The eCampus Quality Instruction Program (eQIP) is an online faculty development program developed to train faculty in designing and teaching fully online courses.
What is the best way to design and develop high- quality online courses and support faculty as they teach online?
Given faculty’s competing priorities and limited time, we contend that it is important for institutions, and specifically faculty developers, to analyze how much time faculty are spending in online faculty development activities as well as which parts are taking the most (or least) time. (p. 5)
A successful online faculty development program must include pedagogical support, technology support, and design and development support (Baran & Correia, 2014) that overcome obstacles about time, expertise, and motivation of faculty (Henning, 2012).(p. 17)
is it possible that the Iranian government realized the evolution of social media and his respective obsolescence and this is why they freed him prematurely?
Blogs were gold and bloggers were rock stars back in 2008 when I was arrested.
The hyperlink was a way to abandon centralisation – all the links, lines and hierarchies – and replace them with something more distributed, a system of nodes and networks. Since I got out of jail, though, I’ve realised how much the hyperlink has been devalued, almost made obsolete.
Nearly every social network now treats a link as just the same as it treats any other object – the same as a photo, or a piece of text. You’re encouraged to post one single hyperlink and expose it to a quasi-democratic process of liking and plussing and hearting. But links are not objects, they are relations between objects. This objectivisation has stripped hyperlinks of their immense powers.
At the same time, these social networks tend to treat native text and pictures – things that are directly posted to them – with a lot more respect. One photographer friend explained to me how the images he uploads directly to Facebook receive many more likes than when he uploads them elsewhere and shares the link on Facebook.
Some networks, like Twitter, treat hyperlinks a little better. Others are far more paranoid. Instagram – owned by Facebook – doesn’t allow its audiences to leave whatsoever. You can put up a web address alongside your photos, but it won’t go anywhere. Lots of people start their daily online routine in these cul-de-sacs of social media, and their journeys end there. Many don’t even realise they are using the internet’s infrastructure when they like an Instagram photograph or leave a comment on a friend’s Facebook video. It’s just an app.
A most brilliant paragraph by some ordinary-looking person can be left outside the stream, while the silly ramblings of a celebrity gain instant internet presence. And not only do the algorithms behind the stream equate newness and popularity with importance, they also tend to show us more of what we have already liked. These services carefully scan our behaviour and delicately tailor our news feeds with posts, pictures and videos that they think we would most likely want to see.
Today the stream is digital media’s dominant form of organising information. It’s in every social network and mobile application.
The centralisation of information also worries me because it makes it easier for things to disappear.
But the scariest outcome of the centralisation of information in the age of social networks is something else: it is making us all much less powerful in relation to governments and corporations. Surveillance is increasingly imposed on civilised lives, and it gets worse as time goes by. The only way to stay outside of this vast apparatus of surveillance might be to go into a cave and sleep, even if you can’t make it 300 years.
Higher Education institutions use course evaluations for a variety of purposes. They factor in retention analysis for adjuncts, tenure approval or rejection for full-time professors, even in salary bonuses and raises. But, are the results of course evaluations an objective measure of high quality scholarship in the classroom?
Associate Professor of Molecular Biology at Winston-Salem State University
I feel they measure student satisfaction, more like a customer service survey, than they do teaching effectiveness. Teachers students think are easy get higher scores than tough ones, though the students may have learned less from the former.
How can you measure teachers’ effectiveness.
That is how much students learn?
If there is a method to measure how much we learn , I would appreciate to learn .
From what I recall, the research indicates that student evaluations have some value as a proxy and rough indicator of teacher effectiveness. We would expect that bad teachers will often get bad ratings, and good teachers will often get good ratings. Ratings for individual teachers should always be put in context, IMHO, for precisely the reasons that Daniel outlines.
Aggregated ratings for teachers in departments or institutions can even out some of these factors, especially if you combine consideration with other indicators, such as progress rates.The hardest indicators however are drop-out rates and completion rates. When students vote with their feet this can flag significant problems. We have to bear in mind that students often drop out for personal reasons, but if your college’s drop-out rate is higher than your peers, this is worth investigating.
Technical educator looking for a new opportunity or career direction
I agree with what Michael says – to a point. Unfortunately student evaluations have also been used as a venue for disgruntled students, acting alone or in concert – a popularity contest of sorts. Even more unfortunately college administrations (especially for-profits) tend to rate Instructor effectiveness on the basis of student evaluations.
IMHO, student evaluation questions need to be carefully crafted in order to be as objective as possible in order to eliminate the possibility of responses of an unprofessional nature. To clarify – a question like “Would you recommend this teacher to other students?” has the greatest potential for counter-productivity.
2013-2015 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. (New York) Founding Book Series Editor: Higher Education Theory, Policy, & Praxis
This is not a Cartesian question in that the answer is neither yes nor no; it’s not about flipping a coin. One element that may make it more likely that student achievement is a result of teacher effectiveness is the comparison of cumulative or summative student achievement against incoming achievement levels. Another variable is the extent to which individual students are sufficiently resourced (such as having enough food, safety, shelter, sleep, learning materials) to benefit from the teacher’s beneficence.
Overall, I think students are the best judge of a teacher’s effective pedagogy methods. Although there may be students with different learning difficulties (as there usually is in a class), their understanding of the concepts/principles and application of the subject matter in exam questions, etc. depends on how the teacher imparts such knowledge in a rather simplified and easy manner to enhance analytical and critical thinking in them. Of course, there are students too who give a bad review of a teacher’s teaching mode out of spite just because the said teacher has reprimanded him/her in class for being late, for example, or for even being rude. In such a case, it would not be a true reflection of the teacher’s method of teaching. A teacher tries his/her best to educate and inculcate values by imparting the required knowledge and ensuring a 2-way teaching-learning process. It is the students who will be the best judge to evaluate and assess the success of the efforts undertaken by the teacher because it is they who are supposed to benefit at the end of the teaching exercise.
In some cases, I think evaluations (and negative ones in particular) can offer a good perspective on the course, especially if an instructor is willing to review them with an open mind. Of course, there are always the students who nitpick and, as Rina said, use the eval as a chance to vent. But when an entire class complains about how an instructor has handled a course (as I once saw happen with a tutoring student whose fellow classmates were in agreement about the problems in the course), I think it should be taken seriously. But I also agree with Daniel about how evaluations should be viewed like a customer service survey for student satisfaction. Evals are only useful up to a point.
I definitely agree about the way evaluations are worded, though, to make sure that it’s easier to recognize the useful information and weed out the whining.
I am director of studies and students in continuing education are making evaluation of the teaching effectiveness. Because I am in an ISO process, I must take in account those measurements. It might be very difficult sometimes because the number of students does not reach the level required for the sample to be valid (in a statistic meaning). But in the meantime, I believe in the utility of such measurements. The hard job is for me when I have to discuss with the teacher who is under the required score.
Senior Tutor – CeTTL – Student Learning & Digital/Technology Coach (U of W – Faculty of Education)
I’m currently ‘filling in’ as the administrator in our Teaching Development Unit – Appraisals and I have come to appreciate that the evaluation tool of choice is only that – a tool. How the tool is used in terms of the objective for collecting ‘teaching effectiveness’ information, question types developed to gain insight of, and then how that info is acted upon to inform future teaching and learning will in many ways denote the quality of the teaching itself !
Student voice is not just about keeping our jobs, ‘bums on seats’ or ‘talking with their feet’ (all part of it of course) but should be about whether or not we really care about learning. Student voice in the form of evaluating teachers’ effectiveness is critically essential if we want our teaching to model learning that affects positive change – Thomas More’s educational utopia comes to mind…
Consultant and Professor of International Education
Alas, I think they are weak indicators of teaching effectiveness, yet they are used often as the most important indicators of the same. And in the pursuit of high response rate, they are too often given the last day of class, when they cannot measure anything significant — before the learning has “sunk in.” Ask better questions, and ask the questions after students have had a chance to reflect on the learning.
Lecturer (Teaching and Learning), and Belly Dance teacher
I’m just wrapping up a very large project at my university that looked at policy, processes, systems and the instrument for collecting student feedback (taking a break from writing the report to write this comment). One thing that has struck me very clearly is that we need to reconceptualise SETs. de Vellis, in Scale Development, talks about how a scale generally has a higher validity if the respondent is asked to talk about their own experiences.
Yet here we are asking students to not only comment on, but evaluate their teachers. What we really want students to do in class in concentrate on their learning – not on what the teacher is doing. If they are focussing on what the teacher is doing then something is not going right. The way we ask now seems even crazier when we consider the most sophisticated conception of teaching is to help students learn. So why aren’t we asking students about their learning?
