Title: Disciplinary Differences: Instructional Goals and Activities, Measures of Student Performance, and Student Ratings of Instruction.
Abstract: This study investigated how instrncticmal goals, activities, and methods for grading in college level courses vary across disciplines and how these course design variables are related to student retina, class size, and course level. The study used a 44-item, multiple choice questionnaire mailed to 1280 instructors teaching 2700 course sections in the spring aDd fall quarters of 1991. Surveys for 887 course sections taught by 486 instructors were returned. Student ratings of instruction for the 887 courses taught fT the survey respondents were part of a routine course evaluation process. Patterns of significant association among survey variables appeared which were consistent with disciplinary differences. For example, courses in the area tended to emphasize fact and concept learning goals, and lectures, and based a high percentage of student grades on exams. Courses in humanitites, on the other hand, emphasized skills development, papers, group discussion, and practice quizzes, and relied less on exams for grading. A similar pattern involving the same course design variables was associated with overall ratings of amount learned, and overall teacher effectiveness. Generally, courses with higher student participation and feedback were associated with higher ratings. A heavy reliance on midterms and finals, and low-frequency feedMack grading methods, were associated with lower ratings across disciplines. (Anthor/JB) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** Disciplinary Differences: instructional goals and activities, measures of student performance, and student ratings of instruction Jennifer Franklin Northeastern University Michael Theall University of Alabama, Birmingham Abstract Many sources have reported disciplinary differences in student ratings of instmction. Typically courses in the engineering-math-science area receive Iowa ratings than courses in the humanities. This study investigates how inguctional goals, activities, and methods for grading vary acmss disciplines and how these course design variables am related to ratings. class size, and course level. Patterns of significant association among survey variables appeared which were consistent with disciplinary differences. Fir example. come in the =a tended to emphasize fact and concept learning goals; lecture, and a high percentage of student grade on exams. while courses in humanities emphasized skills development, papers: group discusskar practice quizzeic and relied len on exams for gnarling. A similar pattern involving the same course design variables was associated with overall ratinp of amount learned, overall teacher's effectiveness, and overal course. Generally. it appealed that courses with higher student participation and feedback were anodised with higher raings. A heavy reliance on midterms :aid finals. a low-frequency feedback grading method. wits associated with lower ratings acrossMany sources have reported disciplinary differences in student ratings of instmction. Typically courses in the engineering-math-science area receive Iowa ratings than courses in the humanities. This study investigates how inguctional goals, activities, and methods for grading vary acmss disciplines and how these course design variables am related to ratings. class size, and course level. Patterns of significant association among survey variables appeared which were consistent with disciplinary differences. Fir example. come in the =a tended to emphasize fact and concept learning goals; lecture, and a high percentage of student grade on exams. while courses in humanities emphasized skills development, papers: group discusskar practice quizzeic and relied len on exams for gnarling. A similar pattern involving the same course design variables was associated with overall ratinp of amount learned, overall teacher's effectiveness, and overal course. Generally. it appealed that courses with higher student participation and feedback were anodised with higher raings. A heavy reliance on midterms :aid finals. a low-frequency feedback grading method. wits associated with lower ratings across Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1992 Office of Instructional Reseaich and Evaluation , 305 Cushing Northeastern University 360 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 Please do not reproduce without permission of the authors. BEST COPY AYKA:LE off' tea memossmrtoy seaCAMOm coss. se Iskond000l Ibless( ss oss smosisoomel EDUCIMOSIALSOVIOMMCII Assocearosool WO/ omood000d IS Solo Ms pawn or osidadOooll 0Proisod CI Moos doodle r000 bow mods Is ~SW sopso0....oso sadid, RI MOE or oolsodso Mod as des doer mos: do aol mboolsook Isor0000t WSW OEN Isedden or macs PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Publication Year: 1992
Publication Date: 1992-04-21
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 30
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot