Description
Incretin-based therapies for Diabetic Complications: Basic Mechanisms and clinical Events
I’m working on a nursing presentation and need an explanation to help me understand better.
Create an 8 slide PowerPoint presentation on the study’s findings and how they can be used by nurses as an intervention. Include speaker notes for each slide.
Explain why psychological, cultural, and spiritual aspects are important to consider for a patient who has been diagnosed with diabetes. Describe how support can be offered in these respective areas as part of a plan of care for the patient. Provide examples.
Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC50006…
Follow the link to access the study and complete the question, 2 additional resources will be need. Please complete the presentation and add extra information in the comment area.
Hi, thank you for your help, use this rubric to guide the work, and very important to based the answer depending on the study I attached the link. Let me know if you have any questions. For the references use APA 7th edition, I attached also the example to use as a guide, please make sure you use the 7th edition. Thank you
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Course Code
NRS-410V
Class Code
NRS-410V-O501
Criteria
Content
Percentage
80.0%
Article
5.0%
Intervention or Treatment Tool and Specific
Patient Population of Study
5.0%
Summary of Article
15.0%
Inclusion of the Psychological, Cultural, and
Spiritual Aspects
15.0%
Presentation of Content
40.0%
Organization, Effectiveness, and Format
20.0%
Layout
5.0%
Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes
sentence construction, word choice, etc.)
5.0%
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar, language use)
5.0%
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes,
references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to
assignment and style)
5.0%
Total Weightage
100%
Assignment Title
CLC – Evidence-Based Practice Project: Intervention Presentation on Diabetes
Unsatisfactory (0.00%)
The article is omitted or fails to meet the assignment criteria.
Intervention, or treatment tool, and the specific patient
population used in the study are omitted or inaccurate.
The summary is omitted or fails to meet the assignment
criteria.
Explanation of why the psychological, cultural, and spiritual
aspects are important to consider for patient who has been
diagnosed with diabetes is omitted.
The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence
of information. Includes little persuasive information.
Sequencing of ideas is unclear.
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing,
headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The
text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text,
small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting
colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or
bold formatting is evident.
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use
are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use
of primer prose indicates writer either does not apply figures
of speech or uses them inappropriately.
Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning.
Sources are not documented.
Total Points
150.0
Less than Satisfactory (75.00%)
The article fails to meet most of the assignment criteria; the
article is not relevant to nursing practice.
An incomplete summary of the intervention, or treatment
tool, and the specific patient population used in the study is
presented. There are significant gaps and inaccuracies.
A partial summary of the article is presented. There are major
omissions. The summary fails to accurately represent the
main idea for a specific patient population, the clinical
findings, or the relevance to diabetes and nursing practice.
A partial explanation of why the psychological, cultural, and
spiritual aspects is important to consider for a patient who
has been diagnosed with diabetes is presented. The
explanation contains significant omissions and inaccuracies.
Reasoning or rationale is not provided for support.
The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does
not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some
persuasive information.
The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and
busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a
distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to
lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy
background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate
indentations of text.
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register)
or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of
control in using figures of speech appropriately.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the
reader.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as
appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous
formatting errors.
Satisfactory (79.00%)
The article is published in the last 5 years and has a general
focus on an intervention or treatment tool for managing
diabetes in adults or children. The article has some
application to nursing practice.
A summary of the intervention or treatment tool and the
specific patient population used in the study is presented.
Some aspects require more detail for clarity. There are minor
inaccuracies.
A summary of the article is presented. The summary
generally presents the main idea for a specific patient
population, the clinical findings, and the relevance to
diabetes and nursing practice. There are some inaccuracies.
More information is needed.
A general explanation of why the psychological, cultural and
spiritual aspects is important to consider for a patient who
has been diagnosed with diabetes is presented. The
explanation contains some omissions and inaccuracies.
General reasoning or rationale is provided for support.
The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas
may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their
relationships to each other.
The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space
appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a
few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs,
color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance
readability.
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the
most part.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are
not overly distracting to the reader.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, although some formatting errors may be present.
Good (89.00%)
The article is published in the last 5 years, has a focus on an
intervention or treatment tool for managing diabetes in
adults or children. The article has general application to
nursing practice.