The standard format has something to do with it – it’s extremely difficult to ask interesting questions on learning when the wording must align with a 5 point Likert response scale. Despite our best efforts, I do not believe it is possible to prepare a truly student centred and learning centred questionnaire using this format.
An alternate format I came across that I really liked (Modified PLEQ Devlin 2002, An Improved Questionnaire for Gathering Student Perceptions of Teaching and Learning), but no commercial evaluation software (which we are required to purchase) can do it. A few overarching questions sets the scene for the nature of the class, but the general question format goes: In [choose from drop down list] my learning was [helped/hindered] when [fill in the blank] because [fill in the blank]. The drop down list would include options such as lectures, seminars/tutorials, a private study situation, preparing essays, labs, field trip, etc. After completing one question the student has the option to fill in another … and another … and another … for as long as they want.
Think about what information we could actually get on student learning if we we started asking like this! No teacher ratings, all learning. The only number that would emerge would be the #helped and the #hindered.
Keep in mind “Goodhart’s Law” – When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
For example, if youth unemployment figures become the main measure, governments may be tempted to go for the low hanging fruit, the short term (eg. a work for the dole stick to steer unemployed people into study or the army).
I totally agree with most of the comments here. I find student evaluations to be virtually meaningless as measures of a teachers’ effectiveness. They are measures of student perception NOT of learning. Yet university administrators eg Deans, Dept chairs, persist in using them to evaluate faculty performance in the classroom to the point where many instructors have had their careers torn apart. Its an absolute disgrace!! But no one seems to care! That’s the sick thing about it!
Satisfaction cannot be simply correlated with teaching quality. The evidence is that students are most “satisfied” with courses that support a surface learning approach – what the student “needs to know” to pass the course. Where material and delivery is challenging, this generates less crowd approval but, conversely, is more likely to be “good teaching” as this supports deep learning.
Our challenge is to achieve deep learning and still generate rave satisfaction reviews. If any reader has the magic recipe, I would be pleased to learn of it.
Maybe it is about time we started calling it what it is and got Michelin to develop the star rating system for our universities.
Nevertheless I appreciate everyone’s thoughtful comments. Muvaffak, I agree with you about the importance and also the difficulty of measuring student learning. Cathryn, thank you for taking a break from your project to give us an overview.
My story: the best professor and mentor in my life (I spent a total of 21 years as a student in higher education), the professor from whom I learned indispensable and enduring habits of thought that have become more important with each passing year, was one whom the other graduate students in my first term told me–almost unanimously– to avoid at all costs.
Former Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at Winston Salem State University & President of HigherEd SC.
I am not sure that course evaluations based on one snap shot measure “teacher effectiveness”. For various reasons, some ineffective teachers get good ratings by pandering to the lowest level of intellectual laziness. However, consistently looking at comments and some other measures may yield indicators of teachers who are unprepared, do not provide feedback, do not adhere to a syllabus of record, and do not respect students in general. I think part of that information is based how questions are crafted.
I believe that a self evaluation of instructor over a period of a semester could yield invaluable information. Using a camera and other devices, ask the instructor to take snap shots of their teaching/ learning in the classroom over a period of time and then ask for a self-evaluation. For the novice teacher that information could be evaluated by senior faculty and assist the junior faculty to improve his/her delivery. Many instructors are experts in their field but lack exposure to different methods of instructional delivery. I would like to see a taxonomy of a scale that measures the instructor’s ability using lecture as the base of instruction and moving up to levels of problem based learning, service learning, undergraduate research by gauging the different pedagogies (pedagogy, androgogy heutagogy, paragogy etc. that engage students in active learning.
I wanted to piggyback on Cathryn’s comment above, and align myself with how many of you seem to feel about student evaluations. The quantitative part of student evals are problematic, for all of the reasons mentioned already. But the open-ended feedback that is (usually) a part of student evaluations is where I believe some real value can be gained, both for administrative purposes and for instructor development.
When allowed to speak freely, what are students saying? Are they lamenting a particular aspect of the course/instructor? Is that one area coloring their response across all questions? These are all important considerations, and provide a much richer source of information for all involved.
Sadly, the quantitative data is what most folks gravitate to, simply because it’s standardized and “easy”. I don’t believe that student evaluations are a complete waste of time, but I do think that we tend to focus on the wrong information. And, of course, this ignores the issues of timing and participation rates that are probably another conversation altogether!
‘What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning’ by John Biggs in Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1999.
“The deep approach refers to activities that are appropriate to handling the task so that an appropriate outcome is achieved. The surface approach is therefore to be discouraged, the deep approach encouraged – and that is my working definition of good teaching. Learning is thus a way of interacting with the world. As we learn, our conceptions of phenomena change, and we see the world differently. The acquisition of information in itself does not bring about such a change, but the way we structure that information and think with it does. Thus, education is about conceptual change, not just the acquisition of information.” (p. 60)
This is the approach higher education is trying adapt to at the moment, as far as I’m aware.
My Human Resource students will focus on this issue in a class debate “Should student evaluation data significantly impact faculty tenure and promotion decisions?” One side will argue “yes, it provides credible data that should be one of the most important elements” and the other group will argue against this based on much of what has been said above. They will say student evaluations are basically a popularity contest and faculty may actually be dumbing down their classes in order to get higher ratings.
To what extent is student data used in faculty tenure and promotion decisions at your institutions?
Associate Professor at Institute of Education, IIUM
Cindy; it is used in promotion decision in my university, but only a small percentage of the total points. Yet this issue is still a thorny one for some faculty
How open are we? Is learning about the delivery of a subject only or bulding on soft skills as well?So if we as teachers are facilitating learning in a conducive manner ,would it not lead to an average TE at the least &thus indicate our teaching effectiveness at the base level. Indeed qualitative approach would be far better an approach, if we intend to accomplish the actual purpose of TE i.e Reflection for continual improvement.More and more classrooms are becoming learner centered and to accomplish this learners ‘say’ is vital.
Some students using these as platforms for personal whims, must not be a concern for many, since the TE are averaged out .Of course last but not the least TEs are like dynamites and must be handled by experts.These are one of the means of assessing the gaps,if any, between the teaching and learning strategies. These must not be used for performance evaluation.If at all, then all the other factors such as the number of students,absenteeism,pass rate rather HD & D rates over a period of minimum three terms must also be included alongside.
Teaching colleague at Ben Gurion University of the Negev
I implement a semester long self evaluation process in all my mathematics courses. Students gets 3 points (out of 100) for anonymously filling an online questionnaire online every week . They rate (1-5) their personal class experience (I was bored -I was fascinated, I understood nothing- I understood everything, The tutorials sessions didn’t-did help, I visited Lecturer’s/TA’s office hours, I spent X hours of self learning this week). They can also add verbal comments.
I started it 10 years ago when I built a new special course, to help me “hear” the students (80-100 in each class) and to better adjust myself and the content to my new students. I used to publish a weekly respond to the verbal comments, accepting some and rejecting others while making sure to explain and justify any decision of mine.
Not only that it helped me improve my teaching and the course but it turned out that it actually created a very solid perception of me as a caring teacher. I always was a very caring teacher (some of my colleagues accuse me of being over caring…) but it seems that “forcing” my student to give feedback along all the semester kind of “brought it out” to the open.
I am still using long-semester feedback in all my courses and I consider both quantitative and qualitative responds. It helps me see that the majority of students understand me in class. I ignore those who choose “I understand nothing” – obviously if they were indeed understanding “nothing” they would have not come to class… (they can choose “I didn’t participate” or “I don’t wont to answer”)
I ignore all verbal comments that aim to “punish” me and I change things when I think students r right.
Finally, being a math lecturer for non-major students is extremely hard, both academically and emotionally. Most students are not willing to do what is needed in order to understand the abstract/complicated concepts and processes.
Only few (“courageous “) students will attribute their lack of understanding to the fact that they did not attend all classes, or that they weren’t really focused on learning, (probably they spend a lot of time in “Facebook” during class..), or that they didn’t go over class notes at home and come to office hours when they didn’t understand something etc.
I am encouraged by the fact that about 2/3 of the students that attend classes state they “understood enough” and above (3-5) all semester long. This is especially important as only 40-50% of the students fill the formal end of the semester SE and I bet u can guess how the majority of of them will rate my performance. Students fill SE before the final exam but (again) u can guess how 2 midterms with about 24% failures will influence their evaluation of my teaching.
