Section 4.5.1 Multi-Method Approach

Section 4.5.1 Multi-Method Approach

Section 4.5.1 Multi-Method Approach

Teaching is a multidimensional activity and it is unlikely therefore that any single instrument or method will successfully evaluate the complexity of either teaching or learning (Algozzine, 2004; Marsh, 1995).

Ellery (2006) and Saroyan & Amundsen (2001) suggest that to get a complete, holistic picture of the complexity of teaching and learning, there must be a multi-dimensional approach, triangulating data from a range of sources, which will produce reliable and authentic data.

Within a given instrument a single item/question is inadequate to gauge the full extent of that dimension and so groups or sub-sets of items are used in SET (Rice and Stewart 2000). An example of the use of multiple sub-sets is Marsh’s (1987) SEEQ (see Section 4.13) which has nine instructional dimensions and has validated been used in countries across the world (Coffey & Gibbs, 2001).

Ideally, it has been suggested that evaluation should be longitudinal, developmental and multilevel, and should include student records, qualitative and quantitative information collected from students, and academic teachers (Harris et al., 2010). Given the resources required and the brevity of some modules however, this is unlikely be an option for many academic. Rather, heed should be paid to Marsh’s (1984) assertion that SET should treated as a diagnostic tool and that information from additional sources is required to offer an accurate portrayal of teaching effectiveness.

Activity 4.5.1

How could feedback from UCD SFM (Section 9) be used in conjunction with the UCD Module Enhancement Report to provide a multi-method approach to evaluation?

Submit your answers

Back to 4.5 Continue to Section 4.5.2 Back To Section 4

Page tools