APA Sample Paper (APA 7th Edition)
Insert(Running head and page number)
Branching Paths: A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for Faculty Development
(skip 2 spaces below)
Abstract
This is where you would normally provide a brief summary of your paper, but you mentioned that this is a student paper and abstracts are not typically required for student papers in APA style. You can check with your instructor if they have specific requirements for including an abstract.
Keywords: Teacher, and other like 6 keywords.
A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for Faculty Development
Introduction
Faculty evaluation and development are integral components of enhancing the quality of education in higher institutions. Theall (2017) highlights the interconnectedness of faculty evaluation and development, emphasizing that evaluation without development is punitive, and development without evaluation is guesswork (p. 91). Over the years, various methods have been employed to assess teaching faculty's proficiency for development purposes, including peer observations, teaching portfolios, and student evaluations (Lewis, 1996). Student evaluations of teaching (SET) have been widely used since at least the 1990s (Wilson, 1998) and have become a prevalent measure of university teacher performance worldwide (Pounder, 2007). These evaluations have not only played a crucial role in faculty development but have also influenced personnel decisions such as hiring, tenure, and promotion in higher education institutions (Seldin, 1993, as cited in Pounder, 2007). However, despite their widespread use, current approaches to SET administration have limitations, and there is room for improvement. This paper argues for the development of a new teacher assessment instrument, the Heavilon Evaluation of Teacher (HET), designed to address these limitations and provide a more effective tool for faculty development. It also proposes a pilot study to compare the HET with the existing Introductory Composition at Purdue (ICaP) SET to refine the new instrument.
Literature Review
Effective Teaching: A Contextual Construct
The concept of effective teaching has been a subject of debate for a long time, with various factors contributing to teaching effectiveness. A meta-analysis by Kyriakides et al. (2013) suggests that effective teaching is a multivariate construct influenced by factors such as orientation, structuring, modeling, questioning, assessment, time management, and classroom environment. However, the effectiveness of these factors can vary based on contextual elements such as student age and subject matter (Kyriakides et al., 2013). Another meta-analysis by Hattie (2009) emphasizes the context-dependent nature of teaching effectiveness, as the impact of teaching factors like homework varies depending on factors such as education level and subject matter. Similarly, Seidel and Shavelson (2007) found that the effectiveness of teaching factors varied due to contextual factors like the domain of study and level of education.
These studies suggest that teaching effectiveness is influenced by multiple factors, and the importance of individual factors can depend on the context in which they are applied. Moreover, student characteristics, such as socio-economic status and family background, contribute significantly to student learning outcomes (McKenzie et al., 2005). While academic achievement is often used as a measure of teaching effectiveness, qualitative outcomes like increased affinity for learning and greater self-efficacy are also crucial (Centra & Gaubatz, 2000). The context in which teaching occurs plays a substantial role in determining the effectiveness of teaching strategies (Bloom et al., 1956; Cashin, 1990).
SETs: Imperfect Measures of Teaching
Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) have been widely used to assess teaching performance. These evaluations typically consist of multiple-choice questions and short-answer responses, providing students with an opportunity to offer feedback on their teaching experience. SETs serve important institutional purposes, offering students a voice in evaluating their educational experience. Despite their institutional importance, SETs are prone to external factors that can confound the evaluation process. Neath (1996) and other scholars have highlighted that SETs often measure students' affective feelings toward a class rather than their teachers' abilities. Factors such as grading leniency, the timing of evaluations, and the nature of the course can influence SET results (Neath, 1996). Studies have also shown that SETs can be biased based on gender, physical appearance, and other identity markers (Anderson & Miller, 1997; Basow, 1995; Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993). While SETs offer valuable insights into students' experiences, relying solely on them for faculty development and personnel decisions can be problematic. Research indicates that SETs may not consistently correlate with long-term learning outcomes (Armstrong, 1998; Carrell & West, 2010), and they can be influenced by various biases (Macnell et al., 2015).
Empirical Scales and Locally-Relevant Evaluation
To develop teaching assessments that are more responsive to local contexts and needs, one promising approach is empirical scale development. This process involves structuring and calibrating assessment instruments based on local input and data, allowing for customization and contextual relevance (MacLean & Mohan, 2009). In contrast to deductive approaches, which aim to represent predetermined theoretical constructs for generalizability, empirical scale development focuses on tailoring assessments to specific educational settings (Ebel & Frisbie, 1986). In writing assessment literature, this approach has been used to create context-specific rubrics and criteria for evaluating student writing (Liu & Stec, 2017).
Methods
This is where you would typically describe the methods you used in your study, including participant recruitment, data collection, and data analysis procedures. Since you haven't provided this section in your initial request, please add your methods information following APA guidelines.
Results
This section would include the results of your study. Please provide your results in accordance with APA guidelines.
Discussion
In the discussion section, you would interpret your results, discuss their implications, and make recommendations. Please add your discussion content following APA guidelines.
Conclusion
This is where you would summarize your key findings and the main points of your paper. Please add your conclusion following APA guidelines.
References
List your references here in alphabetical order, following APA citation style guidelines.
References
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431-441.
Anderson, K. J., & Miller, R. S. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. Sex Roles, 37(11-12), 1011-1020.
Armstrong, J. S. (1998). Are student ratings of instruction useful? American Psychologist, 53(11), 1223-1233.
Attiyeh, G., & Lumsden, K. G. (1972). Some discrepancies between teacher and student evaluations of college teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 43(8
Comments
Post a Comment