I think it’s important to avoid defensive responses to the question. Most participants have assumed that we are talking about individual teachers being assessed through questionnaires, and I share everyone’s reservations about that. I entirely agree that deep learning is what we need to go for, but given the huge amounts of public money that are poured into our institutions, we need to have some way of evaluating whether what we are doing is effective or whether it isn’t.
I’m not impressed by institutions that are obsessed only with evaluation by numbers. However, there is some merit in monitoring aggregated statistics over time and detecting statistically significant variations. If average satisfaction rates in Engineering have gone down every year for five years shouldn’t we try and find out why? If satisfaction rates in Architecture have gone up every year for five years wouldn’t it be interesting to know if they have been doing something to bring that about that might be worthwhile? It might turn out to be a statistical artifact, but we need to inquire into it, and bring the same arts of critical inquiry to bear on the evidence that we use in our scholarship and research.
But I always encourage faculties and institutions to supplement this by actually getting groups of students together and talking to them about their student experience as well. Qualitative responses can be more valuable than quantitative surveys. We might actually learn something!
Associate Professor at UNESP – São Paulo State University
As everyone here I also think that these evaluation forms do not truly measure teaching effectiveness. This is a quite hard thing to evaluate, since the effect of learning will be felt several years later, while performing their job duties.
Besides that, some observations made by students are interesting for our own growth. I usually get these through informal talks with the class or even some students.
In another direction, some of the previous comments are addressing deep/surface learning basically stating that deep learning is the right way to go. I have to disagree with this for some of the contents that have to be taught. In my case (teaching to computer science majors) it is important, for example, that every student have a surface knowledge about operating systems design, but those who are going to work as database analysts do not need to know the deep concepts involved with that (the same is true for database concepts for a network analyst…). So, surface learning has also its relevance in the professional formation.
Senior Consultant and Lecturer at university of nicosia
The usefulness of Student evaluations, like all similar surveys, is closely linked to the particular questions they are asked to answer. There are the objective-type/factual questions such as “Does he start class on time” or “does he speak clearly” and the very personal questions such as “does he give fair grades”… The effectiveness of a Teacher could be more appropriately linked to suitably phrased question, such as “has he motivated you to learn” and “how much have you bebnefited from the course”. The responses to these questions could, also, be further assessed by comparison with the final grades given to that particular course with the performance of the class in the other courses they have taken..during that semester. So, for assessing Teacher Effectiveness, one needs to ask relevant questions. and perform the appropriate evaluations..
Michael has an excellent point that some accountability of institutions and programs is appropriate, and that aggregated data or qualitative results can be useful in assessing whether the teaching in a particular program is accomplishing what it sets out to do. Many outcomes studies are set up to measure the learning in an aggregated way.
We may want to remember that our present conventions of teaching evaluation had their roots in the 1970s (in California, if I remember correctly), partly as a response to a system in which faculty, both individually and collectively, were accountable to no one. I recall my student days when a professor in a large public research institution would consider it an intrusion and a personal affront to be asked to supply a course syllabus.
As the air continues to leak out of the USA’s higher education bubble, as the enrollments drop and the number of empty seats rises, it seems inevitable that institutions will feel the pressure to offer anything to make the students perceive their experience as positive. It may be too hard to make learning–often one of the most uncomfortable experiences in life–the priority. Faculty respond defensively because we are continually put in the position of defending ourselves, often by poorly-designed quantitative instruments that address every kind of feel-good hotel concierge aspect of classroom management while overlooking learning.
The evaluation of faculty by the students is welcome. The statistics of information can be looked into to a certain degree of objectivity. An instructor strict with his/her students may be ranked low in spite of being an asset to the department. A ‘free-lance’ teacher with students may be placed higher despite being a poor teacher. At any rate the HoD’s duty is to observe the quality of all teachers and his objective evaluation is final. The parents feed-back is also to be taken. Actually
teaching is a multi-dimensional task and students evaluation is just one co-ordinate only.
Associate Professor at University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Student evaluations are a terrible tool for measuring teacher effectiveness. They do measure student satisfaction, and to some extent the measure student *perception* of teacher effectiveness. But the effectiveness of a teaching method or of an instructor is poorly correlated with student satisfaction: while there are positive linkages between the two concepts, students are generally MORE satisfied by an easy course that makes them feel good than by a hard course that makes them have to really think and work (and learn).
Students like things that are flashy, and things that are easy more than they like things that require a lot of work or things that force them to rethink their core values. Certainly there are students who value a challenge, but even those students may not recognize which teacher gave them a better course.
Student evaluations can be used effectively to help identify very poor teaching. But it is useless to distinguish between adequate and good teaching practices.
ex Vicerrector Administrativo en Universidad Nacional de San Cristóbal de Huamanga
César S. Granados
Retired Professor from The National University of San Cristóbal de Huamanga
Ayacucho, PERÚ
Since teaching effectiveness is a function of teacher competencies, an effective teacher is able to use the existing competencies to achieve the desired student´s results; but, student´s performance mainly depends of his commitment to achieve competencies.
The student evaluations I’ve seen are more like customer satisfaction surveys, and in this respect, there is less helpful information for the instructor to improve his or her craft and instead more feedback about whether or not the student liked the experience. Shouldn’t their learning and/or improving skills be at least as important? I’m not arguing that these concepts are mutually exclusive, but the evaluations are often written to privilege one over the other.
There are other problems. Using the same evaluation tool for very different kinds of courses (lecture versus workshop, for instance) doesn’t make a lot of sense. Evaluation language is often vague and puzzling in what it rewards (one evaluation form asks “Was the instructor enthusiastic?” Would an instructor bursting with smiles and enthusiasm but who is disorganized and otherwise less effective be privileged over one who is low-key but nonetheless covers the material effectively?). The “halo effect” can distort findings, where, among other things, more attractive instructors can get higher marks.
Given how many times I’ve heard from students about someone being their favorite instructor because he or she was easy, I question the criteria students may use when evaluating. Instructors are also told that evaluations are for their benefit to improve teaching ability, but then chairs and administrators use them in promotion and hiring decisions.
I think if the evaluation tool is sound, it can be useful to helping instructors. But, lastly, I think of my own experiences as a student, where I may have disliked or even resented some instructors because they challenged me or pushed me out of my comfort zone to learn new skills or paradigms. I may have evaluated them poorly at the time, only to come to learn a few years later with greater maturity that they not only taught me well, but taught me something invaluable, and perhaps more so than the instructors I liked. In this respect, it would be more fair to those instructors for me to fill out an evaluation a few years later to accurately describe their teaching.
Adjunct Professor of Writing at Niagara University
Wow, there are so many valid points raised; so many considerations. In general, I tend to agree with those who believe it gauges student satisfaction more than learning, though there is a correlation between the two. After 13 years as an adjunct at a relatively small, private college, I have found that engagement really is what many students long for. It seems far less about the final grades earned and more about the tools they’ve acquired. It should be mentioned that I teach developmental level composition, and while almost no student earns an A, most feel they have learned much:)
Former director, center for the advancement of teaching at Tel Aviv University
Student ratings of instruction (SRI) do not measure teaching effectiveness but rather student satisfaction from instruction (as some previous comments on this list suggest). However there is a substantial research evidence for the relationships between SRIs and some agreed-upon measures of good teaching and of student learning. This research is summarized in much detail in my recent book:
Student Ratings of Instruction: A Practical Approach to Designing, Operating, and Reporting (220 pp.) https://www.createspace.com/4065544
ISBN-13:978-1481054331
Associate Professor at Notre Dame University – Louaize
Evaluation, in all its forms, is a complex exercise that needs both knowledge and skill. Further, evaluation can best be achieved through a variety of instruments. We know all of this as teachers. Question is how knowledgeable are our students regarding the teaching/learning process. More, how knowledgeable are our administrators in translating information collected from questionnaires (some of which are validity-questionable) into plausible data-based decisions. I agree that students should have a say in how their courses are being conducted. But to use their feedback, quantitatively, to evaluate university professors… I fear that I must hold a very skeptical stand towards such evaluation.
Quite an interesting topic, and I’m reminded of the ancient proverb, “Parts is not parts.” OK, maybe that was McDonalds. This conversation would make a very thoughtful manuscript.
Courses is not courses. Which course will be more popular, “Contemporary Music” or “General Chemistry?”
Search any university using the following keywords “really easy course [university].” Those who teach these courses are experts at what they do, and what they do is valuable, however the workload for the student is minimal.
