Exam (elaborations)

APA FORMATTING STYLES

0 purchase

Course
Apa formatting styles

Institution
Apa Formatting Styles

A large body of assessment literature suggests that students’ evaluations of their teachers (SETs) can fail to measure the construct of teaching in a variety of contexts. This can compromise faculty development efforts that rely on information from SETs. The disconnect between SET results and fac...

[Show more]

Preview 4 out of 36 pages

View example

Uploaded on August 13, 2024
Number of pages 36
Written in 2024/2025
Type Exam (elaborations)
Contains Questions & answers

apa formatting styles

Institution Apa formatting styles
Course Apa formatting styles

Nursehellen Member since 1 year 45 documents sold

$13.49

Add to cart

Add to wishlist

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

Page numbers begin on the first p

1

Note that there is no running head on a student paper.
Note: Green text boxes contain
...while explanations of APA
blue text boxes 7's paper
contain formatting
directions guidelines...
for writing and citing

Branching Paths: A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for Faculty Development
The paper's title should

James P. Bavis and Ahn G. Nu

Department of English, Purdue

University ENGL 101: Course Name

Dr. Richard

Teeth Jan. 30,

Authors' names appear two lines below
Authors' the title.
affiliations They
follow should be written
immediately
Follow after
authors' as follows:
their names.
affiliations For numb
with the stude
2020
First name, middle initial(s), last name.

Student papers do not contain an author's note.

,Note again that no running head appears on student papers. Note that the page number continues on the pag

2
The word "Abstract" should be centered and bolded at the top of the page.
Abstract

The main paragraph
A largeofbody
the abstract should not
of assessment be indented.
literature suggests that students’ evaluations of their

teachers (SETs) can fail to measure the construct of teaching in a variety of

contexts. This can compromise faculty development efforts that rely on information

from SETs. The disconnect between SET results and faculty development efforts is
By standar
exacerbated in educational contexts that demand particular teaching skills that

SETs do not value in proportion to their local importance (or do not measure at all).

This paper responds to these challenges by proposing an instrument for the

assessment of teaching that allows institutional stakeholders to define the teaching

construct in a way they determine to suit the local context. The main innovation of

this instrument relative to traditional SETs is that it employs a branching “tree”

structure populated by binary-choice items based on the Empirically derived,

Binary-choice, Boundary-definition (EBB) scale developed by Turner and Upshur for

ESL writing assessment. The paper argues that this structure can allow

stakeholders to define the teaching construct by changing the order and sensitivity

of the nodes in the tree of possible outcomes, each of which corresponds to a

specific teaching skill. The paper concludes by outlining a pilot study that will

examine the differences between the proposed EBB instrument and a traditional

SET employing series of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that correspond to Likert
An abstract quickly summarizes the main points of the paper that follows it. The APA 7 manual does not give explicit
scale values.

Keywords: college teaching, student evaluations of teaching, scale
development, EBB

scale, pedagogies, educational assessment, faculty development

Follow the abstract with a selection of keywords that describe the imp
The keyword list should have its first line indented. Begin the list with
Note: Past this point, the student p

, The
Here, we've borrowed a quote from an external source, so we paper's
need title isthe
to provide bolded and centered
location above
of the quote thedocume
in the first bo

3

Branching Paths: A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for Faculty Development

According to Theall (2017), “Faculty evaluation and development cannot be

considered separately ... evaluation without development is punitive, and

development without evaluation is guesswork" (p. 91). As the practices that

constitute modern programmatic faculty development have evolved from their

humble beginnings to become a commonplace feature of university life (Lewis,
By contrast, here, we've merely paraphrased an idea from the external source. Thus, no location or page number is re
1996), a variety of tactics to evaluate the proficiency of teaching faculty for Spell out a
"CIA").
development purposes have likewise become commonplace. These include

measures as diverse as peer observations, the development of teaching portfolios,

and student evaluations.

One such measure, the student evaluation of teacher (SET), has been

virtually ubiquitous since at least the 1990s (Wilson, 1998). Though records of SET-
For source
like instruments can be traced to work at Purdue University in the 1920s (Remmers

& Brandenburg, 1927), most modern histories of faculty development suggest that

their rise to widespread popularity went hand-in-hand with the birth of modern

faculty development programs in the 1970s, when universities began to adopt

them in response to student protest movements criticizing mainstream university
When listin
curricula and approaches to instruction (Gaff & Simpson, 1994; Lewis, 1996;

McKeachie, 1996). By the mid-2000s, researchers had begun to characterize SETs

in terms like “…the predominant measure of university teacher performance […]

worldwide” (Pounder, 2007, p. 178). Today, SETs play an important role in teacher

assessment and faculty development at most universities (Davis, 2009). Recent

SET research practically takes the presence of some form of this assessment on

most campuses as a given. Spooren et al. (2017), for instance, merely note that

that SETs can be found at “almost every institution of higher education throughout

the world” (p. 130). Similarly, Darwin (2012) refers to teacher evaluation as an

established orthodoxy, labeling it a “venerated,” “axiomatic” institutional practice

(p. 733).

, 4
Moreover, SETs do not only help universities direct their faculty development
efforts.

They have also come to occupy a place of considerable institutional importance for
their role in

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Nursehellen. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $13.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

67418 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now

Start selling

Exam (elaborations)

APA FORMATTING STYLES

Document information

Subjects

Connected book

Written for

Seller

Reviews received

Content preview