東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

A Comparative Case Study of Approach...

Onufer, Lindsay.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

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

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : 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.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
面頁冊數:	103 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-11, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International83-11A.
標題:	Teaching. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29057043
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. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 103 p.

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

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

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

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.

ISBN: 9798426865303Subjects--Topical Terms:

517098
Teaching.

A Comparative Case Study of Approaches and Institutional Factors that Affect Assessment of Teaching at a University.
LDR:03160nmm a2200397 4500 001 2393584
005 20240414211443.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798426865303
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI29057043
035 $a (MiAaPQ)Pittsburgh41980
035 $a AAI29057043
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Onufer, Lindsay. $3 3763055
245 1 2 $a A Comparative Case Study of Approaches and Institutional Factors that Affect Assessment of Teaching at a University.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 103 p.
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.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
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.
590 $a School code: 0178.
650 4 $a Teaching. $3 517098
650 4 $a Pedagogy. $3 2122828
650 4 $a Higher education. $3 641065
650 4 $a Collaboration. $3 3556296
650 4 $a College presidents. $3 3564723
650 4 $a Tenure. $3 3561541
650 4 $a Community. $3 531337
650 4 $a Feedback. $3 677181
650 4 $a COVID-19. $3 3554449
650 4 $a Innovations. $3 754112
650 4 $a Perceptions. $3 3435328
650 4 $a College campuses. $3 3562806
650 4 $a Pandemics. $3 3464080
650 4 $a Decision making. $3 517204
650 4 $a Medical research. $2 bicssc $3 1556686
650 4 $a Design. $3 518875
650 4 $a Sociology. $3 516174
650 4 $a Education. $3 516579
650 4 $a Educational administration. $3 2122799
650 4 $a Higher education administration. $3 2122863
690 $a 0389
690 $a 0745
690 $a 0626
690 $a 0456
690 $a 0515
690 $a 0514
690 $a 0446
710 2 $a University of Pittsburgh. $3 958527
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 83-11A.
790 $a 0178
791 $a Ed.D.
792 $a 2021
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29057043