The major issues: (1) popularity is inversely proportional to workload; and (2) the composition of the questions appearing on course and professor evaluations (CAPEs).
“What grade do you expect in this class? Instructor explains course material well? Lectures hold your attention?”
If Sally gets to listen to Nickleback in class and then next period learn quantum mechanics, which course does one suppose best held her attention?
A person about to receive a C- in General Chemistry is probably receiving that C- because s/he was never able to understand the material for lack of striving, and probably hates the subject. That person is very likely to have never visited the professor during office hours for help. Logically one might expect low approval ratings from such a scenario.
A person about to receive an A in General Chemistry is getting that A because s/he worked his/her tail off. S/he was able to comprehend mostly everything the professor said, and most probably liked the course. Even more, s/he probably visited the professor during office hours several times for feedback.
One might argue that the laws of statistics will work in favor of reality, however that’s untrue when only 20% of students respond to CAPEs. Those who respond either love the professor or hate the professor. There’s usually no middle ground. Add this to internet anonymity, and the problem is compounded. I am aware of multiple studies conducted by universities indicating high correlation between written CAPEs and electronic CAPEs, however I’d like to bring up one point.
Think of the last time you raised your voice to a customer service rep on the phone. Would you have raised your voice to that rep in person?
There’s not enough space to comment on all the variables involved in CAPE numerical responses. As of last term I stopped paying attention to the numbers and focused exclusively on the comments. There’s a lot of truth in most of the comments.
I would like to see the following experiment performed. Take a group of 10,000 students. Record their CAPE responses prior to receiving their final grade. Three weeks later, have them re-CAPE. One year later, have them re-CAPE again. Two years. Three years. Finally, have them re-CAPE after getting a job.
Many students don’t know what a professor did for them until semesters or years down the road. They’re likely to realize how good of a teacher the professor was by their performance in future courses in the same subject requiring cumulative mastery.
Do I think student evaluations measure teaching effectiveness? CAPEs is not CAPEs.
Owner of AREND.co, a professional learning community for educators
No, it does not. Efficiency in class room should be measured by the results of students, their attitude towards students and the quality of their preparation. I worked with a man who told a story about the different hats and learning and thought that was a new way of looking at learning. To my utmost shock my colleague, who sat because he had to say something, told me that he did it exactly the same, same jokes, etc, when he did the course five years ago. For real – nothing changed, no new technology, no new insights. no learning happened over a period of five years, nothing? And he is rated very high – head of a new wing. Who rated him? How? And why did it not effect his teaching at all?
Chief Executive at Institut Sains @ Teknologi Darul Takzim ( INSTEDT)
If we are looking for quality, we have to get information about our performance.in the lecture room. There are 6 elements normally being practice. They are: 1.Teaching Plan of lecture contents 2.Teaching Delivery 3.Fair and systematic of evaluation on student’s work 4. Whether the Teaching follows the semester plan.5. Whether the lecturer follows the T-Table and always on time of their lecturer hours and lastly is the Relationship between lecturer and students.
Do we need to be reminded that educators were students at one time or the other? So why not have students evaluate the performance of a teacher? After all, the students are contributing to their own investment in what is significant for survival; and whether it is effective towards career development to attain their full potential as a human sentient being towards the greater good of humanity; anything else falls short of human progress in a tiny rotating planet cycling through the solar system with destination unknown! Welcome to the ‘Twilight Zone.”
Would you rather educate a student to make a wise decision to accept 10 gallons of water in a desert? Or accept a $1 million check that further creates mirages and illusory dreams of success?
I think what my students say about me is important. I’m most interested in the comments they make and have used these to pilot other ideas or adjust my approach.
I’ve had to learn to not beat myself up about a few bad comments or get carried away with a few good ones.
I also use the assessment results to see if the adjustments made have had the intended impact. I use the VLE logs as well to see how engaged the students are with the materials and what tools they use and when.
I find the balance keeps me grounded. I want my students to do well and have fun. The dashboard on your car has multiple measures. Why should teaching be different? Like the car I listen for strange noises and look out the window to make sure I’m still on the road.
I think that most student evaluations are only reaction measures and not true evaluation of learning outcome or teaching effectiveness – and often evaluations are tainted if the student get a lower mark than anticipated
I think these types of evaluation are only indicative — and should not really be used to measure teacher/teaching effectiveness – and should not be allowed to affect teachers’ careers
I note Stephen’s point about multiple measures — unfortunately most evaluations are quick and dirty — and certainly do not provide multiple measures
No, students’evaluations cannot fully measure teaching effectiveness.
However,for the relationship to be mutually beneficial, you have to accept their judgement on the matter, Unfortunately a Unique teacher for all categories (types) of students does not exist in our dynamic world.
Professor, Executive Dean, Faculty of Health, Federation University Australia
Student evaluations are merely popularity contests, they tempt academics to ‘ dumb down’ the content in order to be liked and evaluated positively…this is a dangerous and slippery slope then can result in graduates being ill-prepared for the professions and industries they seek to enter.
PRINCE 2 Registered Practitioner at Higher Colleges of Technology
In my opinion the student-teacher evaluations are measuring popularity as others suggested but the problem is that some of the questions and intentions of assesing are not fulfilled due to the use of wrong questioning. I have never seen in the instruments a question asking students of their expectations from the teacher and the course as such. To me that is more important than to ask if the student likes the teaching style which students do not know anyway. Teachers who give any test before the assessment are likely to get low ratings than those who give tests soon after the evaluation.
I agree with other contributors. The evaluations are akin to a satisfaction survey. Personally, if, for example, I stay at an hotel, I only fill in the satisfaction survey if something is wrong. If the service is as I expect, I don’t bother with the survey.
I feel also that students rate the courses or modules on a popularity basis. A module on a course may be enjoyable, or fun, but not necessarily better taught than another subject with a less entertaining subject.
Unfortunately, everyone seems to think that the student evaluations are the main criteria by which to judge a course.
First of all, it would help if we stop referring to them as “student” or “course” evaluations. Students are not qualified to evaluate. That is what administrators are paid to do. However, students are qualified to provide feedback to instructors and administrators about their perceptions of what occurred in the class and of how much they believe they learned. How can that not be valuable information, especially for developmental purposes about how to teach more effectively? Evaluation is not an event that happens at the end of a course–it is an ongoing process that requires multiple indicators of effectiveness (e.g., student ratings of the course, peer evaluations, administrator evaluations, course design, student products). By triangulating that combination of evidence, administrators and faculty can then make informed judgments and evaluate.
The student / teacher relationship around the subject matter is a ‘triangle.’ The character of the triangle has a lot to do with a student’s reception of the of the material and the teacher.
The Student:
The well-prepared student and the intrinsically motivated student can more readily thrive in the relationship. If s/he is thriving s/he may be more inclined to rate the teacher highly. The poorly prepared student or the student who requires motivation from ‘outside’ is much less likely to thrive and more likely to rate a teacher poorly.
The Teacher:
The well-prepared teacher and the intrinsically motivated teacher can more readily thrive in the relationship. If s/he is thriving students may be more inclined to rate the teacher highly. The poorly prepared teacher or the teacher who requires motivation from ‘outside’ is much less likely to thrive and more likely to achieve poor teacher ratings.
The Subject Matter:
The content and form of the subject matter are crucial, especially in their relation to the student and teacher.
Student evaluations do not measure teaching effectiveness. I have been told I walk on water and am the worst teacher ever. The major difference was the level of student participation. The more they participated the better I was.
What I use them for is a learning tool. I take the comments apart looking for snippets that I can use to improve my teaching.
I have been involved in a portfolio program the past two years. One consist is the better the measured outcomes, the worse the student reviews.
Former Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at Winston Salem State University & President of HigherEd SC.
Steve,
Have you ever been part of a tenure or promotion committee evaluation process? In my 35 years of experience, faculty members do not operate in that ideal smooth linear trajectory that you have described. On the contrary, they partition evaluations into categories and look at student course evaluations as the evidence of an instructor’s ability to teach. However, faculty can choose which evaluations they can submit and what comments they want to include as part of the record. I have never seen “negative comments” as evidence of “ineffective teaching”. The five point scale is used and whenever that falls below a 3.50, it becomes a great concern for our colleagues!
