|
PARTICIPATION
Faculty
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
TE QA
System
On-Going Evaluation and Communication
of TE-QA System
Students
Faculty
Support
Pilot
Test
Administration
Students
2007 Annual International CHRIE Conference & Exposition
97
self reports and peer-reviews of faculty performance. The typical student feedback/surveys in the evaluation process
are recommended here, as well.
Several examples of the end result from this first stage of the development process is included in Appendix
A which contains TE-QA instructional criteria (i.e. course integration) and measures (i.e. scale: 1=no required ethics
integration to 5=ethics example(s)/application(s) integration from four or more other courses from four different
programs). More in-depth detail on the exampled criteria and measures illustrated in Appendix A will be discussed
in Part II.
Once the TE-QA criteria and measures are developed, the second stage encompasses the development of
TE-QA course standards. Once again, this stage, as with every stage in the modeled development process in Figure
1, requires external and internal input from external sources and participation from the various stakeholders. Even
though Feinstein’s 2005 literature review of 23 studies found no empirical evidence of the effectiveness of
instructional techniques against successful learner outcomes it is anticipated that future research will reflect
empirically-based findings of teaching methodology effectiveness (Okumus and Wong, 2004); and thus, a suggested
starting point for development of course standards is to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature.
Once the literature review is completed, it is suggested for faculty to have direct involvement in setting the
various course standards. An effective approach here is to direct individual faculty or a small group of members to
established preliminary standards for their respective courses. Once faculty-recommended standards for each course
are established, their suggested standard levels should be reviewed by a panel of colleagues and academic
administrators for an overall consensus of opinion and agreement. This review process should consider the
appropriateness of the standard for the course, as well as for the overall program and institution(s). For example, if
the overall goal of a program is to have students exit with an ample amount of experience in individual and group
projects then the best allocation of project type (individual or group) among the body of courses will have to be
taken into consideration before finalizing the assigned standard levels for each course.
The third stage of the development phase involves establishing and developing the TE-QA Assessment-
Success criteria. Assessment methodologies can range from review of course materials, classroom observations,
videotapes/audiotapes of classes, student feedback/surveys, faculty self and peer evaluations to formal reviews of
academic work of students, student learner outcomes and exit competencies, and student portfolios. Other more
program/institutional-wide success criteria can include such factors as faculty portfolios, faculty awards, alumni
success, contributors/benefactors, institutional standing, recognition, etc. Suggested at this stage is to involve
faculty in self-evaluations and peer reviews. For instance, using the example criteria and measures presented in
Appendix A, faculty would rate themselves and their peer’s performance level on each TE-QA criteria based on
established measures (i.e. scale: 1=no required practical application assignments to 5=four required practical
application assignments). Then based on each course assigned criteria standards, faculty would rate the performance
standing on a base-line measure relative to meeting the established assigned standards for each criteria (i.e. scale:
1=below standard, 2=approaching standard, 3=meeting standard, 4=exceeding standard, 5=exceptional). One of the
most challenging aspects of an assessment system is not the carrying out of such an evaluation to determine if
faculty are meeting certain instructional standards as illustrated in this one example of this paper, but rather
assessing the effectiveness of an instructional system based on ultimate student performance, including student
learner outcomes and exit competencies upon graduation and alumni success, as well as overall institutional
standing and contributors/benefactors. The broad-based policies, systems and training required for a fully
comprehensive, effective assessment system can be extensive and challenging, and goes beyond the scope of this
paper.
The last stage of this phase involves the development of the TE-QA implementation strategy. A well
thought out and orchestrated launching of any program is critical to the overall acceptance, implementation and
success, as well as its long-term sustainability and longevity. Recommended in the initial implementation phase is
piloting of the TE-QA system before a full, across the board launching. Also extending to faculty such support as
training, technology, graduate assistants and the like may be required initially and/or on as needed bases. The final
stage of the implementation phase is an on-going evaluation of the relevancy and effectiveness of the TE-QA system
and communication with administration, faculty, students and other stakeholders. As with any well developed
system, this aspect of the TE-QA process entails continually seeking information from various academic and
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