A description of the intervention or treatment tool and the
specific patient population used in the study is presented.
Minor detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.
A summary of the article is presented. The summary presents
the main idea for a specific patient population, the clinical
findings, and the relevance to diabetes and nursing practice.
Some detail or information is needed for clarity.
An explanation of why the psychological, cultural, and
spiritual aspects is important to consider for a patient who
has been diagnosed with diabetes is presented. The
explanation contains adequate reasoning or rationale
provided for support. Some detail is needed for clarity.
The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and
supporting information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and
cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable
sources.
The layout background and text complement each other and
enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to
read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text.
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of
appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses
figures of speech to communicate clearly.
Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few
may be present.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, and format is mostly correct.
Excellent (100.00%)
The article is published in the last 5 years, has a focus on an
intervention or treatment tool for managing diabetes in
adults or children. The article has direct application to nursing
practice.
A thorough description of the intervention or treatment tool
and the specific patient population used in the study is
presented.
A thorough summary of the article is presented. The
summary accurately presents the main idea for a specific
patient population and the clinical findings, and clearly
illustrates relevance to diabetes and nursing practice.
A compelling explanation for why the psychological, cultural
and spiritual aspects is important to consider for a patient
who has been diagnosed with diabetes is presented. The
explanation is well-developed and contains strong reasoning
and rationale for support.
The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally
progress and relate to each other. The project includes
motivating questions and advanced organizers. The project
gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall
message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and
white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target
audience and to the point. The background and colors
enhance the readability of the text.
Comments
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of
speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that
are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.
Writer is clearly in control of standard, written, academic
English.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as
appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of
error.
Points Earned
Note that there
is no running
head on a
student paper.
Note: Green text boxes
contain explanations of
APA 7’s paper formatting
guidelines…
Page numbers
begin on the first
page and follow
on every
subsequent
page without
interruption. No
other information
(e.g., authors’
last names) is
required.
…while blue text boxes
contain directions for
writing and citing in APA
7.
1
Branching Paths: A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for Faculty Development
James P. Bavis and Ahn G. Nu
Department of English, Purdue University
The paper’s title should be
centered, bold, and written
in title case. It should be
three or four lines below
the top margin of the page.
In this sample paper, we’ve
put three blank lines above
the title.
ENGL 101: Course Name
Dr. Richard Teeth
Jan. 30, 2020
Authors’ names appear two
lines below the title. They
should be written as
follows:
First name, middle initial(s),
last name.
Authors’ affiliations follow
immediately after their
names. For student papers,
these should usually be the
department containing the
course for which the paper
is being written.
Student papers do not contain an
author’s note.
Follow authors’ affiliations
with the number and name
of the course, the
instructor’s name and title,
and the assignment’s due
date.
Note again that no
running head appears on
student papers.
The word “Abstract” should be
centered and bolded at the top
of the page.
Note that the page
number continues on the
pages that follow the title.
2
Abstract
The main
A large body of assessment literature suggests that students’ evaluations of their teachers
paragraph of
the abstract
(SETs) can fail to measure the construct of teaching in a variety of contexts. This can
should not be
indented.
compromise faculty development efforts that rely on information from SETs. The disconnect
between SET results and faculty development efforts is exacerbated in educational contexts
By standard
convention,
that demand particular teaching skills that SETs do not value in proportion to their local
abstracts do
importance (or do not measure at all). This paper responds to these challenges by proposing an not contain
citations of
other works.
instrument for the assessment of teaching that allows institutional stakeholders to define the
If you need to
refer to
teaching construct in a way they determine to suit the local context. The main innovation of this another work
in the
instrument relative to traditional SETs is that it employs a branching “tree” structure populated
abstract,
mentioning
by binary-choice items based on the Empirically derived, Binary-choice, Boundary-definition
the authors in
the text can
(EBB) scale developed by Turner and Upshur for ESL writing assessment. The paper argues
often suffice.
Note also
that this structure can allow stakeholders to define the teaching construct by changing the order that some
institutions
and
and sensitivity of the nodes in the tree of possible outcomes, each of which corresponds to a
publications
may allow for
specific teaching skill. The paper concludes by outlining a pilot study that will examine the
citations in
the abstract.
differences between the proposed EBB instrument and a traditional SET employing series of
multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that correspond to Likert scale values.