There are many other ways of asserting the faculty by the peer group. There can be a weekly seminar and faculty members are expected to give a seminar and other faculty members and students are the audience. This measures how much interest a faculty has in some chosen areas. The Chair (HoD) can talk to some selected students (chosen as representing highly motivated/average/take easy) and reach a decision for tenure-track. As I said earlier the students’ evaluation can be one of many aspects. In my own experience other (senior) faculty evaluation is many times detrimental to the progress of junior faculty. But one ask the HoD is the senior most: but one thing is clear, the chair of the ‘Chair’ has some ‘vision’ and transcends discrimination and partisan feelings. In India we call: “(Sar)Panch me Parameshwar rahtha hai”, meaning: On the position of Judge, God dwells (sits). Think of Becket and the King Henry II. As archbishop, Rev. Thomas Becket was a completely changes person fully submerged in divinity order. So the Chair is supremo. Students evaluation is just
There are many other ways of asserting the faculty by the peer group. There can be a weekly seminar and faculty members are expected to give a seminar and other faculty members and students are the audience. This measures how much interest a faculty has in some chosen areas. The Chair (HoD) can talk to some selected students (chosen as representing highly motivated/average/take easy) and reach a decision for tenure-track. As I said earlier the students’ evaluation can be one of many aspects. In my own experience other (senior) faculty evaluation is many times detrimental to the progress of junior faculty. But one ask the HoD is the senior most: but one thing is clear, the chair of the ‘Chair’ has some ‘vision’ and transcends discrimination and partisan feelings. In India we call: “(Sar)Panch me Parameshwar rahtha hai”, meaning: On the position of Judge, God dwells (sits). Think of Becket and the King Henry II. As archbishop, Rev. Thomas Becket was a completely changes person fully submerged in divinity order. So the Chair is supremo. Students evaluation is just
There are many other ways of asserting the faculty by the peer group. There can be a weekly seminar and faculty members are expected to give a seminar and other faculty members and students are the audience. This measures how much interest a faculty has in some chosen areas. The Chair (HoD) can talk to some selected students (chosen as representing highly motivated/average/take easy) and reach a decision for tenure-track. As I said earlier the students’ evaluation can be one of many aspects. In my own experience other (senior) faculty evaluation is many times detrimental to the progress of junior faculty. But one ask the HoD is the senior most: but one thing is clear, the chair of the ‘Chair’ has some ‘vision’ and transcends discrimination and partisan feelings. In India we call: “(Sar)Panch me Parameshwar rahtha hai”, meaning: On the position of Judge, God dwells (sits). Think of Becket and the King Henry II. As archbishop, Rev. Thomas Becket was a completely changes person fully submerged in divinity order. So the Chair is supremo. Students evaluation is just
There are many other ways of asserting the faculty by the peer group. There can be a weekly seminar and faculty members are expected to give a seminar and other faculty members and students are the audience. This measures how much interest a faculty has in some chosen areas. The Chair (HoD) can talk to some selected students (chosen as representing highly motivated/average/take easy) and reach a decision for tenure-track. As I said earlier the students’ evaluation can be one of many aspects. In my own experience other (senior) faculty evaluation is many times detrimental to the progress of junior faculty. But one ask the HoD is the senior most: but one thing is clear, the chair of the ‘Chair’ has some ‘vision’ and transcends discrimination and partisan feelings. In India we call: “(Sar)Panch me Parameshwar rahtha hai”, meaning: On the position of Judge, God dwells (sits). Think of Becket and the King Henry II. As archbishop, Rev. Thomas Becket was a completely changes person fully submerged in divinity order. So the Chair is supremo. Students evaluation is just
There are many other ways of asserting the faculty by the peer group. There can be a weekly seminar and faculty members are expected to give a seminar and other faculty members and students are the audience. This measures how much interest a faculty has in some chosen areas. The Chair (HoD) can talk to some selected students (chosen as representing highly motivated/average/take easy) and reach a decision for tenure-track. As I said earlier the students’ evaluation can be one of many aspects. In my own experience other (senior) faculty evaluation is many times detrimental to the progress of junior faculty. But one ask the HoD is the senior most: but one thing is clear, the chair of the ‘Chair’ has some ‘vision’ and transcends discrimination and partisan feelings. In India we call: “(Sar)Panch me Parameshwar rahtha hai”, meaning: On the position of Judge, God dwells (sits). Think of Becket and the King Henry II. As archbishop, Rev. Thomas Becket was a completely changes person fully submerged in divinity order. So the Chair is supremo. Students evaluation is just
There are many other ways of asserting the faculty by the peer group. There can be a weekly seminar and faculty members are expected to give a seminar and other faculty members and students are the audience. This measures how much interest a faculty has in some chosen areas. The Chair (HoD) can talk to some selected students (chosen as representing highly motivated/average/take easy) and reach a decision for tenure-track. As I said earlier the students’ evaluation can be one of many aspects. In my own experience other (senior) faculty evaluation is many times detrimental to the progress of junior faculty. But one ask the HoD is the senior most: but one thing is clear, the chair of the ‘Chair’ has some ‘vision’ and transcends discrimination and partisan feelings. In India we call: “(Sar)Panch me Parameshwar rahtha hai”, meaning: On the position of Judge, God dwells (sits). Think of Becket and the King Henry II. As archbishop, Rev. Thomas Becket was a completely changes person fully submerged in divinity order. So the Chair is supremo. Students evaluation is just
There are many other ways of asserting the faculty by the peer group. There can be a weekly seminar and faculty members are expected to give a seminar and other faculty members and students are the audience. This measures how much interest a faculty has in some chosen areas. The Chair (HoD) can talk to some selected students (chosen as representing highly motivated/average/take easy) and reach a decision for tenure-track. As I said earlier the students’ evaluation can be one of many aspects. In my own experience other (senior) faculty evaluation is many times detrimental to the progress of junior faculty. But one ask the HoD is the senior most: but one thing is clear, the chair of the ‘Chair’ has some ‘vision’ and transcends discrimination and partisan feelings. In India we call: “(Sar)Panch me Parameshwar rahtha hai”, meaning: On the position of Judge, God dwells (sits). Think of Becket and the King Henry II. As archbishop, Rev. Thomas Becket was a completely changes person fully submerged in divinity order. So the Chair is supremo. Students evaluation is just
There are many other ways of asserting the faculty by the peer group. There can be a weekly seminar and faculty members are expected to give a seminar and other faculty members and students are the audience. This measures how much interest a faculty has in some chosen areas. The Chair (HoD) can talk to some selected students (chosen as representing highly motivated/average/take easy) and reach a decision for tenure-track. As I said earlier the students’ evaluation can be one of many aspects. In my own experience other (senior) faculty evaluation is many times detrimental to the progress of junior faculty. But one ask the HoD is the senior most: but one thing is clear, the chair of the ‘Chair’ has some ‘vision’ and transcends discrimination and partisan feelings. In India we call: “(Sar)Panch me Parameshwar rahtha hai”, meaning: On the position of Judge, God dwells (sits). Think of Becket and the King Henry II. As archbishop, Rev. Thomas Becket was a completely changes person fully submerged in divinity order. So the Chair is supremo. Students evaluation is just
There are many other ways of asserting the faculty by the peer group. There can be a weekly seminar and faculty members are expected to give a seminar and other faculty members and students are the audience. This measures how much interest a faculty has in some chosen areas. The Chair (HoD) can talk to some selected students (chosen as representing highly motivated/average/take easy) and reach a decision for tenure-track. As I said earlier the students’ evaluation can be one of many aspects. In my own experience other (senior) faculty evaluation is many times detrimental to the progress of junior faculty. But one ask the HoD is the senior most: but one thing is clear, the chair of the ‘Chair’ has some ‘vision’ and transcends discrimination and partisan feelings. In India we call: “(Sar)Panch me Parameshwar rahtha hai”, meaning: On the position of Judge, God dwells (sits). Think of Becket and the King Henry II. As archbishop, Rev. Thomas Becket was a completely changes person fully submerged in divinity order. So the Chair is supremo. Students evaluation is just
Amazing how things work…I’m actually in the process of framing out a research project related to this very question. Does anyone have any suggestions for specific papers I should look at i.e. literature related to the topic?
With respect to your question, I believe the answer depends on the questions that get asked.
The school-derived questionnaires nearly always ask the wrong questions, for one.
I’ve always thought students should wait some years (3-20) before providing feedback, because the final day of class is too recent to do a good assessment.
Open University Coursework Consultant, Research Methods
I’m quite late to the topic here, and much of what I think has been said by others. There is a difference between the qualitative and quantitative aspects of student evaluations – I am always fascinated to find out what my students (and peers, of course, though that is a different topic) do/do not think I am doing well so I can learn and adapt my teaching. For this reason, I prefer a more continuous student evaluation than the questionnaire at the end of the course – if I need to adapt to a particular group, I need the information sooner rather than later.
