As I am in an environment where I use something like a 'SET' at times and something like Concept Inventories at times (for fun I will call them CIs), I find myself wondering just what is a 'good' evaluation of 'teaching.' For instance, given Gary Fenstermacher's thoughtful analysis of teaching and studenting, it seems unlikely that a CI measures other than learning. Nonetheless, one might argue that a CI gives a perspective from the side of learning on teaching and one might argue that a SET gives a perspective on teaching from the side of studenting (which includes learning, by the way). The interesting question (and the vice versa) is, of course, what can/do SETs capture than CIs miss as, judging from my experience (and, yes, I'm opinionated - smile), the affective has a substantial impact on the cognitive (see, for instance, Fiumara).
Oddly, I'm reasonably okay with a statement such as "I know good teaching when I see it" versus a statement such as "I know good teaching when I see a CI score).
On Nov 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Richard Hake wrote:
> Some subscribers to Math-Learn might be interested in a recent post
> "The Value of Student Evaluations of Teaching" [Hake (2012)]. The
> abstract reads:
> ABSTRACT: Bill Brescia of the DrEd list wrote: "We are looking for
> best practices to solicit student feedback on the teaching quality of
> individual faculty members where in some cases a fairly large number
> of faculty are involved in a single course. What mechanism do you use
> to survey the students?"
> The value of student evaluations is a hotly contested topic, witness
> the 496,000 hits at <http://bit.ly/TqEilE> generated by a Google
> search for "Student Evaluations" (with the quotes) on 26 Nov 2012
> Judging from my own experience, and after careful consideration of
> the above hits, my opinion is that:
> a. Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET's) are useful for gauging
> the *affective* impact of teaching, but are worse than useless for
> gauging the *cognitive* impact - see e.g. "Student Evaluations of
> Teaching Are Not Valid Gauges of Teaching Performance - Yet Again!"
> [Hake (2012)] at <http://bit.ly/KGK687>
> b. The cognitive impact of teaching is best measured by average
> normalized pre-to-post-test gains on "Concept Inventories"
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_inventory> - see e.g., "The
> Impact of Concept Inventories On Physics Education and It's Relevance
> For Engineering Education" [Hake (2011)] at <http://bit.ly/nmPY8F>.
> To access the complete 6 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/XX7OUX>.
> Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
> Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
> Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
> Academia: <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>
> Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
> GooglePlus: <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>
> Twitter: <http://bit.ly/juvd52>
> REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 26 Nov 2012.]
> Hake, R.R. 2012. "The Value of Student Evaluations of Teaching"
> online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/XX7OUX>. Post
> of 26 Nov 2012 13:35:35-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and
> link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion
> lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at
> <http://bit.ly/TqLDls> with a provision for comments.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yahoo! Groups Links
|Reply via web post||Reply to sender||Reply to group||Start a New Topic||Messages in this topic (2)|