Keywords: college teaching, student evaluations of teaching, scale development, EBB
scale, pedagogies, educational assessment, faculty development
An abstract quickly
summarizes the main
points of the paper that
follows it. The APA 7
manual does not give
explicit directions for how
long abstracts should be,
but it does note that most
abstracts do not exceed
250 words (p. 38). It also
notes that professional
publishers (like academic
journals) may have a
variety of rules for
abstracts, and that writers
should typically defer to
these.
Follow the abstract with a
selection of keywords that
describe the important ideas or
subjects in your paper. These
help online readers search for
your paper in a database.
The keyword list should have its
first line indented. Begin the list
with the label “Keywords:” (note
the italics and the colon). Follow
this with a list of keywords
written in lowercase (except for
proper nouns) and separated by
commas. Do not place a period
at the end of the list.
Note: Past this point, the student
paper and professional papers are
virtually identical, besides the
absence of a running head in the
student paper.
The paper’s title is bolded and centered
Here, we’ve
above the first body paragraph. There
borrowed a
3
should be no “Introduction” header.
quote from
an external
source, so
Branching Paths: A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for Faculty Development
we need to
provide the
According to Theall (2017, p. 91), “Faculty evaluation and development cannot be
location of
the quote in
considered separately … evaluation without development is punitive, and development without
the document
(in this case,
evaluation is guesswork.” As the practices that constitute modern programmatic faculty
the page
number) in
development have evolved from their humble beginnings to become a commonplace feature of
the
parenthetical.
university life (Lewis, 1996), a variety of tactics to evaluate the proficiency of teaching faculty for
By contrast,
here, we’ve
development purposes have likewise become commonplace. These include measures as
merely
paraphrased
diverse as peer observations, the development of teaching portfolios, and student evaluations.
an idea from
the external
One such measure, the student evaluation of teacher (SET), has been virtually
source. Thus,
no location or
page number ubiquitous since at least the 1990s (Wilson, 1998). Though records of SET-like instruments can
is required.
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
Spell out
abbreviations
the first time
you use
them, except
in cases
where the
abbreviations
are very wellknown (e.g.,
“CIA”).
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 curricula and approaches to instruction (Lewis, 1996; Gaff & Simpson,
1994; McKeachie, 1996). By the mid-2000s, researchers had begun to characterize SETs in
terms like “…the predominant measure of university teacher performance […] worldwide”
When listing
multiple
citations in
the same
parenthetical,
separate
them with
semicolons.
For sources
(Pounder, 2007, p. 178). Today, SETs play an important role in teacher assessment and faculty with two
authors, use
an
development at most universities (Davis, 2009). Recent SET research practically takes the
ampersand
(&) between
presence of some form of this assessment on most campuses as a given; Spooren,
the authors’
names rather
Vandermoere, Vanderstraeten, and Pepermans, for instance, merely note that that SETs can be
than the word
“and.”
found at “almost every institution of higher education throughout the world” (2017, p. 130).
Darwin refers to them as “an established orthodoxy” and as a “venerated,” “axiomatic”
institutional presence (2012, p. 733).
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
Here, we’ve
made an
indirect or
secondary
citation (i.e.,
we’ve cited a
source that
we found
cited in a
different
source). Use
the phrase
“as cited in”
in the
parenthetical
to indicate
that the firstlisted source
was
referenced in
the secondlisted one.
Include an
entry in the
reference list
only for the
secondary
source
(Pounder, in
this case).
4
personnel considerations, informing important decisions like hiring, firing, tenure, and promotion.