However, the quantitative side means nothing unless it is tied back to hard data on how the students did in their assessments – an unpopular teacher can still be a *good* teacher of the subject at hand! And the subject matter counts a lot – merely teaching an unpopular but compulsory subject (public law, for instance!) tends to make the teacher initially unpopular in the minds of students – a type of shooting the messenger.
Teaching isn’t a beauty contest – these metrics need to be used in the right way, and combined with other data if they are to say anything about the teaching.
I wrote a paper about this issue a few years ago. Briefly, the thrust of my argument is that student opinions should not be used as the basis for evaluating teaching effectiveness because these aggregated opinions are invalid measures of quality teaching, provide no empirical evidence in this regard, are incomparable across different courses and different faculty members, promote faculty gaming and competition, tend to distract all participants and observers from the learning mission of the university, and insure the sub-optimization and further decline of the higher education system. Using student opinions to evaluate, compare and subsequently rank faculty members represents a severe form of a problem Deming referred to as a deadly disease of western style management. The theme of the alternative approach is that learning on a program-wide basis should be the primary consideration in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Emphasis should shift from student opinion surveys to the development and assessment of program-wide learning outcomes. To achieve this shift in emphasis, the university performance measurement system needs to be redesigned to motivate faculty members to become part of an integrated learning development and assessment team, rather than a group of independent contractors competing for individual rewards.
Martin, J. R. 1998. Evaluating faculty based on student opinions: Problems, implications and recommendations from Deming’s theory of management perspective. Issues in Accounting Education (November): 1079-1094. http://maaw.info/ArticleSummaries/ArtSumMartinSet98.htm
Just to add my own two cents (two and a half Canadian cents at this point), I think students have much of value to tell us about their experience in our courses and classes, information that we can use to improve their learning and become more effective teachers. They are also able to inform academic administrators of the degree to which teachers fulfill their basic duties and perform the elementary tasks they are assigned. They have far less to tell us about the value of what they’re learning to their future, their professions … and they are perhaps not the best qualified to identify effective learning and teaching techniques and methods. Those sorts of things are better assessed by knowledgeable, expert professional and academic peers.
Member of Academic committees of some Universities & Retd.Prof.,Dept.of Botany,University of Rajasthan,Jaipur.
Student rating system may not necessarily be a reliable method to assess the teaching
effeciveness,because it depends upon individual grasping/understanding power, intelligence
and study tendency A teacher does his/her job well, but how many students understand
it well. It is reflected invariably in the marks obtained by them.
+++++ thank you for covering this information at home. Pls don’t forget to bring your q/s and ideas to class +++++
Why we are here today? We need to look deeper in the current 21stcentury state of information and disinformation and determine how such awareness can help policy analysis. How do we make up our mind about news and information; where from we get our info; who do we believe, who do we mistrust.
how do these three items assist a better analysis of policies?
Class assignment:
Share a topic which is very much to your heart.
Please feel welcome to use the following resources and/or contribute with your own resources to determine the sources and potential bias
Feel free also to use the following guidelines when establishing the veracity of information:
Here is a short (4 min) video introducing you to the well-known basics for evaluation of academic literature: https://youtu.be/qUd_gf2ypk4
ACCURACY
Does the author cite reliable sources?
How does the information compare with that in other works on the topic?
Can you determine if the information has gone through peer-review?
Are there factual, spelling, typographical, or grammatical errors?
AUDIENCE
Who do you think the authors are trying to reach?
Is the language, vocabulary, style and tone appropriate for intended audience?
What are the audience demographics? (age, educational level, etc.)
Are the authors targeting a particular group or segment of society?
AUTHORITY
Who wrote the information found in the article or on the site?
What are the author’s credentials/qualifications for this particular topic?
Is the author affiliated with a particular organization or institution?
What does that affiliation suggest about the author?
CURRENCY
Is the content current?
Does the date of the information directly affect the accuracy or usefulness of the information?
OBJECTIVITY/BIAS
What is the author’s or website’s point of view?
Is the point of view subtle or explicit?
Is the information presented as fact or opinion?
If opinion, is the opinion supported by credible data or informed argument?
Is the information one-sided?
Are alternate views represented?
Does the point of view affect how you view the information?
PURPOSE
What is the author’s purpose or objective, to explain, provide new information or news, entertain, persuade or sell?
Does the purpose affect how you view the information presented?
In 2021, however, all suggestions above may not be sufficient to distinguish a reliable source of information, even if the article made it through the peer-reviewed process. In time, you should learn to evaluate the research methods of the authors and decide if they are reliable. Same applies for the research findings and conclusions.
++++++++++++++++++++
Aditional topics and ideas for exploring at home:
civil disobedience
UCLA Extension seeks XR (augmented and virtual reality) professionals to teach in a new online certificate program housed within the UCLA Extension Center for Immersive Media. This recruitment is for online instructors for remote and asynchronous instruction, three hours per week, for ten-week quarters.
The center is focused on enterprise applications, workforce training in XR, narrative structures for XR storytelling, and (UX) User Experience in XR. This XR program is focused on training individuals to become XR content developers. The emphasis of this certificate is not on advanced coding or hardware development. Areas of recruitment include:
XR Frameworks, an introduction to the XR business, user cases & goal/needs evaluation
XR Tools I, an introduction to a modeling software such as Blender
XR Tools II, prototyping tools with an emphasis on Unity
XR Narratives, the use of non-linear narrative structures in XR development
XR User Experience I, usability applications and studies bringing together previous class course work into VR and XR projects
XR User Experience II, advanced XR experience studies and applications
XR Product Pipeline & Project Management, Best practices including stages of production, critical paths, etc.
XR Capstone Project, creation of final portfolio piece UCLA Extension is the open-access, self-supporting continuing education division of UCLA. The Department of the Arts offers a wide variety of certificate programs and courses, including post-baccalaureate credit-bearing (400-level), continuing education (CEU) credit, and non-credit bearing general interest courses. Course disciplines in the Visual Arts span subject areas such as Design Communication Arts, User Experience, Photography, Studio Arts and Art History. Our courses and certificate programs offer students the opportunity to learn from highly qualified practitioners who are passionate about teaching. Applications to teach are accepted throughout the year in order to fill immediate program needs and to increase the depth of the instructor pool, but interviews will only be scheduled with qualified applicants who can fill anticipated openings. XR Instructor Qualified applicants possessing current industry knowledge and experience in the following topic area(s) are encouraged to apply: AR, VR, MR, XR, User Experience Design, Gaming, Immersive Interface Design, XR Research, Software (Unity, Blender), XR Hardware. Classes are currently online only. Two formats are available: asynchronous, or live Zoom lectures. Each course is 11 weeks, enrollment limited to 20 students. Instructor Duties: • Develop or update course syllabus to meet campus approval requirements, in consultation with the UCLA Extension Program Director and Program Manager. • Use subject-matter expertise to impart knowledge to students and leverage additional resources appropriately to enhance the curriculum (i.e. make arrangements for guest speakers, etc.) • Design interactive and motivational classroom activities to fully engage participants and to reinforce student learning. • Update materials periodically, and regularly monitor course evaluations in order to make adjustments and improvements to the curriculum. • Respond to student questions and learning needs in a timely manner. • Communicate with Program Director and Program Staff in a timely manner. • Complete required administrative tasks in a timely manner including: completing all new hire paperwork, submitting updated quarterly syllabus, posting bio and photo on the UCLA Extension website, accepting quarterly contract, submitting required textbook orders, and communicating classroom needs to the appropriate people. • Participate in required orientations and instructor training programs. • Employ culturally competent teaching methodologies in the classroom inclusive of both domestic and international student populations. • Stay current regarding the professional body of knowledge in the field • Respond to student inquiries about final grades and consult with Program Director as needed. • Maintain a record of final grades for up to 13 months following the last class session. Qualifications: • Creation of XR products, with portfolio examples and specific role(s) in producing • 3-5 years industry experience • Commitment to the highest level of academic standards and integrity. • Current knowledge of and demonstrated proficiency in subject area. • Highly effective oral and written communication skills, including the ability to convey conceptual and complex ideas and information. • Outstanding interpersonal skills and high emotional intelligence. • Proficiency in or willingness to learn the use of instructional technology and online teaching tools. • College-level and/or continuing education teaching experience preferred. • Experience designing curriculum and measuring student performance preferred.
