home - login - register

Journal Article Detail Page

written by Carl E. Wieman
A major problem in higher education is the lack of a good way to measure the quality of teaching. This makes it very difficult for faculty to objectively determine the quality of their teaching, work systematically to improve it, and document that quality. Institutions in turn are unable to incentivize, track, or demonstrate to external stakeholders improvement in the quality of the teaching that they provide. These deficiencies are becoming increasingly conspicuous in light of the calls for greater accountability in higher education and for the adoption of more effective, research-proven teaching practices, particularly in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (the STEM disciplines).

In this paper I examine the context in which teaching evaluation is done at research universities. I then consider the requirements for methods of evaluating teaching quality in higher education and how well current evaluation methods meet those requirements. Finally, I propose a new method based on the notion that the teaching methods used by an instructor are a more accurate proxy for teaching effectiveness than anything else that is practical to measure--a concept that has emerged from the results of STEM education research.
Change: Magazine of Higher Learning: Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages 6-15
Subjects Levels Resource Types
Education - Basic Research
- Achievement
- Assessment
= Self Assessment
- Sample Population
= Instructor: Faculty
- Teacher Characteristics
= Pedagogical Content Knowledge
General Physics
- General
Other Sciences
- Chemistry
- Engineering
- Mathematics
- Graduate/Professional
- Reference Material
= Article
PER-Central Type Intended Users Ratings
- PER Literature
- Professional/Practitioners
- Administrators
- Researchers
- Educators
  • Currently 0.0/5

Want to rate this material?
Login here!


Formats:
text/html
application/pdf
Access Rights:
Available by subscription and
Available for purchase
Restriction:
© 2015 Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
DOI:
10.1080/00091383.2015.996077
Keywords:
education reform, measuring learning outcomes, teacher effectiveness, teacher evaluation, undergraduate teacher evaluation
Record Creator:
Metadata instance created September 9, 2022 by Adrian Madsen
Record Updated:
November 30, 2022 by Caroline Hall
Last Update
when Cataloged:
February 6, 2015
ComPADRE is beta testing Citation Styles!

Record Link
AIP Format
C. Wieman, , Change: Mag. Higher Learn. 47 (1), 6 (2015), WWW Document, (https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2015.996077).
AJP/PRST-PER
C. Wieman, A Better Way to Evaluate Undergraduate Teaching, Change: Mag. Higher Learn. 47 (1), 6 (2015), <https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2015.996077>.
APA Format
Wieman, C. (2015, February 6). A Better Way to Evaluate Undergraduate Teaching. Change: Mag. Higher Learn., 47(1), 6-15. Retrieved April 20, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2015.996077
Chicago Format
Wieman, Carl. "A Better Way to Evaluate Undergraduate Teaching." Change: Mag. Higher Learn. 47, no. 1, (February 6, 2015): 6-15, https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2015.996077 (accessed 20 April 2024).
MLA Format
Wieman, Carl. "A Better Way to Evaluate Undergraduate Teaching." Change: Mag. Higher Learn. 47.1 (2015): 6-15. 20 Apr. 2024 <https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2015.996077>.
BibTeX Export Format
@article{ Author = "Carl Wieman", Title = {A Better Way to Evaluate Undergraduate Teaching}, Journal = {Change: Mag. Higher Learn.}, Volume = {47}, Number = {1}, Pages = {6-15}, Month = {February}, Year = {2015} }
Refer Export Format

%A Carl Wieman %T A Better Way to Evaluate Undergraduate Teaching %J Change: Mag. Higher Learn. %V 47 %N 1 %D February 6, 2015 %P 6-15 %U https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2015.996077 %O text/html

EndNote Export Format

%0 Journal Article %A Wieman, Carl %D February 6, 2015 %T A Better Way to Evaluate Undergraduate Teaching %J Change: Mag. Higher Learn. %V 47 %N 1 %P 6-15 %8 February 6, 2015 %U https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2015.996077


Disclaimer: ComPADRE offers citation styles as a guide only. We cannot offer interpretations about citations as this is an automated procedure. Please refer to the style manuals in the Citation Source Information area for clarifications.

Citation Source Information

The AIP Style presented is based on information from the AIP Style Manual.

The AJP/PRST-PER presented is based on the AIP Style with the addition of journal article titles and conference proceeding article titles.

The APA Style presented is based on information from APA Style.org: Electronic References.

The Chicago Style presented is based on information from Examples of Chicago-Style Documentation.

The MLA Style presented is based on information from the MLA FAQ.

Save to my folders

Contribute

Similar Materials