Search

This paper reports on findings from a major New Zealand research project around staff perceptions of student evaluations of teaching. The main focus of this discussion is the insights that the research afforded into staff engagement with and use of student evaluations to inform their teaching practice and to improve student learning. The research data indicates that there is a gap between academics' relatively positive views of evaluation and their actual engagement with the process. A high percentage of academics, particularly at NZ universities, do not report engagement in dialogue or professional development activities around student evaluation. The use of evaluations in teaching tends to be individual, often isolated and unsystematic. This paper recommends some ideas for moving forward and argues for a cultural change that endorses, supports and rewards the systematic integration of student evaluations into teaching practice.

Internationally, centralised systems of student evaluation have become normative practice in higher education institutions, providing data for monitoring teaching quality and for teacher professional development. While extensive research has been done on student evaluations, there is less research-based evidence about teachers' perceptions of and engagement with student evaluations, the focus of the research reported in this paper. An interpretive approach framed the study in which data were gathered through questionnaire and interview responses from teaching staff at three New Zealand tertiary institutions. Results highlighted the general acceptance of the notion of student evaluations, recurring ideas about the limitations of evaluations and significant gaps in the way academics engage with student evaluation feedback. Recommendations for enhancing teacher engagement with student evaluation are made to optimise the potential for student evaluations to inform teaching development and to improve students' learning experiences.

