Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Brinko, K. T. (1990). Instructional consultation with feedback in higher education. Journal of Higher Education 61: 65–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Crocker, L., and Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • d'Apollonia, S., and Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist 52(11): 1198–1208.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Gagné, R. (1985). The Conditions for Learning and Theory of Instruction (4th Ed.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hampton, S. E., and Reiser, R. A. (2000). Instructional Activities Feedback Form. Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University.

  • Hoyt, D. P., and Howard, G. S. (1978). The evaluation of faculty development programs. Research in Higher Education 8(1): 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987a). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction 26(8): 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987b). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance & Instruction 26(9): 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson-Rose, J., and Menges, R., (1981). Improving college teaching: A critical review of research. Review of Educational Research 51: 403–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist 52(11): 1218–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Murray, J. P. (1999). Faulty development in a national sample of community colleges. Community College Review 27(3): 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Oosterhof, A. C. (1999). Developing and Using Classroom Assessments (2nd Ed.), Merrill, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orban, D. A. (1981). An ethnographic study of consultation to improve college instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International 42: 5040A. (University Microfilms No. 82–12435)

  • 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 

  • Reiser, R., and Dick, W. (1996). Instructional Planning: A Guide for Teachers (2nd Ed.), Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rutt, D. P. (1979). An investigation of the consultation styles of instructional developers. Dissertation Abstracts International 40: 624A. (University Microfilms No. 79–16959)

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Wilson, R. C. (1986). Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants. Journal of Higher Education 57: 196–211.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott E. Hampton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hampton, S.E., Reiser, R.A. Effects of a Theory-Based Feedback and Consultation Process on Instruction and Learning in College Classrooms. Research in Higher Education 45, 497–527 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000032326.00426.d5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000032326.00426.d5

Navigation