Thirteen Strategies to Measure College Teaching

by Berk, Ronald A.; Theall, Mike

• ISBN13: 9781579221928
• ISBN10: 1579221920
• eBook ISBN(s): 9781000980240
• Format: Hardcover
• Copyright: 2006-05-30
• Publisher: Stylus Pub Llc
• More Book Details

Summary

* Student evaluations of college teachers: perhaps the most contentious issue on campus * This book offers a more balanced approach * Evaluation affects pay, promotion and tenure, so of intense interest to all faculty * Major academic marketing and publicity * Combines original research with Berk's signature wacky humor To many college professors the words "student evaluations" trigger mental images of the shower scene from Psycho, with those bloodcurdling screams. They're thinking: "Why not just whack me now, rather than wait to see those ratings again." This book takes off from the premise that student ratings are a necessary, but not sufficient source of evidence for measuring teaching effectiveness. It is a fun-filled--but solidly evidence-based--romp through more than a dozen other methods that include measurement by self, peers, outside experts, alumni, administrators, employers, and even aliens. As the major stakeholders in this process, both faculty AND administrators, plus clinicians who teach in schools of medicine, nursing, and the allied health fields, need to be involved in writing, adapting, evaluating, or buying items to create the various scales to measure teaching performance. This is the first basic introduction in the faculty evaluation literature to take you step-by-step through the process to develop these tools, interpret their scores, and make decisions about teaching improvement, annual contract renewal/dismissal, merit pay, promotion, and tenure. It explains how to create appropriate, high quality items and detect those that can introduce bias and unfairness into the results. Ron Berk also stresses the need for 'triangulation'--the use of multiple, complementary methods--to provide the properly balanced, comprehensive and fair assessment of teaching that is the benchmark of employment decision making. This is a must-read to empower faculty, administrators, and clinicians to use appropriate evidence to make decisions accurately, reliably, and fairly. Don't trample each other in your stampede to snag a copy of this book!

