Utilizing instructional consultations to enhance the teaching performance of engineering faculty

Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 97, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 397-411

  Finelli, Cynthia J ^a   Ott, Molly ^b   Gottfried, Amy C ^c   Hershock, Chad ^d   O'neal, Christopher ^d   Kaplan, Matthew ^d  

^a 4117 Engineering Research Building I   (United States)

^b 610 East University   (United States)

^c 930 N University   (United States)

^d CRLT   (United States)

Author keywords

Improving teaching; Instructional consultation; Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

Indexed keywords

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE; TEACHING;

ENGINEERING CULTURE; ENGINEERING FACULTY; INSTRUCTIONAL CONSULTATION; MULTIPLE MODES; SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTIONAL DIAGNOSIS (SGID); STUDENT FEEDBACK; TEACHING AND LEARNING;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 68349093886     PISSN: 10694730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00989.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aleamoni, L. M. 1999. Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 13(2):153-66.
2. Black, B. 1998. Using the SGID method for a variety of purposes. In To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development, ed. M. Kaplan, 245-262. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
3. Blackburn, R., and J. Lawrence. 1995. Faculty at work Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
4. Brinko, K. T. 1990. Instructional consultation with feedback in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education 61(1):65-83.
5. Brinko, K. T. 1993. The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? The Journal of Higher Education 64(5):574-93.
6. Brinko, K. T., and R. J. Menges, ed. 1997. Practically speaking-A sourcebook for instructional consultants in higher education. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
7. Cashin, W. E. 1990. Students do rate different academic fields differently. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 43:113-22.
8. Cashin, W. E. 1995. Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited. Idea Paper No. 32. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.
9. Cashin, W. E., and B. M. Perrin. 1983. Do college teachers who voluntarily have courses evaluated receive higher student ratings? Journal of Educational Psychology 75(4):595-602.
10. Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. 2008. Summary of CRLT Services for 2007-2008. http://www.crlt.umich.edu/aboutcrlt/servicessummary0708. php (last accessed September 2008).
11. Center for Research on Learning and Teaching North. 2008. Overview of CRLT North. http://www.engin.umich.edu/teaching/crltnorth/(last accessed September 2008).
12. Chickering, A. W., and Z. F. Gamson. 1987. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin 39(8):3-7.
13. Clark, D., and M. Redmond. 1982. Small group instructional diagnosis: Finalreport. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED217954.
14. Cohen, P. 1980. Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: A meta-analysis. Research in Higher Education 13: 321-41.
15. Cranton, P. and R. A. Smith. 1990. Reconsidering the unit of analysis: A model of student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(2):207-12.
16. Cross, K. P. 1993. On college teaching. Journal of Engineering Education 82(1):9-14.
17. Diamond, M. R. 2004. The usefulness of structured mid-term feedback as a catalyst for change in higher education classes. Active Learning in Higher Education 5(3):217-31.
18. Felder, R. M. 2004. Teaching engineering at a research university: Problems and possibilities. Educación Química 15(1):40-42.
19. Hake, R. R. 1998. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Association of Physics Teachers 66(1):64-74.
20. Harrison, P. D., D. K. Douglas, and C. A. Burdsal. 2004. The relative merits of different types of overall evaluations of teaching effectiveness. Research in Higher Education 45(3):311-23.
21. Hicks, O. 1999. A conceptual framework for instructional consultation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 79:9-18.
22. Knapper, C. and S. Piccinin. 1999. Consulting about teaching: An overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 79:3-8.
23. Lenze, L. F. 1997. Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID). In Practically speaking-A sourcebookfor instructional consultants in higher education, eds. K. T. Brinko and R. J. Menges, 143-146. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
24. Levinson-Rose, J., and R. J. Menges. 1981. Improving college teaching: A critical review of research. Review of Educational Research 51(3):403-34.
25. Lewis, K. G., and J. T. Povlacs, eds. 2001. Face to face-A sourcebook of instructional consultation techniques for faculty/instructional developers. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
26. L'Hommedieu, R., R. J. Menges, and K. T. Brinko. 1990. Methodological explanations for the modest effects of feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology 82:232-41.
27. Marsh, H. W. 1984. Students' evaluations of teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology 76(5):707-54.
28. Marsh, H. W., and M. Bailey. 1993. Multidimensional students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness: A profile analysis. The Journal'of'Higher Education 64(1):1-18.
29. Marsh, H. W., and L. Roche. 1993. The use of students' evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal 30(1):217-51.
30. Murray, H. G. 1985. Classroom teaching behaviors related to college teaching effectiveness. New Directionsfor Teaching and Learning 23:21-34.
31. Menges, R. J., and K. T. Brinko. 1986. Effects of student evaluation feedback: A meta-analysis of higher education research. ERIC 270 408. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
32. National Academy of Engineering 2007. Engineering education centers. Roundtable members.http://www.nae.edu/nae/caseecomnm.nsf/weblinks/NFOY- 5RUQPF?OpenDocument (last accessed September, 2008).
33. Piccinin, S. 1999. How individual consultation affects teaching. New Directionsfor Teaching and Learning 79:71-83.
34. Piccinin, S., C. Cristi, and M. McCoy. 1999. The impact of individual consultation on student ratings of teaching. The International Journal for Academic Development 4(2):75-88.
35. Piccinin, S., and J. Moore. 2002. The impact of individual consultation on the teaching of younger versus older faculty. The International Journal for Academic Development 7(2):123-34.
36. Professional and Organizational Development in Higher Education Network. 1995. Celebrate Us! [Brochure].
37. Sorcinelli, M. 1991. Research findings on seven principles. New Directionsfor Teaching and Learning 47:13-25.
38. Taylor-Way, D., and K. T. Brinko. 1989. Using video recall for improving professional competency in instructional consultation. To Improve the Academy 8:141-56.
39. Weimer, M. 1990. Improving college teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40. Weston, C, and L. McAlpine. 1999. Toward an integrated approach to instructional consultation. New Directionsfor Teaching and Learning 79: 85-95.
41. Wilson, R. C. 1986. Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants. Journal of Higher Education 57:196-211.