The Effect of Informational Characteristics and Faculty Knowledge and Beliefs on the Use of Assessment

Jonson, Jessica L.; Thompson, Robert J.; Guetterman, Timothy C.; Mitchell, Nancy

doi:10.1007/s10755-016-9366-7

Cited by 9 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…; Jonson et al. ). While focusing on the impact of pedagogical change is ultimately at the heart of most CTL work, several participants talked about the lack of resources to support the demand for assessment expertise, particularly with respect to grants.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Gender of Innovation: The Ascendancy of Assessment and Technologies in Educational Development

Niemi

Schwarz

2019

New Drctns for Teach & Learn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…One issue we see is that, in many cases, instructors continue to be hostile to assessment (Haras et al. ; Jonson ). If we position ourselves as centers of assessment, will people stay away?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Gender of Innovation: The Ascendancy of Assessment and Technologies in Educational Development

Niemi

Schwarz

2019

New Drctns for Teach & Learn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What are the benefits of assessment, and how can we increase faculty enthusiasm about assessment? Multiple authors (e.g., Dunn et al, 2011a; Hutchings, 2010; Jonson et al, 2017) note that active, engaged faculty involvement is vital for successful assessment efforts. Guetterman and Mitchell (2016), for example, state that “[e]fforts led only by administrators are likely doomed” (p. 45).…”

Section: Helping Faculty Appreciate Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty receptivity to assessment: Changing the climate for evaluating teaching and learning in psychology.

Dunn¹,

Troisi²,

Baker³

2020

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why hasn't the assessment of undergraduate learning outcomes in the psychology major flourished? Why is the progress of assessment activities in psychology programs relatively slow? In this article, we review faculty understanding and receptivity to academic assessment in the psychology classroom. To begin, we discuss the benefits of undergraduate psychology assessment and then turn to two issues related to understanding faculty perspectives: the tyranny of course content in the psychology major and the challenges posed by employer expectations tied to the workplace. We then explore the dynamic tension between covering skills versus content, the need (perceived or real) for allocating time to do appropriate assessment, and the motivational and identity issues for faculty that influence receptivity. The closing section of the article examines ways to make assessment activities rewarding as well as way to help psychology faculty appreciate and fully engage in assessment and assessment efforts.

show abstract

“…Much of our knowledge on sensemaking in relation to education policy comes from studies that have examined how educators within the school system make sense of a particular policy, network of reform policies, or initiatives by reconstructing and reshaping these policies during implementation (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978;Ganon-Shilon & Schechter, 2019;Schechter, Shaked, Ganon-Shilon & Goldratt, 2018;Schmidt & Datnow, 2005;Tyack & Cuban, 1995;Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977;White & Mavrogordato, 2018). The practitioners draw on their own worldviews and understandings to make sense of the messages they receive in their environment (Jonson, Thompson, Guetterman & Mitchell, 2017;Spillane, Hallett, & Diamond, 2003), which has often led to the transformation of initiatives in practice (Coburn, 2001;Soutter, 2019). This is because "policy messages are not inert, static ideas that are transmitted unaltered into local actors' minds" (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002, p. 392).…”

Section: Conceptual Framework: Sensemaking Theory Policy and Selmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the program context, the practitioners were primarily governed by a federal policy that was time-constrained (Upward Bound Program, 2020) and had not adopted language on the importance of SEL, yet the practitioners valued promoting SEL. Because these values and beliefs formed the frameworks of their realities (see Porac et al, 1989;Weick, 1995) and because educators rely on their prior knowledge and beliefs to make sense of the messages that leaders communicate to them (Jonson et al, 2017;Spillane et al, 2003), the practitioners found avenues to promote SEL. Practitioners enriched the schedule with permissible services that promoted SEL deliberately, instructors incorporated activities that furthered SEL, and residential mentors engaged in activities and conversations that promoted SEL.…”

Section: Aligning Policy Mandates and Permissible Services With Sel Vmentioning

confidence: 99%

Muddy sensemaking: Making sense of socio-emotional skills amidst a vague policy context

Muñiz

2020

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Education laws and policies have moved toward promoting socio-emotional (SEL) skills, adopting numerous terminologies in their standards. However, the incremental change has left compensatory education practitioners who are committed to promoting SEL opportunities with little guidance when the programs’ governing policies do not include language acknowledging the importance of SEL to student success. Additionally, the ongoing debate in the SEL field about which taxonomies might best capture the skills and the lack of conceptual clarity offers these practitioners little additional guidance. Drawing on sensemaking theory, this case study examined how practitioners in a compensatory education program made sense of SEL skills through their practice. The study used a case-based design with multiple methods, namely, document review, observations, and pre- and post-program semi-structured interviews. The study employed sensemaking theory and CASEL’s SEL framework in the thematic analysis of the documents, observations, and interviews to understand how practitioners made sense of the concept of SEL. The findings indicate three key aspects important in the practitioners’ sensemaking process: the local environment established by the federal policy and the leaders’ policy interpretation, which emphasized the importance of SEL skills; their articulation of their conceptualization of SEL skills at the beginning of the program; and the usefulness of an SEL skills conceptual framework. I discuss the policy and equity implications at the federal and local level.

show abstract

The Effect of Informational Characteristics and Faculty Knowledge and Beliefs on the Use of Assessment

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

The Gender of Innovation: The Ascendancy of Assessment and Technologies in Educational Development

The Gender of Innovation: The Ascendancy of Assessment and Technologies in Educational Development

Faculty receptivity to assessment: Changing the climate for evaluating teaching and learning in psychology.

Muddy sensemaking: Making sense of socio-emotional skills amidst a vague policy context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About