leniency, while other researchers suggested that higher expected grades reflect more learning which in turn leads to higher student ratings (e.g., Marsh, 1987;Young and Shaw, 1999). Marsh and Rochi (2000) proposed a third plausible interpretation indicating that student, instructor and course variables affect student learning, expected grades, and actual teaching effectiveness so that the relationship between expected grades and student ratings may be spurious.…”

Section: Student Characteristics and Student Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multilevel Analysis of the Effects of Student and Instructor/Course Characteristics on Student Ratings

Nasser

Hagtvet

2006

Res High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multilevel SEM was used to examine the extent to which student, instructor, and course characteristics affect student ratings. Data were gathered from 1867 students enrolled in 117 courses at a large teacher training college in Israel. Four alternative two-level models that differ in only the nature of the relationship among interest in the course subject, expected grade, and student ratings were tested. Two of the models were judged as less appropriate, one because it failed to support the spurious relationship assumed between expected grade and student ratings, and the other on grounds of poor model-data fit. The other two models were equally good both in terms of the model-data fit and the amount of variance in student ratings that is accounted for by each of them. Both models supported the mediation effect of expected grade in the relationship between interest in the course subject and student ratings.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 53%

Section: Student Characteristics and Student Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Multilevel Analysis of the Effects of Student and Instructor/Course Characteristics on Student Ratings

Nasser

Hagtvet

2006

Res High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers examining cognitive aspects of effective instruction have found instructors' organisation and communication skills have a profound influence on their effectiveness in students' eyes (Acker 2003;Aulls 2004;Brown and Tomlin 1996;Fortson and Brown 1998;Guskey and Easton 1983;Miron and Segal 1978;Young and Shaw 1999). Professors, who appear to spend substantial time planning and organising their courses, detailing critical course objectives and providing clear expectations of subject content, tend to be classified by their students as exemplary teachers (Greimel-Fuhrmann and Geyer 2003;Guskey and Easton 1983;Onwuegbuzie et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Views of effective college faculty: a mixed analysis

Slate

LaPrairie

Schulte

et al. 2011

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…involving the main actors of the didactic scene focusing on a participative evaluation model (Kember e Wong 2000;Lecouter e Del Fabbro 2001;Giles et al 2004, Scriven 2003Cousins 2003); ii. undertaking a complex and multidimensional prospective over the teaching process (Semeraro 2006a, b, c, d;Casey et al 1997;Roche and Marsh 2000;Saroyan and Amundsen 2001;Rindermann and Schofield 2001;Young and Shaw 1999); iii. differentiating the various disciplinary contexts in order to determine which aspects depend on the context (specific to each faculty) and which ones are independent from the context (transversal to faculties) (Kekäle 2000;Carpenter and Tait 2001;Palmer and Marra 2004;Ylijoki 2004;Hakala and Ylijoki 2001;Becher and Trowler 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Moving towards multidimensional evaluation of teaching in higher education: A study across four faculties

Ghedin

Aquario

2008

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article investigates the issue of teaching evaluation in higher education, providing a picture of the phenomenon into the Italian specific context within a European dimension. Starting from the premise that in Italian universities, teaching evaluation is based on general indicators which reflect a simplification of a complex phenomenon, scientific research related to teaching evaluation in higher education is presented and discussed. In this perspective, it will be argued that nature of teaching evaluation is characterized by multidimensionality and complexity. Only in this way it can represent a useful instrument for the improvement of teaching process and for the comprehension of the importance of being effective teachers. Moreover, on the basis of a participative model, it seems important to involve teachers and students in the formulation of relevant questions related to teaching. The aim of the research is represented by highlighting the specific aspects of teaching process dependent from the context through a comparison among faculties. Seventy interviews have been carried out with teachers and students of the same four faculties (Humanities, Psychology, Educational Sciences, Mathematics and Natural Sciences). Qualitative analysis of the data collected are conducted using the scientific software Atlas.ti. The outcomes confirm our initial assumptions showing differences among the four faculties considering the multiple dimensions of the university teaching.

show abstract

Profiles of Effective College and University Teachers

Cited by 93 publications

References 0 publications

Multilevel Analysis of the Effects of Student and Instructor/Course Characteristics on Student Ratings

Multilevel Analysis of the Effects of Student and Instructor/Course Characteristics on Student Ratings

Views of effective college faculty: a mixed analysis

Moving towards multidimensional evaluation of teaching in higher education: A study across four faculties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About