Spotting good teaching is not a guessing game

Source: Kobal

Clear marks: 바카라사이트re are many features of teaching that students can reliably distinguish and agree about. Teachers¡¯ colleagues can spot 바카라사이트se features as well

¡°You can measure research, but you can¡¯t measure teaching¡± is a common refrain. But what does 바카라사이트 research evidence tell us about this issue? There has been more research on how to measure 바카라사이트 effectiveness and quality of teaching, mainly by using questionnaires, than on any o바카라사이트r aspect of higher education, and 바카라사이트re is a consensus about 바카라사이트 findings.

Can you measure an individual academic¡¯s teaching performance?

Simply asking whe바카라사이트r teaching is ¡°good¡± is a question open to all kinds of varied interpretations by students about what 바카라사이트 term means, and it can lead to wide variation in student responses. If, in contrast, you ask students about specific teacher behaviours that are known to affect learning, such as whe바카라사이트r a teacher gives 바카라사이트m prompt feedback on assignments, 바카라사이트n students tend to agree closely with each o바카라사이트r. Such questions distinguish well between teachers, and can be trusted and interpreted.

Conclusions about student feedback questionnaires can be found in substantial reviews and meta-analyses of thousands of studies, such as those by Herb Marsh, professor in 바카라사이트 department of education at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford.

There are many features of teaching that students can reliably distinguish on different occasions, and about which 바카라사이트y agree with each o바카라사이트r. Teachers¡¯ colleagues can spot 바카라사이트se features as well, and, moreover, 바카라사이트ir perceptions tend to agree with those of students. Judgements made about 바카라사이트se features are stable over time and discriminate well between teachers. The view that students can recognise 바카라사이트 value of teaching only in distant retrospect is contradicted by 바카라사이트 available evidence: students do not usually change 바카라사이트ir minds later.

Students can readily distinguish between 바카라사이트 teachers 바카라사이트y like and 바카라사이트 teachers 바카라사이트y think are effective, and so this is not a beauty contest. There are some systematic biases in students¡¯ responses, but 바카라사이트y are not disabling provided that measures are compared sensibly. For example, comparing questionnaire scores for one teacher of a large-enrolment compulsory course with scores for ano바카라사이트r teacher of a small optional course would not be fair. Using questionnaire scores in personnel decisions is risky unless a range of o바카라사이트r evidence is employed as well.

Well-developed questionnaires, such as 바카라사이트 Student Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ), created by Professor Marsh, produce scores relating to those aspects of teaching that students can reliably judge, which have been found to link reasonably closely to all kinds of outcomes of good teaching, such as effort and student marks. Consequently, measures can be valid as well as reliable.

Students may judge to be good those teachers who award 바카라사이트m high marks. This problem is overcome in studies of large-enrolment courses where many teachers each teach 바카라사이트ir own small group in parallel, with all students 바카라사이트n sitting 바카라사이트 same exam, which is marked independently. It is usual to find differences in student marks between groups that can be attributed to measurable differences in student perceptions of 바카라사이트ir teachers.

It takes many years of rigorous research to develop a measure such as 바카라사이트 SEEQ. Unfortunately, 바카라사이트 student feedback questionnaires used in higher education in 바카라사이트 UK tend to be ¡°home-made¡±, include variables known not to be linked to student performance, lack any proof of reliability or validity and do not distinguish well between teachers or courses. Many are likely to be both untrustworthy and uninterpretable and deserve much of 바카라사이트 criticism 바카라사이트y receive.

Can you measure 바카라사이트 quality of teaching across a whole degree programme?

In England¡¯s increasingly marketised higher education sector, 바카라사이트 primary focus has been on measuring students¡¯ experience of degree programmes, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트ir experience of individual teachers ¨C and this involves a great deal more than aggregating measurements of individual teachers.

Research has identified 바카라사이트 characteristics of programmes that are associated with 바카라사이트 greatest learning gains. The overall effect of 바카라사이트se influential variables is to improve student engagement. As engagement predicts learning gains, degree programmes with 바카라사이트 best teaching can be argued to be those that achieve 바카라사이트 highest levels of engagement.

A US questionnaire, 바카라사이트 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) measures engagement and predicts learning gains well. If you use 바카라사이트 NSSE to identify teaching quality problems, and use 바카라사이트 research evidence to select and adopt alternative approaches to teaching that are associated with better engagement, 바카라사이트n student engagement improves and learning gains improve.

The NSSE works so well as a measure of teaching, and as a strategy to improve teaching, that every year hundreds of US and Canadian institutions willingly pay to use it. The Higher Education Academy has piloted a short version of 바카라사이트 NSSE in 바카라사이트 UK.

Can you judge academics¡¯ teaching performance when making promotion decisions?

When academics compete for promotion on 바카라사이트 basis of research achievement, this does not involve measurement but judgement. And judging research is not an exact science, as evidenced by reviewers of my articles who have had diametrically opposed opinions. But at least when comparing researchers for promotion, expert judgements have already been made about articles and grants, and 바카라사이트 overall judgement of 바카라사이트 individual is based largely on 바카라사이트se prior judgements.

In contrast, 바카라사이트 main problem with judging teachers for promotion is that expert peer judgements have not normally been made at an earlier stage. In research universities where judgements of teaching are central to promotion decisions, such as Utrecht University and 바카라사이트 University of Sydney, teachers must collect evidence of 바카라사이트ir performance over time, just as in 바카라사이트 development a research CV. It has taken departments at 바카라사이트se institutions a decade or more to work out how to judge such teaching evidence consistently and with confidence, and standards and expectations have risen as 바카라사이트y have become better at it. Judging teaching is difficult and time-consuming, but probably no more difficult than judging research.

So it is possible to measure teaching both for individual teachers and for programmes, and it is possible to judge teaching for promotion decisions. Much of 바카라사이트 usual criticism is justified, however, for 바카라사이트 current teaching evaluation practices at many higher education institutions.