UCLA Extension is considered one of the top programs of its kind, offering to more than 35,000 students per year approximately 4,500 classes and non-degree certificate programs to meet the professional development, continuing education and personal enrichment needs of the full spectrum of nontraditional students as well as companies and organizations throughout and beyond the Los Angeles region.
Special Conditions of Employment
Instructors are hired on a quarterly contract basis.
Because Extension is a division of UCLA, all Extension degree-credit instructors and courses must be formally approved according to the regulations of the Academic Senate of the University of California. Eligibility to teach a course is contingent upon this formal academic approval. Once approved, teaching assignments are “by agreement.” The Instructor’s Contract outlines the deliverables for the course, the course schedule, and the compensation terms, subject to Extension policies and procedures. UCLA Extension makes no commitment to hire an instructor until it has sent and received a signed
Instructor Contract. Should the course section an instructor plans to teach be cancelled for any reason, the Instructor Contract, including rights to compensation for future section meetings, is voided.
In an effort to promote and maintain a healthy environment for our students, visitors and employees, UCLA is a smoke-free site. Smoking is prohibited within the boundaries of all UCLA owned, occupied, leased, and associated building and facilities. UCLA Extension is an Equal Opportunity Employer that values a diverse workforce.
To Apply:
Please follow the “apply now” link to submit the following:
Completed application form
Current CV
Link to portfolio or work samples if available
Cover letter”
Basic qualifications (required at time of application)
Creation of XR products, with portfolio examples and specific role(s) in producing
3-5 years industry experience
Commitment to the highest level of academic standards and integrity.
Current knowledge of and demonstrated proficiency in subject area.
Highly effective oral and written communication skills, including the ability to convey conceptual and complex ideas and information.
Outstanding interpersonal skills and high emotional intelligence.
Proficiency in or willingness to learn the use of instructional technology and online
teaching tools.
College-level and/or continuing education teaching experience preferred.
Experience designing curriculum and measuring student performance preferred.
The specific AI — GPT-3, for Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 — was released in June 2020 by OpenAI, a research business co-founded by Elon Musk. It was developed to create content with a human language structure better than any of its predecessors.
According to a 2019 paper by the Allen Institute of Artificial Intelligence, machines fundamentally lack commonsense reasoning — the ability to understand what they’re writing. That finding is based on a critical reevaluation of standard tests to determine commonsense reasoning in machines, such as the Winograd Schema Challenge.
Which makes the results of the EduRef experiment that much more striking. The writing prompts were given in a variety of subjects, including U.S. History, Research Methods (Covid-19 Vaccine Efficacy), Creative Writing, and Law. GPT-3 managed to score a “C” average across four subjects from professors, failing only one assignment.
Aside from potentially troubling implications for educators, what this points to is a dawning inflection point for natural language processing, heretofore a decidedly human characteristic.
Information Media and Digital Literacy for GLST 195:Global Society & Citizenship
Instructor: Prof. Chuks Ugochukwu Per Syllabus:
COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES: The course meets Liberal Education Program (LEP), Goal Area 8: Global Perspective; and Goal Area 9: Ethical and Civic Responsibility objectives Goal Area 8: Global Perspective. Objective: Develop a comparative perspective and understanding of one’s place in a global context.
Students will be able to:
Describe and analyze political, economic, and cultural elements which influence relations of states and societies in their historical and contemporary dimensions.
Demonstrate knowledge of cultural, social, religious and linguistic differences.
Analyze specific international problems, illustrating the cultural,economic, and political differences that affect their solution.
Understand the role of a world citizen and the responsibility world citizens share for their common global future.
Goal Area 9: Ethical and Civic Responsibility Objective: Understand and evaluate ethical or civic issues and theories and participate in active citizenship or ethical judgment
OUR HUSKY COMPACT
Our Husky Compact is a bond shared by St. Cloud State University and its students that a SCSU education will prepare students for a life of growth and fulfillment – intellectually, professionally, and personally. When students graduate with an SCSU education, they will:
Think Creatively and Critically
Seek and Apply Knowledge
Communicate Effectively
Integrate Existing and Evolving Technologies
Engage as a Member of a Diverse and Multicultural World
Act with Personal Integrity and Civic Responsibility
+++++++++++++++++++++
Week ???: Information – Media and Digital Literacy
Mini-Assignment: After reading the information from the links above, take a minute to write out your own definition of 1. Fake News 2. Alternative Facts
Mini-Assignment: After reading the information from the links above, take a minute to write out your own definition of 1. Misinformation 2. Disinformation. What are their main characteristics? How do they differ?
Propaganda
Mini-Assignment: What is Propaganda? How do misinformation, disinformation, fake news and alternative facts fit into the process of propaganda?
Mini-Assignment: Using the information from the links above, can you establish the connection between conspiracy theories, propaganda, mis- and disinformation, fake news, alternative news and social media?
Mini-Assignment: using the info from the links above and/or information you have collected, can you define the role of bots and trolls in social media in regard to propaganda and conspiracy theories?
Mini-Assignment:: based on your own information and experience, as well as the information offered in the links, can you define your own resistance to clickbaits?
In a short paragraph, identify the issues you see as important to address in order to improve your own news literacy. time to accomplish the assignment: ~45 min (including listening to the podcast).
Why is it important to understand these processes?
Assignment: why is it important:
In a short paragraph, share your initial feeling about Fake News / Misinformation / Disinformation. 1. Do you think, it is important at all? 2. If yes, why; if not, why. 3. If yes, what is the importance, the impact? time to accomplish the assignment: ~5-10 min
How to deal with these processes
how do we apply hands-on critical thinking to withstand these processes?
Similarly to the assessment of popular information sources, academia requires vigorous vetting if the sources you will be using for your academic work. In the 21st century, your ability to find information in peer-reviewed journals might not be sufficient to assure accurate and reliable use of information from those resources for your research and writing. After your selection of peer-reviewed literature, you must be able to evaluate and determine the veracity and reliability of those sources. How do you evaluate a source of information to determine if it is appropriate for academic/scholarly use. There is no set “checklist” to complete but below are some criteria to consider when you are evaluating a source.
Here is a short (4 min) video introducing you to the well-known basics for evaluation of academic literature: https://youtu.be/qUd_gf2ypk4
ACCURACY
Does the author cite reliable sources?
How does the information compare with that in other works on the topic?
Can you determine if the information has gone through peer-review?
Are there factual, spelling, typographical, or grammatical errors?
AUDIENCE
Who do you think the authors are trying to reach?
Is the language, vocabulary, style and tone appropriate for intended audience?
What are the audience demographics? (age, educational level, etc.)
Are the authors targeting a particular group or segment of society?
AUTHORITY
Who wrote the information found in the article or on the site?
What are the author’s credentials/qualifications for this particular topic?
Is the author affiliated with a particular organization or institution?
What does that affiliation suggest about the author?
CURRENCY
Is the content current?
Does the date of the information directly affect the accuracy or usefulness of the information?
OBJECTIVITY/BIAS
What is the author’s or website’s point of view?
Is the point of view subtle or explicit?
Is the information presented as fact or opinion?
If opinion, is the opinion supported by credible data or informed argument?
Is the information one-sided?
Are alternate views represented?
Does the point of view affect how you view the information?
PURPOSE
What is the author’s purpose or objective, to explain, provide new information or news, entertain, persuade or sell?
Does the purpose affect how you view the information presented?
In 2021, however, all suggestions above may not be sufficient to distinguish a reliable source of information, even if the article made it through the peer-reviewed process. In time, you should learn to evaluate the research methods of the authors and decide if they are reliable. Same applies for the research findings and conclusions.
Assignment: seeking reliable information
From your syllabus weekly themes: 1. Food; 2. Health; 3. Energy; 4. Environment; 5. Security, chose a topic of your interest.
For example: Food: raising cattle for food contributes to climate changes, because of the methane gas, or Health: COVID is the same (or not the same) as the flu; or Energy: Fossil energy is bad (or good) for the environment; etc.
Please consult with me (email me for a zoom appointment: pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu), if you need to discuss the choice and narrowing down of the topic.
Once you decide on the topic, do the research by collecting four sources of information:
The first couple of sources will be from popular media, whereas each of the two articles will be having an opposite approach, arguments and understanding of the issue. For example, one article will claim fossil energy is bad for the environment and the other one will argue fossil fuel has insignificant impact on climate change. You must be able to evaluate the veracity and the leaning of each source. The source can be a newspaper or magazine article, video (TV or Social Media), audio (podcasts, TV, etc.), presentations (PowerPoint, SlideShare, etc.).
