Improving the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness With the Nonequivalent Dependent Variables Approach

Introduction: Assessing teaching effectiveness is relevant for improving one’s teaching and for moving through the tenure process; however, the validity of assessment methods, such as Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET), have been heavily criticized. Statement of the Problem: Using a one–group pretest–posttest design and assessing learning over the semester has several advantages over SET; however, one drawback is in making conclusions about the cause of changes in the post-test. A change could be due to learning in the semester, maturation, history, or even a testing effect. Literature Review: To improve the inferential quality of teaching assessment, a nonequivalent dependent variable (DV) design is highly advantageous. A nonequivalent DV is an outcome that is not the target of the intervention yet responds to the same contextually relevant factors. Teaching Implications: By using a nonequivalent DV design, there might be an increase from the beginning of the semester to the end of the semester in the main DV, but no increase in the nonequivalent DV, which provides a stronger argument that the change in the main DV is due to a true learning effect. Conclusion: Using nonequivalent DV methodology improves inferential quality and is easily implemented.

Navigating Teaching Evaluations

The number of articles mentioning student evaluations of teaching is in the thousands, with research pointing to the positive and negative aspects of these evaluative measures. The use of the collected data from both students and peers may be used for merit raises, awards, yearly performance reviews, and the promotion and tenure process. Therefore, a new faculty must demonstrate effective teaching and their incorporation of student feedback in order to meet their institutional requirements. This chapter explores the basics of student evaluations of teaching, peer in-class observations, formative and summative purposes, and ways to utilize and cope with student and peer feedback regarding your teaching.

Women Faculty in STEM Disciplines: Experiences with the Tenure Process and Departmental Practices

Using data from a national survey of tenure-track faculty job satisfaction, the purpose of the study is to explore predictors of perceptions of tenure clarity for faculty in STEM and non-STEM fields. We build on extant studies and use the gendered organization framework as the conceptual lens to examine whether for four groups of faculty (women and men in STEM, and women and men in non-STEM) assessment of fairness in tenure decisions and evaluations, messages about tenure requirements, mentoring, and relationships with peers have a similar effect on their assessment of tenure clarity. Bivariate findings reveal that compared to all other faculty, women in STEM fields are less likely to perceive the expectations for tenure as clear, and the messages about tenure requirements as consistent. Compared to men in both STEM and non-STEM fields, women in STEM are less likely to assess tenure decisions and evaluations as fair, mentoring as effective, and relationships with peers as satisfactory. Multivariate results show that for women in STEM, except for relationships with peers, all other independent variables significantly influence their assessment of tenure clarity. Policy and practice recommendations are discussed.

Understanding Tenure Reform: An Examination of Sense-Making Among School Administrators and Teachers

Background Since 2015, 23 states have issued a variety of reforms to the teacher tenure process. Many of these reforms have made it more difficult for teachers to receive tenure, either by extending the pre-tenure probation period or requiring some form of evidence of teacher performance. How educators and school leaders make sense of changes to tenure-granting policies likely transforms their perceptions of the teaching profession and has ramifications for staffing practices in schools. However, little research has sought to understand how states and districts have implemented tenure reform, how educators make sense of these reforms, and how teacher and school leaders’ understanding of changes to tenure statutes influence school practice and staff relations. Focus of Study The purpose of this study is to explore the sensemaking process of school stakeholders most directly affected by changes to teacher tenure policies—teachers and school leaders. To this end, this study examines the referential cues on which school staff tend to rely to understand tenure reform as well as their collective accounts of how reform translates into changes within the context of their work. Setting and Participants: Participants in this study included 30 pre-tenured teachers and 10 school leaders across 10 school sites within a single large, urban district in Tennessee. Research Design In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants during the 2016–17 and 2017–18 academic years. Transcripts of interviews were coded for recurring themes to address the research questions of the study. Conclusions/Recommendations Findings illustrate how school leaders relied on outdated state and district supports, while teachers referenced peer interactions to make sense of tenure reform. In addition, school leaders considered the enacted reforms an improvement to the previous tenure process, however, few school leaders indicated that tenure reform influenced teacher staffing and professional development within their schools. Teachers suggested tenure reform provided a sensible form of professional accountability in theory but was nevertheless undermined by a lack of communication, administrative support, and conflicting policy aims in practice. Findings highlight the robustness of peer networks in teacher sensemaking. More generally, this research has implications for the implementation of concurrent policy initiatives within schools and future directions for research on distributed and fragmented sensemaking.

The Politics of Research

This chapter critically interrogates the politics of research currently dominating U.S. higher education, a politics shaped as much by theoretical and methodological questions and debates as it is by prevailing social, cultural, political, and economic forces. The arguments are guided by four primary questions: (a) How and to what extent do the cultural and political priorities of the free-marketized, corporate university impact, direct, or confound the conduct of research?; (b) How and to what extent does politics situate methodologies?; (3) How and to what extent is the research act impinged on by such particularities as institutional review boards, national funding councils, scholarly journals, and the promotion and tenure process?; and (4) How and where do academics fit into this new research climate? The authors also forward a series of practical recommendations for professors and students alike who seek to actively confront and challenge the academic–industrial complex.

Exploring the Mentoring Needs of Early- and Mid-Career URM Engineering Faculty: A Phenomenological Study

While mentoring has been identified as a valuable resource in recruiting and retaining underrepresented minority (URM) faculty, little research has examined the difference in mentoring needs of early- and mid-career engineering URM faculty members. As these needs can change as they navigate academia and the tenure process, mentors can effectively provide guidance and support only when they have been identified. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to determine the mentoring needs and activities of early- and mid-career URM engineering faculty who participated in the IMPACT mentoring program and how their needs were met (Moustakas, 1994). The IMPACT program and the associated research were supported by a National Science Foundation Office for Broadening Participation in Engineering award (15-42728 and 15-42524). The Ideal Mentoring Model for URM Faculty served as the theoretical framework and the study included interviews with 11 early- to mid-career faculty who provided an in-depth understanding of the participants’ needs and activities. Findings indicate all faculty members seek career development support in navigating the engineering promotion and tenure process. However, mid-career faculty display greater interest in receiving sponsorship and coaching from their mentors, as well as an awareness of the importance of having a network of mentors.