Seldin (1993, as cited in Pounder, 2007) puts the percentage of higher educational institutions
using SETs as important factors in personnel decisions at roughly 86 percent. A 1991 survey of
department chairs found 97% used student evaluations to assess teaching performance (US
Department of Education). Since the mid-late 1990s, a general trend towards comprehensive
methods of teacher evaluation that include multiple forms of assessment has been observed
(Berk, 2005). However, recent research suggests the usage of SETs in personnel decisions is
still overwhelmingly common, though hard percentages are hard to come by, perhaps owing to
Here, we’ve
cited a
source that
does not
have a
named
author. The
correspondin
g reference
list entry
would begin
with “US
Department
of
Education.”
the multifaceted nature of these decisions (Galbraith et al., 2012, Boring et al., 2017). In certain
Sources with
three authors
or more are
instructors. Particularly as public schools have experienced pressure in recent decades to adopt cited via the
first-listed
author’s
neoliberal, market-based approaches to self-assessment and adopt a student-as-consumer
name
followed by
mindset (Darwin, 2012, Marginson, 2009), information from evaluations can even feature in
the Latin
phrase “et
department- or school-wide funding decisions (see, for instance, the Obama Administration’s
al.” Note that
the period
Race to the Top initiative, which awarded grants to K-12 institutions that adopted value-added
comes after
“al,” rather
models for teacher evaluation).
than “et.”
contexts, student evaluations can also have ramifications beyond the level of individual
However, while SETs play a crucial role in faulty development and personnel decisions
for many education institutions, current approaches to SET administration are not as well-suited
to these purposes as they could be. This paper argues that a formative, empirical approach to
teacher evaluation developed in response to the demands of the local context is better-suited
for helping institutions improve their teachers. It proposes the Heavilon Evaluation of Teacher,
or HET, a new teacher assessment instrument that can strengthen current approaches to
faculty development by making them more responsive to teachers’ local contexts. It also
proposes a pilot study that will clarify the differences between this new instrument and the
Introductory Composition at Purdue (ICaP) SET, a more traditional instrument used for similar
purposes. The results of this study will direct future efforts to refine the proposed instrument.
Note: For the sake of brevity, the next page of the original paper was cut
from this sample document.
6
Methods section, which follows, will propose a pilot study that compares the results of the
proposed instrument to the results of a traditional SET (and will also provide necessary
background information on both of these evaluations). The paper will conclude with a discussion
of how the results of the pilot study will inform future iterations of the proposed instrument and,
more broadly, how universities should argue for local development of assessments.
Literature Review
Effective Teaching: A Contextual Construct
Second-level headings are flush left, bolded, and
written in title case.
Third level headings are flush left, bolded, written in
title case, and italicized.
The validity of the instrument this paper proposes is contingent on the idea that it is
possible to systematically measure a teacher’s ability to teach. Indeed, the same could be said
for virtually all teacher evaluations. Yet despite the exceeding commonness of SETs and the
faculty development programs that depend on their input, there is little scholarly consensus on
precisely what constitutes “good” or “effective” teaching. It would be impossible to review the
entire history of the debate surrounding teaching effectiveness, owing to its sheer scope—such
a summary might need to begin with, for instance, Cicero and Quintilian. However, a cursory
overview of important recent developments (particularly those revealed in meta-analyses of
empirical studies of teaching) can help situate the instrument this paper proposes in relevant
academic conversations.
Fourth-level headings are bolded and written in title case. They are
also indented and written in-line with the following paragraph.
Meta-analysis 1. One core assumption that undergirds many of these conversations is
When
presenting
the notion that good teaching has effects that can be observed in terms of student achievement. decimal
fractions, put
A meta-analysis of 167 empirical studies that investigated the effects of various teaching factors a zero in
front of the
decimal if the
on student achievement (Kyriakides et al., 2013) supported the effectiveness of a set of
quantity is
something
teaching factors that the authors group together under the label of the “dynamic model” of
that can
exceed one
teaching. Seven of the eight factors (Orientation, Structuring, Modeling, Questioning,
(like the
number of
Assessment, Time Management, and Classroom as Learning Environment) corresponded to
standard
deviations
moderate average effect sizes (of between 0.34–0.41 standard deviations) in measures of
here). Do not
put a zero if
the quantity
cannot
exceed one
(e.g., if the
number is a
proportion).
7
student achievement. The eighth factor, Application (defined as seatwork and small-group tasks
oriented toward practice of course concepts), corresponded to only a small yet still significant
effect size of 0.18. The lack of any single decisive factor in the meta-analysis supports the idea
that effective teaching is likely a multivariate construct. However, the authors also note the
context-dependent nature of effective teaching. Application, the least-important teaching factor
overall, proved more important in studies examining young students (p. 148). Modeling, by
contrast, was especially important for older students.
