國立虎尾科技大學 |

A Comparative Case Study of Approaches and Institutional Factors that Affect Assessment of Teaching at a University.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	A Comparative Case Study of Approaches and Institutional Factors that Affect Assessment of Teaching at a University./
作者:	Onufer, Lindsay.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (103 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-11, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International83-11A.
標題:	Teaching. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798426865303

A Comparative Case Study of Approaches and Institutional Factors that Affect Assessment of Teaching at a University.
Onufer, Lindsay.

A Comparative Case Study of Approaches and Institutional Factors that Affect Assessment of Teaching at a University. - 1 online resource (103 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-11, Section: A.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Pittsburgh, 2021.

Includes bibliographical references

For the past several decades, researchers have identified problems with the validity and reliability of student opinion of teaching survey (teaching survey) results, leading many researchers and faculty members to conclude that conducting comprehensive, meaningful assessment of teaching requires using multiple measures to collect and triangulate data from students, faculty peers, administrators, and others (AAUP, 1975; Arreola, 2007; Benton & Cashin, 2014; Berk, 2006; Vasey & Carroll, 2016). Despite the criticism of overreliance on teaching surveys, most institutions (Vasey & Carroll, 2016), including the University of Pittsburgh, continue using them as the primary means of assessing teaching effectiveness, and much is to be learned about how a university or academic unit can move to more comprehensive methods. In 2021, the University of Pittsburgh began an institution-wide process to create and implement plans to broaden and improve assessment of teaching. Using document analysis of assessment of teaching plan documents, I examined the approaches to and comprehensiveness of academic units' assessment of teaching plans. I conducted faculty focus groups to identify institutional factors that faculty perceived as having facilitated or impeded assessment of teaching planning. Results indicate that units that took team-based middle-out approaches, which required more faculty involvement than top-down, leader-led approaches, created more comprehensive plans. Focus group data analysis results also suggest that access to resources and aspects of unit culture affect this type of institutional change. Institutional drivers and barriers were also context-specific at the unit-level. This study concludes with recommendations for how various stakeholders at the University of Pittsburgh and change agents in other higher education institutions can facilitate assessment of teaching planning and improvement moving forward.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2024

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798426865303Subjects--Topical Terms:

555255
Teaching.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

A Comparative Case Study of Approaches and Institutional Factors that Affect Assessment of Teaching at a University.
LDR:03313ntm a22003977 4500 001 1141680
005 20240414211443.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 250605s2021 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798426865303
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI29057043
035 $a (MiAaPQ)Pittsburgh41980
035 $a AAI29057043
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Onufer, Lindsay. $3 1465602
245 1 2 $a A Comparative Case Study of Approaches and Institutional Factors that Affect Assessment of Teaching at a University.
264 0 $c 2021
300 $a 1 online resource (103 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-11, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Akiva, Thomas.
502 $a Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Pittsburgh, 2021.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a For the past several decades, researchers have identified problems with the validity and reliability of student opinion of teaching survey (teaching survey) results, leading many researchers and faculty members to conclude that conducting comprehensive, meaningful assessment of teaching requires using multiple measures to collect and triangulate data from students, faculty peers, administrators, and others (AAUP, 1975; Arreola, 2007; Benton & Cashin, 2014; Berk, 2006; Vasey & Carroll, 2016). Despite the criticism of overreliance on teaching surveys, most institutions (Vasey & Carroll, 2016), including the University of Pittsburgh, continue using them as the primary means of assessing teaching effectiveness, and much is to be learned about how a university or academic unit can move to more comprehensive methods. In 2021, the University of Pittsburgh began an institution-wide process to create and implement plans to broaden and improve assessment of teaching. Using document analysis of assessment of teaching plan documents, I examined the approaches to and comprehensiveness of academic units' assessment of teaching plans. I conducted faculty focus groups to identify institutional factors that faculty perceived as having facilitated or impeded assessment of teaching planning. Results indicate that units that took team-based middle-out approaches, which required more faculty involvement than top-down, leader-led approaches, created more comprehensive plans. Focus group data analysis results also suggest that access to resources and aspects of unit culture affect this type of institutional change. Institutional drivers and barriers were also context-specific at the unit-level. This study concludes with recommendations for how various stakeholders at the University of Pittsburgh and change agents in other higher education institutions can facilitate assessment of teaching planning and improvement moving forward.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2024
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Teaching. $3 555255
650 4 $a Pedagogy. $3 1148703
650 4 $a Higher education. $3 1148448
650 4 $a Collaboration. $3 1372459
650 4 $a College presidents. $3 1465603
650 4 $a Tenure. $3 1465604
650 4 $a Community. $3 576373
650 4 $a Feedback. $3 1047630
650 4 $a COVID-19. $3 1335291
650 4 $a Innovations. $3 578404
650 4 $a Perceptions. $3 1372697
650 4 $a College campuses. $3 1372649
650 4 $a Pandemics. $3 1311394
650 4 $a Decision making. $3 528319
650 4 $a Medical research. $2 bicssc $3 809476
650 4 $a Design. $3 595500
650 4 $a Sociology. $3 551705
650 4 $a Education. $3 555912
650 4 $a Educational administration. $3 1148465
650 4 $a Higher education administration. $3 1148709
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0389
690 $a 0745
690 $a 0626
690 $a 0456
690 $a 0515
690 $a 0514
690 $a 0446
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a University of Pittsburgh. $3 1178873
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 83-11A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29057043 $z click for full text (PQDT)