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments	xv
A Foreword (in Berkian Style) by Mike Theall	xix
Introduction	1	(8)
1 TOP 13 SOURCES OF EVIDENCE OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS	9	(38)
A Few Ground Rules	10	(1)
Teaching Effectiveness: Defining the Construct	11	(3)
National Standards	12	(1)
Beyond Student Ratings	13	(1)
A Unified Conceptualization	13	(1)
Thirteen Sources of Evidence	14	(30)
Student Ratings	15	(4)
Peer Ratings	19	(3)
External Expert Ratings	22	(1)
Self-Ratings	23	(1)
Videos	24	(1)
Student Interviews	25	(2)
Exit and Alumni Ratings	27	(1)
Employer Ratings	28	(1)
Administrator Ratings	29	(1)
Teaching Scholarship	30	(1)
Teaching Awards	31	(1)
Learning Outcome Measures	32	(2)
Teaching Portfolio	34	(3)
BONUS: 360° Multisource Assessment	37	(7)
Berk's Top Picks	44	(1)
Formative Decisions	45	(1)
Summative Decisions	45	(1)
Program Decisions	45	(1)
Decision Time	45	(2)
2 CREATING THE RATING SCALE STRUCTURE	47	(18)
Overview of the Scale Construction Process	48	(1)
Specifying the Purpose of the Scale	48	(2)
Delimiting What Is to Be Measured	50	(4)
Focus Groups	50	(1)
Interviews	50	(1)
Research Evidence	51	(3)
Determining How to Measure the "What"	54	(4)
Existing Scales	55	(1)
Item Banks	55	(1)
Commercially Published Student Rating Scales	56	(2)
Universe of Items	58	(2)
Structure of Rating Scale Items	60	(5)
Structured Items	60	(2)
Unstructured Items	62	(3)
3 GENERATING THE STATEMENTS	65	(20)
Preliminary Decisions	66	(1)
Domain Specifications	66	(1)
Number of Statements	66	(1)
Rules for Writing Statements	66	(19)
1. The statement should be clear and direct.	69	(1)
2. The statement should be brief and concise.	69	(2)
3. The statement should contain only one complete behavior, thought, or concept.	71	(1)
4. The statement should be a simple sentence.	72	(1)
5. The statement should be at the appropriate reading level.	72	(1)
6. The statement should be grammatically correct.	73	(1)
7. The statement should be worded strongly.	73	(1)
8. The statement should be congruent with the behavior it is intended to measure.	74	(1)
9. The statement should accurately measure a positive or negative behavior.	74	(1)
10. The statement should be applicable to all respondents.	75	(1)
11. The respondents should be in the best position to respond to the statement.	76	(2)
12. The statement should be interpretable in only one way.	78	(1)
13. The statement should NOT contain a double negative.	78	(1)
14. The statement should NOT contain universal or absolute terms.	79	(1)
15. The statement should NOT contain nonabsolute, warm-and fuzzy terms.	79	(1)
16. The statement should NOT contain value-laden or inflammatory words.	80	(1)
17. The statement should NOT contain words, phrases, or abbreviations that would be unfamiliar to all respondents.	81	(1)
18. The statement should NOT tap a behavior appearing in any other statement.	81	(1)
19. The statement should NOT be factual or capable of being interpreted as factual.	82	(1)
20. The statement should NOT be endorsed or given one answer by almost all respondents or by almost none.	83	(2)
4 SELECTING THE ANCHORS	85	(20)
Types of Anchors	86	(8)
Intensity Anchors	86	(1)
Evaluation Anchors	87	(2)
Frequency Anchors	89	(1)
Quantity Anchors	90	(1)
Comparison Anchors	91	(3)
Rules for Selecting Anchors	94	(11)
1. The anchors should be consistent with the purpose of the rating scale.	94	(2)
2. The anchors should match the statements, phrases, or word topics.	96	(2)
3. The anchors should be logically appropriate with each statement.	98	(1)
4. The anchors should be grammatically consistent with each question.	99	(1)
5. The anchors should provide the most accurate and concrete responses possible.	100	(1)
6. The anchors should elicit a range of responses.	101	(1)
7. The anchors on bipolar scales should be balanced, not biased.	101	(1)
8. The anchors on unipolar scales should be graduated appropriately.	102	(3)
5 REFINING THE ITEM STRUCTURE	105	(16)
Preparing for Structural Changes	106	(2)
Issues in Scale Construction	108	(13)
1. What rating scale format is best?	108	(1)
2. How many anchor points should be on the scale?	109	(1)
3. Should there be a designated midpoint position, such as "Neutral," "Uncertain," or "Undecided," on the scale?	110	(1)
4. How many anchors should be specified on the scale?	111	(1)
5. Should numbers be placed on the anchor scale?	112	(1)
6. Should a "Not Applicable" (NA) or "Not Observed" (NO) option be provided?	113	(2)
7. How can response set biases be minimized?	115	(6)
6 ASSEMBLING THE SCALE FOR ADMINISTRATION	121	(20)
Assembling the Scale	122	(8)
Identification Information	122	(1)
Purpose	123	(1)
Directions	124	(1)
Structured Items	125	(4)
Unstructured Items	129	(1)
Scale Administration	130	(11)
Paper-Based Administration	131	(2)
Online Administration	133	(4)
Comparability of Paper-Based and Online Ratings	137	(2)
Conclusions	139	(2)
7 FIELD TESTING AND ITEM ANALYSES	141	(20)
Preparing the Draft Scale for a Test Spin	142	(1)
Field Test Procedures	143	(5)
Mini-Field Test	143	(4)
Monster-Field Test	147	(1)
Item Analyses	148	(13)
Stage 1: Item Descriptive Statistics	148	(4)
Stage 2: Interitem and Item-Scale Correlations	152	(3)
Stage 3: Factor Analysis	155	(6)
8 COLLECTING EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY	161	(24)
Validity Evidence	162	(12)
Evidence Based on Job Content Domain	164	(4)
Evidence Based on Response Processes	168	(1)
Evidence Based on Internal Scale Structure	169	(2)
Evidence Related to Other Measures of Teaching Effectiveness	171	(1)
Evidence Based on the Consequences of Ratings	172	(2)
Reliability Evidence	174	(8)
Classical Reliability Theory	174	(1)
Summated Rating Scale Theory	175	(1)
Methods for Estimating Reliability	176	(6)
Epilogue	182	(3)
9 REPORTING AND INTERPRETING SCALE RESULTS	185	(30)
Generic Levels of Score Reporting	186	(8)
Item Anchor	186	(1)
Item	187	(3)
Subscale	190	(1)
Total Scale	191	(1)
Department/Program Norms	192	(1)
Subject Matter/Program-Level State, Regional, and National Norms	193	(1)
Criterion-Referenced versus Norm-Referenced Score Interpretations	194	(3)
Score Range	194	(1)
Criterion-Referenced Interpretations	195	(1)
Norm-Referenced Interpretations	196	(1)
Formative, Summative, and Program Decisions	197	(16)
Formative Decisions	198	(6)
Summative Decisions	204	(8)
Program Decisions	212	(1)
Conclusions	213	(2)
References	215	(26)
Appendices	241	(40)
A. Sample "Home-Grown" Rating Scales	241	(16)
B. Sample 360° Assessment Rating Scales	257	(16)
C. Sample Reporting Formats	273	(4)
D. Commercially Published Student Rating Scale Systems	277	(4)
Index	281