Meta-analysis 2. A different meta-analysis that argues for the importance of factors like
clarity and setting challenging goals (Hattie, 2009) nevertheless also finds that the effect sizes
of various teaching factors can be highly context-dependent. For example, effect sizes for
homework range from 0.15 (a small effect) to 0.64 (a moderately large effect) based on the level
of education examined. Similar ranges are observed for differences in academic subject (e.g.,
math vs. English) and student ability level. As Snook et al. (2009) note in their critical response
to Hattie, while it is possible to produce a figure for the average effect size of a particular
teaching factor, such averages obscure the importance of context.
Meta-analysis 3. A final meta-analysis (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007) found generally
small average effect sizes for most teaching factors—organization and academic domainspecific learning activities showed the biggest cognitive effects (0.33 and 0.25, respectively).
Here, again, however, effectiveness varied considerably due to contextual factors like domain of
study and level of education in ways that average effect sizes do not indicate.
These pieces of evidence suggest that there are multiple teaching factors that produce
measurable gains in student achievement and that the relative importance of individual factors
can be highly dependent on contextual factors like student identity. This is in line with a welldocumented phenomenon in educational research that complicates attempts to measure
teaching effectiveness purely in terms of student achievement. This is that “the largest source of
variation in student learning is attributable to differences in what students bring to school – their
8
abilities and attitudes, and family and community” (McKenzie et al., 2005, p. 2). Student
achievement varies greatly due to non-teacher factors like socio-economic status and home life
(Snook et al., 2009). This means that, even to the extent that it is possible to observe the
effectiveness of certain teaching behaviors in terms of student achievement, it is difficult to set
generalizable benchmarks or standards for student achievement. Thus is it also difficult to make
true apples-to-apples comparisons about teaching effectiveness between different educational
To list a few
sources as
examples of
constitutes highly effective teaching in one context may not in another. This difficulty has
a larger body
of work, you
featured in criticism of certain meta-analyses that have purported to make generalizable claims can use the
word “see” in
about what teaching factors produce the biggest effects (Hattie, 2009). A variety of other
the
parenthetical,
as we’ve
commentators have also made similar claims about the importance of contextual factors in
done here.
contexts: due to vast differences between different kinds of students, a notion of what
teaching effectiveness for decades (see, e.g., Theall, 2017; Cashin, 1990; Bloom et al., 1956)
The studies described above mainly measure teaching effectiveness in terms of
academic achievement. It should certainly be noted that these quantifiable measures are not
generally regarded as the only outcomes of effective teaching worth pursuing. Qualitative
outcomes like increased affinity for learning and greater sense of self-efficacy are also important
learning goals. Here, also, local context plays a large role.
SETs: Imperfect Measures of Teaching
As noted in this paper’s introduction, SETs are commonly used to assess teaching
performance and inform faculty development efforts. Typically, these take the form of an end-ofterm summative evaluation comprised of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that allow students
to rate statements about their teachers on Likert scales. These are often accompanied with
short-answer responses which may or may not be optional.
SETs serve important institutional purposes. While commentators have noted that there
are crucial aspects of instruction that students are not equipped to judge (Benton & Young,
2018), SETs nevertheless give students a rare institutional voice. They represent an opportunity
9
to offer anonymous feedback on their teaching experience and potentially address what they
deem to be their teacher’s successes or failures. Students are also uniquely positioned to offer
meaningful feedback on an instructors’ teaching because they typically have much more
extensive firsthand experience of it than any other educational stakeholder. Even peer
observers only witness a small fraction of the instructional sessions during a given semester.
Students with perfect attendance, by contrast, witness all of them. Thus, in a certain sense, a
student can theoretically assess a teacher’s ability more authoritatively than even peer mentors
can.
