Difference between revisions of "Section 4.4.1 Traditional SET Instruments"
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
{{#input:type=textarea|name=Activity_4.4.1|{{#userform:name=Activity_4.4.1}}}} | {{#input:type=textarea|name=Activity_4.4.1|{{#userform:name=Activity_4.4.1}}}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<h3>Submit your answers</h3><div class="form-box">{{#input:type=submit|class=save-button|value=Save Your Answers}}</div> | <h3>Submit your answers</h3><div class="form-box">{{#input:type=submit|class=save-button|value=Save Your Answers}}</div> | ||
{{#formend:}} | {{#formend:}} | ||
| − | + | |} | |
<span class="back-step-link">[[Section_4.4_Scope_of_SET|Back to 4.4]]</span> | <span class="back-step-link">[[Section_4.4_Scope_of_SET|Back to 4.4]]</span> | ||
Latest revision as of 21:45, 14 September 2011
Section 4.4.1 Traditional SET Instruments
Section 4.4.1 Traditional SET Instruments
Tools (predominantly questionnaires) that have traditionally been used to gather student feedback have similar characteristics. Sproule (2000) lists these as including:
- open- and closed-ended questions about content and teaching effectiveness
- at least one item addresses "overall" effectiveness
- written comments about the content and effectiveness of the lecturer
- assurances of anonymity of responses
- administration at the end of term in the absence of the instructor
- summarisation of scale responses across instructors/departments as evidence of "teaching effectiveness"
- largely ignoring differences related to students (e.g. stage), course (e.g. core/elective), and instructor (e.g. novice/experienced) analysis and reporting of "effectiveness"
| Activity 4.4.1 |
