Research in Higher Education

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 497–527 | Cite as

Effects of a Theory-Based Feedback and Consultation Process on Instruction and Learning in College Classrooms

Article

Abstract

This study examined how midterm student ratings feedback provided to teaching assistants via a theory-based ratings instrument, combined with consultation on instructional practices, would affect teaching practices, ratings of teaching effectiveness, and student learning and motivation. The student ratings instrument that was employed focused on a series of instructional activities derived from Gagné's theory of instruction and Reiser and Dick's instructional model. Thirty-seven teaching assistants in undergraduate computer science and chemistry courses were randomly assigned to either a feedback + consultation group or a no-feedback group. Results of this study indicated that the feedback and consultation process had a significant impact on instructional practices and ratings of teaching effectiveness. Student learning and student motivation were positively correlated with the frequency with which the various instructional activities examined in this study were utilized. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.

student ratings feedback instructional consultation teaching effectiveness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abrami, P. C., d'Apollonia, S., and Cohen, P. A. (1990). Validity of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(2): 219–231.Google Scholar
  2. Brinko, K. T. (1988). Instructional consultation with feedback in higher education: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International 49(8): 2120A–2121A. (University Microfilms No. 88–22955)Google Scholar
  3. Brinko, K. T. (1990). Instructional consultation with feedback in higher education. Journal of Higher Education 61: 65–83.Google Scholar
  4. Brinko, K. T. (1991). The interactions of teaching improvement. In: Theall, M., and Franklin, J. (eds.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning: No. 48, Effective practices for Improving Teaching, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 39–49.Google Scholar
  5. Cashin, W. E. (1995). Student Ratings of Teaching: The Research Revisited (IDEA Paper No. 32), Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development, Manhattan.Google Scholar
  6. Cashin, W. (1999). Using student feedback to improve teaching. In: Seldin, P. (ed.), Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching: A Practical Guide to Improved Faculty Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions, Anker, Bolton, MA, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, P. (1980). Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: A meta-analysis of findings. Research in Higher Education 13(4): 321–341.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research 51(3): 281–309.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, P. A. (1987, April). A critical analysis and reanalysis of the multisection validity meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. Cranton, P., and Smith, R. A. (1990). Reconsidering the unit of analysis: A model of student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(2): 207–212.Google Scholar
  12. Crocker, L., and Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Curry, A., Marcus, D., Garret, M., and Hotinski, R. (1999, June 28). Graduate students don the union label. U.S. News & World Report 126(25): 12.Google Scholar
  14. d'Apollonia, S., and Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist 52(11): 1198–1208.Google Scholar
  15. Erickson, G., and Sheehan, D. (1976, April). An evaluation of a teaching improvement process for university faculty. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 131 111)Google Scholar
  16. Feldman, K. A. (1989). The association between student ratings of specific instructional dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the syntheses of data from multisection validity studies. Research in Higher Education 30(6): 583–645.Google Scholar
  17. Feldman, K. A. (1997). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In: Perry, R. P., and Smart, J. C. (eds.), Effective Teaching in Higher Education: Research and Practice, Agathon, New York, pp. 368–395.Google Scholar
  18. Gagné, R. (1985). The Conditions for Learning and Theory of Instruction (4th Ed.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Hampton, S. E. (2001). Student Ratings Feedback and Consultation on Instructional Practices: Effects on Teaching, Learning and Motivation. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 2001. Dissertation Abstracts International 62(1): 131.Google Scholar
  20. Hampton, S. E., and Reiser, R. A. (2000). Instructional Activities Feedback Form. Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University.Google Scholar
  21. Hoyt, D. P., and Howard, G. S. (1978). The evaluation of faculty development programs. Research in Higher Education 8(1): 25–38.Google Scholar
  22. Ingram, K. (2001). The effects of reflective thinking training on TAs' reflective thinking, use of instructional activities, instructional effectiveness, motivation to teach and their students' attitudes toward instruction. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University. Dissertation Abstracts International 62(2): 486.Google Scholar
  23. Keller, J. M. (1987a). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction 26(8): 1–7.Google Scholar
  24. Keller, J. M. (1987b). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance & Instruction 26(9): 1–8.Google Scholar
  25. Levinson-Rose, J., and Menges, R., (1981). Improving college teaching: A critical review of research. Review of Educational Research 51: 403–434.Google Scholar
  26. L'Hommedieu, R., Menges, R., and Brinko, K. (1990). Methodological explanations for the modest effects of feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(2): 232–241.Google Scholar
  27. Marsh, H. W. (1984). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology 76(5): 707–754.Google Scholar
  28. Marsh, H., and Roche, L. (1993). The use of students' evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal 30(1): 217–251.Google Scholar
  29. Marsh, H., and Roche, L. (1997). Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist 52(11): 1187–1197.Google Scholar
  30. McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist 52(11): 1218–1225.Google Scholar
  31. McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y. G., Moffett, M., Neigler, J., Walz, M., and Baldwin, R. (1980). Using student ratings and consultation to improve instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology 50: 168–174.Google Scholar
  32. Moore, M. S. (1996). Assessing college effectiveness: A comparison of graduate TAs and students. Dissertation Abstracts International 57: 05A. (University Microfilms No. 96–29921)Google Scholar
  33. Murray, H. G. (1983). Low-inference classroom teaching behaviors and student ratings of college teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology 75(1): 138–149.Google Scholar
  34. Murray, J. P. (1999). Faulty development in a national sample of community colleges. Community College Review 27(3): 47–64.Google Scholar
  35. Nelson, G. L. (1990). International teaching assistants: A review of research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the teachers of English to speakers of other languages, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED 321 535)Google Scholar
  36. Oosterhof, A. C. (1999). Developing and Using Classroom Assessments (2nd Ed.), Merrill, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  37. Orban, D. A. (1981). An ethnographic study of consultation to improve college instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International 42: 5040A. (University Microfilms No. 82–12435)Google Scholar
  38. Overall, J. U., and Marsh, H. W. (1979). Mid-term feedback from students: Its relationship to instructional improvement and students' cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology 71(6): 856–865.Google Scholar
  39. Reiser, R., and Dick, W. (1996). Instructional Planning: A Guide for Teachers (2nd Ed.), Allyn and Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
  40. Rushin, J., De Saix, J., and Lumsden, A. (1997). Graduate teaching assistant training: A basis for improvement of college biology teaching & faculty development? The American Biology Teacher 59(Feb): 86–90.Google Scholar
  41. Rutt, D. P. (1979). An investigation of the consultation styles of instructional developers. Dissertation Abstracts International 40: 624A. (University Microfilms No. 79–16959)Google Scholar
  42. Shannon, D., Twale, D., and Moore, M. (1998). TA teaching effectiveness: The impact of training and teaching experience. The Journal of Higher Education 69(4): 440–466.Google Scholar
  43. Twale, D. J., Shannon, D. M., and Moore, M. S. (1997). NGTA and IGTA training and experience: Comparisons between self-ratings and undergraduate student evaluations. Innovative Higher Education 22(1): 61–77.Google Scholar
  44. Weimer, M. (1997). Exploring the implications: From research to practice. In: Perry, R. P., and Smart, J. C. (eds.), Effective Teaching in Higher Education: Research and Practice, Agathon, New York, pp. 411–435.Google Scholar
  45. Wilson, R. C. (1986). Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants. Journal of Higher Education 57: 196–211.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Behavioral Sciences and LeadershipU.S. Military AcademyWest Point
  2. 2.Florida State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations