评估教学效能的制度方法:同侪评议对晋升及终身教职的作用

IF 0.4 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Pub Date : 2023-01-12 DOI:10.7202/1095479ar
Keif Godbout-Kinney, Gavan P. L. Watson
{"title":"评估教学效能的制度方法:同侪评议对晋升及终身教职的作用","authors":"Keif Godbout-Kinney, Gavan P. L. Watson","doi":"10.7202/1095479ar","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A growing body of literature has identified student evaluations of teaching (SETs) as introducing bias against minority faculty members and not serving as a reliable or valid measure of teaching effectiveness. This lack of reliability and validity presents issues for university tenure and promotion committees, as these institutional processes necessarily require accurate, objective, and holistically informed modes of evaluation to recognize teaching achievements. Summative peer review of teaching (SPRT) is an alternative mode of assessment that aims to provide evidence of teaching effectiveness to inform promotion and tenure. SPRT, as an institutional practice, has been adopted at a small cohort of institutions of higher education, marking a potential shift in practice. This article examines SETs to articulate the problematic elements introduced by SETs, specifically to examine if SPRT can serve as a viable alternative. By describing the SPRT processes that four institutions have taken, the authors aim to articulate these emerging approaches to collecting evidence of teaching effectiveness. In this descriptive work, it is our secondary contention that SPRT, through intentional design and facilitation, can offer a process that does not introduce bias in the same way as SETs and thus, can also be used to satisfy the growing need for practices that help achieve, in part, institutional goals related to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).","PeriodicalId":43834,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional Approaches to Evaluate Teaching Effectiveness: The Role of Summative Peer Review of Teaching for Promotion and Tenure\",\"authors\":\"Keif Godbout-Kinney, Gavan P. L. Watson\",\"doi\":\"10.7202/1095479ar\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A growing body of literature has identified student evaluations of teaching (SETs) as introducing bias against minority faculty members and not serving as a reliable or valid measure of teaching effectiveness. This lack of reliability and validity presents issues for university tenure and promotion committees, as these institutional processes necessarily require accurate, objective, and holistically informed modes of evaluation to recognize teaching achievements. Summative peer review of teaching (SPRT) is an alternative mode of assessment that aims to provide evidence of teaching effectiveness to inform promotion and tenure. SPRT, as an institutional practice, has been adopted at a small cohort of institutions of higher education, marking a potential shift in practice. This article examines SETs to articulate the problematic elements introduced by SETs, specifically to examine if SPRT can serve as a viable alternative. By describing the SPRT processes that four institutions have taken, the authors aim to articulate these emerging approaches to collecting evidence of teaching effectiveness. In this descriptive work, it is our secondary contention that SPRT, through intentional design and facilitation, can offer a process that does not introduce bias in the same way as SETs and thus, can also be used to satisfy the growing need for practices that help achieve, in part, institutional goals related to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).\",\"PeriodicalId\":43834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7202/1095479ar\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1095479ar","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

越来越多的文献认为,学生对教学的评价(SET)引入了对少数族裔教师的偏见,不能作为衡量教学效果的可靠或有效的指标。这种缺乏可靠性和有效性的情况给大学终身教职和晋升委员会带来了问题,因为这些制度过程必然需要准确、客观和全面知情的评估模式来认可教学成就。教学总结性同行评审(SPRT)是一种替代评估模式,旨在提供教学有效性的证据,为晋升和终身教职提供信息。SPRT作为一种制度实践,已在一小部分高等教育机构中被采用,这标志着实践的潜在转变。本文研究了SETs,以阐明SETs引入的问题元素,特别是研究SPRT是否可以作为一种可行的替代方案。通过描述四所机构采取的SPRT过程,作者旨在阐明这些新出现的收集教学有效性证据的方法。在这项描述性工作中,我们的次要论点是,SPRT通过有意的设计和促进,可以提供一个不会像SET那样引入偏见的过程,因此,也可以用来满足对实践的日益增长的需求,这些实践在一定程度上有助于实现与公平、多样性和包容性(EDI)相关的制度目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Institutional Approaches to Evaluate Teaching Effectiveness: The Role of Summative Peer Review of Teaching for Promotion and Tenure
A growing body of literature has identified student evaluations of teaching (SETs) as introducing bias against minority faculty members and not serving as a reliable or valid measure of teaching effectiveness. This lack of reliability and validity presents issues for university tenure and promotion committees, as these institutional processes necessarily require accurate, objective, and holistically informed modes of evaluation to recognize teaching achievements. Summative peer review of teaching (SPRT) is an alternative mode of assessment that aims to provide evidence of teaching effectiveness to inform promotion and tenure. SPRT, as an institutional practice, has been adopted at a small cohort of institutions of higher education, marking a potential shift in practice. This article examines SETs to articulate the problematic elements introduced by SETs, specifically to examine if SPRT can serve as a viable alternative. By describing the SPRT processes that four institutions have taken, the authors aim to articulate these emerging approaches to collecting evidence of teaching effectiveness. In this descriptive work, it is our secondary contention that SPRT, through intentional design and facilitation, can offer a process that does not introduce bias in the same way as SETs and thus, can also be used to satisfy the growing need for practices that help achieve, in part, institutional goals related to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Examining the Virtual Leadership of Leaders in Higher Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study Educational Politics and Policy Change in Neoliberal Times: An Argumentative Discourse Analysis Flourishing School Leadership: Perspectives of Canada’s Outstanding Principals Academic Women’s Labour During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review and Thematic Analysis of the Literature Les diplômés d’immersion française et leurs motivations liées au choix de la langue dans la poursuite des études postsecondaires
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1