Background and Purpose: Quantitative T1 and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) may provide information about pathological changes underlying disability and progression in diseases like multiple sclerosis (MS). Imaging the corpus callosum (CC), a primary site of damage in MS with a critical role in interhemispheric connectivity, may be useful for assessing overall brain health, prognosis, and therapy efficacy. We assessed the feasibility of multisite clinical trials using advanced MRI by examining the intra and intersite reproducibility of T1 and DTI measurements in the CC and segmented white matter (WM).Methods: Five healthy volunteers were scanned twice within 24 hours at six 3T sites. Coefficients of variation (COVs) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for CC and WM T1 , fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), axial diffusivity (Dax ), and radial diffusivity (Drad ) assessed intrasite and intersite reliability.Results: CC and WM T1 showed excellent intrasite reproducibility with low COVs (mean = .90% and .89%, respectively) and good ICCs (CC = .78, WM = .90). T1 also demonstrated intersite reliability (low COVs: CC = 2.4%, WM = 1.8%; moderate ICCs: CC = .43, WM = .69). DTI had low intrasite COVs (CC: FA = 1.3%, MD = 1.5%, Dax = 1.4%, Drad = 2.2%; WM: FA = .9%, MD = .9%, Dax = .7%, Drad = 1.2%) and high intrasite ICCs (CC: FA = .95, MD = .97, Dax = .94, Drad = .97; CC: FA = .9, MD = .66, Dax = .88, Drad = .63), indicating excellent intrasite reproducibility. DTI also showed excellent intersite reliability with low COVs (CC: FA = 2.1%, MD = 4.1%, Dax = 3.4%, Drad = 5.3%, WM: FA = 1.3%, MD = 1.9%, Dax = 1.8%, Drad = 2.1%,) and good ICCs (CC: FA = .90, MD = .84, Dax = .72, Drad = .90; WM: FA = .83, MD = .34, Dax = .62, Drad = .41).Conclusions: T1 and DTI measures are reproducible using equivalent MRI scanners and sequence protocols. Using a similar MR system, it is feasible to carry out multicenter studies using T1 and DTI to evaluate changes within the CC and WM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To assess the reproducibility of myelin water fraction (MWF) and geometric mean T2 (GMT2), which are in vivo markers of pathological changes underlying disability and progression in diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Materials and Methods Five healthy volunteers were scanned twice within 24 hours at six different sites using the same manufacturer's 3T magnetic resonance (MR) system. T2 distributions were produced by fitting multiecho 3D T2 data using non-negative least squares, with stimulated echo correction. MWF, the fraction of signal with T2 between 15 and 40 msec to the entire signal, and GMT2, the mean T2 on a logarithmic scale from T2 between 40 and 200 msec, were examined in white matter. Results Intrasite coefficients of variation (COVs) were low (mean 3.99% for MWF and 0.51% for GMT2), as were intersite COVs (mean 4.68% for MWF, 0.31% for GMT2). Scan-rescan intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) (0.76 for MWF and 0.93 for GMT2) and Bland-Altman plots indicated good agreement between single site scans. Intersite ICCs were relatively high (0.69 for MWF and 0.92 for GMT2), revealing good intersite reliability. Conclusion MWF and GMT2 measures are reproducible between scans and across sites with an equivalent MR scanner and sequence protocol. Multicenter clinical trials using quantitative T2 relaxation are feasible. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;38:1445-1453. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consultation with all stakeholders is required to embed an evaluation culture effectively within an education institution. One of the groups deeply involved in any institutions evaluation process, but routinely overlooked during such consultations and discussions are the students. Even the evaluation literature is limited on this subject. Evaluations are implemented at most tertiary institutions as part of performance appraisal and promotion processes. Therefore, there is an added imperative that we understand students' views and perceptions around evaluation processes. At a New Zealand University a teaching initiative has been developed which enables students' to gain insight into the complex world of performance appraisal. They do so by designing an instrument which allows them to conduct a performance appraisal of their lecturer. One of the outputs of this teaching initiative is a reflection by students on their views of evaluation as part of performance appraisal processes in universities. Unlike previous studies around student perceptions, this paper uses a thematic analysis of students' reflective comments to show that the students value evaluation as an important process, predominantly for the development of the paper and the teacher. However, the students have noted that in terms of performance appraisal processes there is very little evidence of follow-up processes, or feedback to students, by faculty and the institution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Professional development of academic staff is an area which highlights the difficulty of embedding evaluation feedback into continuous improvement of teaching and learning. While most institutions require academic staff to conduct formal evaluations of their teaching, frequently little attention is paid to follow up processes which would assist staff in interpreting feedback and using it to enhance their practice. This gap makes it difficult to embed an internal evaluations culture and perpetuates a perception of formal evaluation as an add-on compliance process. As professional developers, strategies are needed to demonstrate to staff that evaluation feedback can have an immediate pertinence for their practice. One such strategy is to develop tools to support staff with the interpretation of evaluation feedback and suggest associated pathways for professional development. Within this strategy there are a number of options, one of which is to use rubrics for interpretations and signposting for further action. This paper describes a pilot project in which rubrics were introduced to help teachers interpret student feedback received through the formal evaluation system. Alongside the rubrics, suggestions were made about appropriate resources for professional development opportunities. We set out to investigate whether the introduction of rubrics could improve the link between evaluation feedback and professional development. Findings from the initial iteration of the project will be presented here.. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Quantitative T 1 and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) may provide information about pathological changes underlying disability and progression in diseases like multiple sclerosis (MS). Imaging the corpus callosum (CC), a primary site of damage in MS with a critical role in interhemispheric connectivity, may be useful for assessing overall brain health, prognosis, and therapy efficacy. We assessed the feasibility of multisite clinical trials using advanced MRI by examining the intra and intersite reproducibility of T 1 and DTI measurements in the CC and segmented white matter (WM)., Methods: Five healthy volunteers were scanned twice within 24 hours at six 3T sites. Coefficients of variation (COVs) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for CC and WM T 1 , fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), axial diffusivity (D ax ), and radial diffusivity (D rad ) assessed intrasite and intersite reliability., Results: CC and WM T 1 showed excellent intrasite reproducibility with low COVs (mean = .90% and .89%, respectively) and good ICCs (CC = .78, WM = .90). T 1 also demonstrated intersite reliability (low COVs: CC = 2.4%, WM = 1.8%; moderate ICCs: CC = .43, WM = .69). DTI had low intrasite COVs (CC: FA = 1.3%, MD = 1.5%, D ax = 1.4%, D rad = 2.2%; WM: FA = .9%, MD = .9%, D ax = .7%, D rad = 1.2%) and high intrasite ICCs (CC: FA = .95, MD = .97, D ax = .94, D rad = .97; CC: FA = .9, MD = .66, D ax = .88, D rad = .63), indicating excellent intrasite reproducibility. DTI also showed excellent intersite reliability with low COVs (CC: FA = 2.1%, MD = 4.1%, D ax = 3.4%, D rad = 5.3%, WM: FA = 1.3%, MD = 1.9%, D ax = 1.8%, D rad = 2.1%,) and good ICCs (CC: FA = .90, MD = .84, D ax = .72, D rad = .90; WM: FA = .83, MD = .34, D ax = .62, D rad = .41)., Conclusions: T 1 and DTI measures are reproducible using equivalent MRI scanners and sequence protocols. Using a similar MR system, it is feasible to carry out multicenter studies using T 1 and DTI to evaluate changes within the CC and WM., (© 2018 by the American Society of Neuroimaging.)