National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Engineering. 2009. Developing Metrics for Assessing Engineering Instruction: What Gets Measured Is What Gets Improved. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12636.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Engineering. 2009. Developing Metrics for Assessing Engineering Instruction: What Gets Measured Is What Gets Improved. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12636.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Engineering. 2009. Developing Metrics for Assessing Engineering Instruction: What Gets Measured Is What Gets Improved. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12636.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academy of Engineering. 2009. Developing Metrics for Assessing Engineering Instruction: What Gets Measured Is What Gets Improved. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12636.
×
Page 38

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

References ABET. (2008). 2008-09 Criteria for evaluating engineering programs. Available online at http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%20 08-09%20EAC%20Criteria%2011-30-07.pdf. Aleamoni, L. M. (1981). Student ratings of instruction. In J. Millman (Ed.) Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 110-145). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Arreola, R. A. (1997). On the tightrope. The Department Chair, 7 (4). Boston, MA: Anker Publishing Co. Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Arreola, R. A., Theall, M., & Aleamoni, L. M. (2003). Beyond scholarship: Recognizing the multiple roles of the professoriate. Paper presented at the 2003 American Educational Research Association Convention, Chicago, IL. Available online at http://www.cedanet.com/meta/Beyond%20Scholarship.pdf. Atman, C. J. (2007, June 8). Engineering education research: Some history and examples from the U.S. Opening address to the Danish Centre for Engineering Education Research and Development, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available online at http://www.engr.washington.edu/caee/Atman%202007.06.08%20Denmark-final.pdf. Braskamp, L. A. & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brint, S. (2008). The Spellings Commission and the case for professionalizing college teaching. ACADEME Online. Available at http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2008/MJ/Feat/brin.htm. England, J. (1996). How evaluations of teaching are used in personnel decisions. American Council of Learned Societies, Occasional Paper N. 33. Available at http://archives.acls.org/op/33_Professonal_Evaluation_of_Teaching.htm. Felder, R. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286-290. Lencioni, P. M. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Michell, J. (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88 (3), 355-383. National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 35

National Research Council. (2003). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Science Foundation. (2002). Science and engineering indicators 2002. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c3/c3s2.htm. Paese, P. W., Lind, E. A., & Kanfer. (1988). Procedural fairness and work group responses to performance evaluation systems. Social Justice Research 2(3), 193-205. Theall, M. (2007, June 11). Basic issues in good evaluation practice. Invited presentation at the Academic Impressions Institute’s Using Faculty Evaluation Data for Decision Making, Boston, MA. United States Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, DC: USDEd. University of Texas. Preparing for peer observation: A handbook. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.utexas.edu/academic/cte/PeerObserve.html#AppendixList. Van Note, C. H., & Szabo, B. (1996). Who uses faculty development services? In To Improve the Academy, vol. 16. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, Inc. Van Prooijen, J-W. (2007). Fairness judgments: Genuine morality or disguised egocentrism? In Mind Articles, Special Issue 5. Available online at http://www.in-mind.org/special- issue/fairness-judgments-genuine-morality-or-disguised-egocent.html. 36

Appendixes 37

Next: Appendix A Workshop Agenda and Attendees »
Developing Metrics for Assessing Engineering Instruction: What Gets Measured Is What Gets Improved Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00 Buy Ebook | $23.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Faculty in all disciplines must continually prioritize their time to reflect the many demands of their faculty obligations, but they must also prioritize their efforts in ways that will improve the prospects of career advancement. The current perception is that research contributions are the most important measure with respect to faculty promotion and tenure decisions, and that teaching effectiveness is less valued--regardless of the stated weighting of research, teaching and service. In addition, methods for assessing research accomplishments are well established, even though imperfect, whereas metrics for assessing teaching, learning, and instructional effectiveness are not as well defined or well established.

Developing Metrics for Assessing Engineering Instruction provides a concise description of a process to develop and institute a valid and acceptable means of measuring teaching effectiveness in order to foster greater acceptance and rewards for faculty efforts to improve their performance of the teaching role that makes up a part of their faculty responsibility. Although the focus of this book is in the area of engineering, the concepts and approaches are applicable to all fields in higher education.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!