scholarly journals Student Accountability for Objective Evaluations of Faculty

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Garay
Keyword(s):  
Community College ◽  
Educational System ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Design Method ◽  
Faculty Evaluation ◽  
Academic Outcome ◽  
Descriptive Research ◽  
The Us ◽  
Indispensable Tool ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Faculty

ABSTRACT Student Evaluation of Faculty (SEF) is an important component of the US educational system and an indispensable tool to keep track of the faculty’s role to make the institution’s academic practice more engaging, objective and effective. SEF also allows institutions to assess faculty performance, future career stability, advancement and promotion. Unfortunately, SEFs generally exempt students from any responsibility in their own academic outcome. The article presents an analysis of a study based on a modified version of the current SEF form utilised by the Bronx Community College. This modified form includes questions about a student’s responsibilities, to measure their accountability making the evaluation more objective using a descriptive research design method. Results confirmed that students must play an active part in the process by assuming their own responsibilities of regularly and timely attending class, increasing study time, utilising the resources of tutoring, faculty office hours, and extended recitation to improve their own outcome and produce a valid faculty evaluation.

scholarly journals Students Evaluation of Faculty

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Ahmad M. Thawabieh
Keyword(s):  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Faculty Evaluation ◽  
University Faculty ◽  
Technical University ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Faculty

This study aimed to investigate how students evaluate their faculty and the effect of gender, expected grade, and college on students’ evaluation. The study sample consisted of 5291 students from Tafila Technical University Faculty evaluation scale was used to collect data. The results indicated that student evaluation of faculty was high (mean = 4.14, S.D. = 0.79) and there were statistically significant differences in students’ evaluation attributed to students’ gender, college and expected grade in the course.

scholarly journals Response to Haskell's "Academic Freedom ... & Student Evaluation"

1997 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey E. Stake
Keyword(s):  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Classroom Behavior ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Crucial Point ◽  
What Is Said ◽  
Administrative Practice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Faculty

Haskell (1997) argued that the administrative practice of student evaluation of faculty is a threat to academic freedom. However, before that claim can be substantiated, several prior questions must be addressed: To whom does academic freedom belong? Individual faculty? The academy? Whose actions can violate the right? Can any lines be drawn based on whether the substance or form of classroom behavior is influenced? And still another crucial point is whether a body can violate academic freedom without any intent to interfere with or control the substance of what is said to students.

Technology and Teacher Education

2012 ◽  
pp. 102-111
Author(s):  
Albert Akyeampong ◽  
Teresa Franklin ◽  
Jared Keengwe
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Education ◽  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Teacher Education Program ◽  
Instructional Quality ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Time On Task ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Faculty Interaction ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Faculty

This study explored one primary question: To what extent do student perceptions of various forms of instructional technology tools predict instructional quality? Participants for the study were drawn from a teacher education program in a large Midwest public university. Data were collected using a web-based survey with a total of 121 responses used in the final analysis. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well Productivity Tools, Presentation Tools, Communication Tools, and World Wide Web Tools predict Student Evaluation of Faculty Instructional Quality. The overall significant results of the regression model and the subsequent significant results of the t-test for Presentation Tools and Productivity Tools is an indication that Presentation and Productivity tools can be used by faculty to facilitate student and faculty interaction, promote cooperation among students, promote active learning techniques, give prompt feedback, emphasize time on task, communicate high expectation and respect diverse talents and ways of learning.

The Lived Experience of International Graduate Nursing Students Engaged With the US Educational System

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 174-180
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Palmer ◽  
Nashat Zuraikat ◽  
Edith West ◽  
Theresa L. Calderone ◽  
Joyce Shanty
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Students ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Educational System ◽  
International Graduate ◽  
The Us ◽  
Graduate Nursing

scholarly journals Development of Rock Embedded Drilled Shaft Resistance Factors in Korea based on Field Tests

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 2201
Author(s):  
Seok Jung KIM ◽  
Sun Yong KWON ◽  
Jin Tae HAN ◽  
Mintaek YOO
Keyword(s):  
Design Method ◽  
Limit State ◽  
Field Tests ◽  
Load Test ◽  
Drilled Shaft ◽  
Displacement Curve ◽  
Base Resistance ◽  
Resistance Factors ◽  
Shaft Resistance ◽  
The Us

Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is a limit state design method that has been applied worldwide. Because the data for determining LRFD factors in Korea has been insufficient, the resistance factors suggested by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in the US have been used for design in Korea; however, these resistance factors were defined based on the characteristics of the predominant bedrock types in the U.S. As such, it remains necessary to determine resistance factors that reflect the bedrock conditions in Korea. Accordingly, in this study, LRFD resistance factors were determined using 13 sets of drilled shaft load test data. To obtain accurate resistance factors, calibration of the elastic modulus of the drilled shaft and the equivalent load–displacement curve considering the axial load and elastic settlement was conducted. After determining accurate resistance values, a reliability analysis was performed. The resistance factors were determined to be within 0.13–0.32 of the AASHTO factors for the shaft resistance, 0.19–0.29 for the base resistance, and 0.28–0.42 for the total resistance. This is equivalent to being 30–60% of the AASHTO-recommended values for the shaft resistance and 40–60% of the AASHTO-recommended values for the base resistance. These differences in resistance factors were entirely the result of discrepancies in the conditions of the rock in the US and Korea in which the shafts were founded.

Comparison of Resident and Medical Student Evaluation of Faculty Teaching

2001 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brent C. Williams ◽  
Matthew S. Pillsbury ◽  
David T. Stern ◽  
Cyril M. Grum
Keyword(s):  
Medical Student ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Faculty Teaching ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Faculty

WPI iCREATE: Graduate Training in Innovative Translation

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen L. Billiar ◽  
Glenn Gaudette ◽  
Frank Hoy ◽  
Terri Anne Camesano
Keyword(s):  
Educational System ◽  
Graduate Training ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
The Us ◽  
Doctoral Degree Programs

Traditional doctoral degree programs in engineering are generally good at teaching “Linear Thinking,” that is the ability to apply existing knowledge to achieve important, but predictable, outcomes (as defined by Stauffer (2005)). However, with few exceptions, the US engineering educational system falls short in enabling the vital attributes of innovation: adaptability, inventiveness, and the confidence to propose new paradigms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document