While historical attempts to validate SETs have produced mixed results, some studies
have demonstrated their promise. Howard (1985), for instance, finds that SET are significantly
more predictive of teaching effectiveness than self-report, peer, and trained-observer
assessments. A review of several decades of literature on teaching evaluations (Watchel, 1998)
found that a majority of researchers believe SETs to be generally valid and reliable, despite
occasional misgivings. This review notes that even scholars who support SETs frequently argue
that they alone cannot direct efforts to improve teaching and that multiple avenues of feedback
are necessary (Seldin, 1993; L’hommedieu et al., 1990).
Finally, SETs also serve purposes secondary to the ostensible goal of improving
instruction that nonetheless matter. They can be used to bolster faculty CVs and assign
departmental awards, for instance. SETs can also provide valuable information unrelated to
teaching. It would be hard to argue that it not is useful for a teacher to learn, for example, that a
student finds the class unbearably boring, or that a student finds the teacher’s personality so
unpleasant as to hinder her learning. In short, there is real value in understanding students’
affective experience of a particular class, even in cases when that value does not necessarily
lend itself to firm conclusions about the teacher’s professional abilities.
However, a wealth of scholarly research has demonstrated that SETs are prone to fail in
certain contexts. A common criticism is that SETs can frequently be confounded by factors
10
external to the teaching construct. The best introduction to the research that serves as the basis
for this claim is probably Neath (1996), who performs something of a meta-analysis by
presenting these external confounds in the form of twenty sarcastic suggestions to teaching
faculty. Among these are the instructions to “grade leniently,” “administer ratings before tests”
(p. 1365), and “not teach required courses” (#11) (p. 1367). Most of Neath’s advice reflects an
overriding observation that teaching evaluations tend to document students’ affective feelings
toward a class, rather than their teachers’ abilities, even when the evaluations explicitly ask
students to judge the latter.
Beyond Neath, much of the available research paints a similar picture. For example, a
study of over 30,000 economics students concluded that “the poorer the student considered his
teacher to be [on an SET], the more economics he understood” (Attiyeh & Lumsden, 1972). A
1998 meta-analysis argued that “there is no evidence that the use of teacher ratings improves
learning in the long run” (Armstrong, 1998, p. 1223). A 2010 National Bureau of Economic
Research study found that high SET scores for a course’s instructor correlated with “high
contemporaneous course achievement,” but “low follow-on achievement” (in other words, the
students would tend to do well in the course, but poor in future courses in the same field of
study. Others observing this effect have suggested SETs reward a pandering, “soft-ball”
teaching style in the initial course (Carrell & West, 2010). More recent research suggests that
course topic can have a significant effect on SET scores as well: teachers of “quantitative
courses” (i.e., math-focused classes) tend to receive lower evaluations from students than their
humanities peers (Uttl & Smibert, 2017).
Several modern SET studies have also demonstrated bias on the basis of gender
(Basow, 1995; Anderson & Miller, 1997), physical appearance/sexiness (Ambady & Rosenthal,
1993), and other identity markers that do not affect teaching quality. Gender, in particular, has
attracted significant attention. One recent study examined two online classes: one in which
instructors identified themselves to students as male, and another in which they identified as
This citation
presents
quotations
from different
locations in
the original
source. Each
quotation is
followed by
the
corresponding
page number.
11
female (regardless of the instructor’s actual gender) (Macnell et al., 2015). The classes were
identical in structure and content, and the instructors’ true identities were concealed from
students. The study found that students rated the male identity higher on average. However, a
few studies have demonstrated the reverse of the gender bias mentioned above (that is, women
received higher scores) (Bachen et al., 1999) while others have registered no gender bias one
way or another (Centra & Gaubatz, 2000).
The goal of presenting these criticisms is not necessarily to diminish the institutional
importance of SETs. Of course, insofar as institutions value the instruction of their students, it is
important that those students have some say in the content and character of that instruction.
Rather, the goal here is simply to demonstrate that using SETs for faculty development
purposes—much less for personnel decisions—can present problems. It is also to make the
case that, despite the abundance of literature on SETs, there is still plenty of room for scholarly
attempts to make these instruments more useful.
Empirical Scales and Locally-Relevant Evaluation
One way to ensure that teaching assessments are more responsive to the demands of
teachers’ local contexts is to develop those assessments locally, ideally via a process that
involves the input of a variety of local stakeholders. Here, writing assessment literature offers a
promising path forward: empiric