Having troubles finding opposing resources? Feel welcome to search for your topic among these news outlets on the conservative side: https://www.conservapedia.com/Top_Conservative_news_websites
and the https://aelieve.com/rankings/websites/category/news-media/top-liberal-websites/
In the same fashion, you will evaluate the second couple of sources from peer-reviewed journals. Each source will have different approach, argument and understanding of the issue and you must evaluate the robustness of the research method.
time to accomplish the assignment: ~30 min
Module 2 (video to introduce students to the readings and expected tasks)
Digital Citizenship, Global Citizenship and Multiculturalism
Assignment:
Global Citizenship and Multiculturalism and Information and Media Literacy
Study the following tweet feed https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2021/02/18/facebook-google-australia/
If the information from the tweet feed is insufficient, research the issue by seeking reliable sources. (In a short paragraph defend your choice of reliable sources).
What do you see as more important issue: the Facebook stance that it can be a subject of Australian law or the Australian government stance that Facebook is interfering in Australian life with its news delivery? Is Facebook a news outlet or a platform for news outlets? Does Facebook need to be regulated? By who; each country do have to regulate Facebook or Facebook needs to be regulated globally?
time to accomplish the assignment: ~30 min
Module 3 (video to introduce students to the readings and expected tasks)
The 7th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN 2021) will be an innovative and interactive virtual gathering for a strengthening global network of researchers and practitioners collaborating to develop the scientific, technical, and applied potential of immersive learning. It is the premier scholarly event focusing on advances in the use of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), and other extended reality (XR) technologies to support learners across the full span of learning–from K-12 through higher education to work-based, informal, and lifelong learning contexts.
Following the success of iLRN 2020, our first fully online and in-VR conference, this year’s conference will once again be based on the iLRN Virtual Campus, powered by VirBELA, but with a range of activities taking place on various other XR simulation, gaming, and other platforms. Scholars and professionals working from informal and formal education settings as well as those representing diverse industry sectors are invited to participate in the conference, where they may share their research findings, experiences, and insights; network and establish partnerships to envision and shape the future of XR and immersive technologies for learning; and contribute to the emerging scholarly knowledge base on how these technologies can be used to create experiences that educate, engage, and excite learners.
Note: Last year’s iLRN conference drew over 3,600 attendees from across the globe, making the scheduling of sessions a challenge. This year’s conference activities will be spread over a four-week period so as to give attendees more opportunities to participate at times that are conducive to their local time zones.
##### TOPIC AREAS #####
XR and immersive learning in/for:
Serious Games • 3D Collaboration • eSports • AI & Machine Learning • Robotics • Digital Twins • Embodied Pedagogical Agents • Medical & Healthcare Education • Workforce & Industry • Cultural Heritage • Language Learning • K-12 STEM • Higher Ed & Workforce STEM • Museums & Libraries • Informal Learning • Community & Civic Engagement • Special Education • Geosciences • Data Visualization and Analytics • Assessment & Evaluation
##### SUBMISSION STREAMS & CATEGORIES #####
ACADEMIC STREAM (Refereed paper published in proceedings):
– Full (6-8 pages) paper for oral presentation
– Short paper (4-5 pages) for oral presentation
– Work-in-progress paper (2-3 pages) for poster presentation
– Doctoral colloquium paper (2-3 pages)
PRACTITIONER STREAM (Refereed paper published in proceedings):
– Oral presentation
– Poster presentation
– Guided virtual adventures
– Immersive learning project showcase
NONTRADITIONAL SESSION STREAM (1-2 page extended abstract describing session published in proceedings):
– Workshop
– Special session
– Panel session
##### SESSION TYPES & SESSION FORMATS #####
– Oral Presentation: Pre-recorded video + 60-minute live in-world discussion with
others presenting on similar/related topics (groupings of presenters into sessions determined by Program Committee)
– Poster Presentation: Live poster session in 3D virtual exhibition hall; pre-recorded video optional
– Doctoral Colloquium: 60-minute live in-world discussion with other doctoral researchers; pre-recorded video optional
– Guided Virtual Adventures: 60-minute small-group guided tours of to various social and collaborative XR/immersive environments and platforms
– Immersive Learning Project Showcase: WebXR space to assemble a collection of virtual artifacts, accessible to attendees throughout the conference
– Workshop: 1- or 2-hour live hands-on session
– Special Session: 30- or 60-minute live interactive session held in world; may optionally be linked to one or more papers
– Panel Session: 60-minute live in-world discussion with a self-formed group of 3-5 panelists (including a lead panelist who serves as a moderator)
Please see the conference website for templates and guidelines.
##### PROGRAM TRACKS #####
Papers and proposals may be submitted to one of 10 program tracks, the first nine of which correspond to the iLRN Houses of application, and the tenth of which is intended for papers making knowledge contributions to the learning sciences, computer science, and/or game studies that are not linked to any particular application area:
Track 1. Assessment and Evaluation (A&E)
Track 2. Early Childhood Development & Learning (ECDL)
Track 4. Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
Track 5. K-12 STEM Education
Track 6. Language, Culture, & Heritage (LCH)
Track 7. Medical & Healthcare Education (MHE)
Track 8. Nature & Environmental Sciences (NES)
Track 9. Workforce Development & Industry Training (WDIT)
Track 10. Basic Research and Theory in Immersive Learning (not linked to any particular application area)
##### PAPER/PROPOSAL SUBMISSION & REVIEW #####
Papers for the Academic Stream and extended-abstract proposals for the Nontraditional Session Stream must be prepared in standard IEEE double-column US Letter format using Microsoft Word or LaTeX, and will be accepted only via the online submission system, accessible via the conference website (from which guidelines and templates are also available).
Proposals for the Practitioner Stream are to be submitted via an online form, also accessible from the conference website.
A blind peer-review process will be used to evaluate all submissions.
##### IMPORTANT DATES #####
– Main round submission deadline – all submission types welcome: 2021-01-15
– Notification of review outcomes from main submission round: 2021-04-01
– Late round submission deadline – Work-in-progress papers, practitioner presentations, and nontraditional sessions only: 2021-04-08
– Camera-ready papers for proceedings due – Full and short papers: 2021-04-15
– Presenter registration deadline – Full and short papers (also deadline for early-bird registration rates): 2021-04-15
– Notification of review outcomes from late submission round: 2021-04-19
– Camera-ready work-in-progress papers and nontraditional session extended abstracts for proceedings due; final practitioner abstracts for conference program due: 2021-05-03
– Deadline for uploading presentation materials (videos, slides for oral presentations, posters for poster presentations): 2021-05-10
– Conference opening: 2021-05-17
– Conference closing: 2021-06-10
*Full and short papers can only be submitted in the main round.
##### PUBLICATION & INDEXING #####
All accepted and registered papers in the Academic Stream that are presented at iLRN 2021 and all extended abstracts describing the Nontraditional Sessions presented at the conference will be published in the conference proceedings and submitted to the IEEE Xplore(r) digital library.
Content loaded into Xplore is made available by IEEE to its abstracting and indexing partners, including Elsevier (Scopus, EiCompendex), Clarivate Analytics (CPCI–part of Web of Science) and others, for potential inclusion in their respective databases. In addition, the authors of selected papers may be invited to submit revised and expanded versions of their papers for possible publication in the IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (2019 JCR Impact Factor: 2.714), the Journal of Universal Computer Science (2019 JCR Impact Factor: 0.91), or another Scopus and/or Web of Science-indexed journal, subject to the relevant journal’s regular editorial and peer-review policies and procedures.
##### CONTACT #####
Inquiries regarding the iLRN 2020 conference should be directed to the Conference Secretariat at conference@immersivelrn.org.
An electronic porfolio (e-portfolio) is a purposeful collection of sample student work, demonstrations, and artifacts that showcase student’s learning progression, achievement, and evidence of what students can do. The collection can include essays and papers (text-based), blog, multimedia (recordings of demonstrations, interviews, presentations, etc.), graphic. https://teaching.berkeley.edu/resources/assessment-and-evaluation/design-assessment/e-portfolio
a personal portfolio tool for storing, organizing, reflecting on, and sharing items that represent your learning. You can include items such as documents, graphics, audio files, videos, presentations, and course work to demonstrate your improvement or mastery in certain areas. https://uco.teamdynamix.com/TDClient/1843/Portal/KB/ArticleDet?ID=42294
