The influence of interactions with students for the development of new academics as teachers in higher education

The aim of the current investigation was to provide an insight into how new lecturers in higher education develop as teachers and to identify some of the main influences upon this development. A qualitative, longitudinal design with three semi-structured interviews over a 2-year period was employed with eleven new teachers from a range of higher education institutions and settings. The analysis used case studies, alongside a thematic analysis, to provide fine-grained and idiosyncratic insights into the teachers’ development. The principal finding from the current study was the identification that instances of interactions with students, acted as a core influence upon the new teachers’ development. These instances appeared to provide the teachers with richer and fuller feedback about their teaching. This feedback supported their reflection and influenced the way in which they thought about teaching. Based on these findings it is suggested that teacher development could be enhanced by focussing upon specific instances of interactions with students as these instances provide specific and tangible moments that allow individuals to reflect upon and discuss their conceptions of teaching

The good teaching practice of university professors: case study

[ES] En este trabajo se muestra un modelo de conocimiento construido sobre buenas prácticas docentes de dos profesores universitarios de áreas de conocimiento relacionadas con la Ingeniería y, seleccionados como “docentes excelentes” por sus estudiantes y por su contribución a la innovación en la Universidad. El modelo fue realizado en el marco de una investigación que se ha llevado a cabo por 6 universidades españolas. El trabajo identifica, analiza, explicita y representa el conocimiento de expertos, en este caso de profesores universitarios definidos como “buenos docentes” con la ayuda del programa informático CMap Tools. El pensamiento pedagógico y la práctica docente de estos profesores caracterizados por su buena práctica, constituye un excelente ejemplo que puede orientar tanto al profesor novel como a profesores experimentados que quieran mejorar la calidad de la docencia que imparten.[EN] This paper presents a knowledge model of the good teaching practice of a university lecturer in “Social Organization and Human Development” a subject taught in the first semester in Sociology: The model was developed as a part of a research project conducted by 6 Spanish universities. The paper identifies, analyzes, explicates and, with the aid of the CMap Tools software package, maps the pedagogical thinking and teaching practice of a university lecturer with a reputation for good teaching practice. The knowledge model for the good practice of this lecturer, which is readily accessible via the Internet, provides an excellent example for the guidance of both novice and experienced lecturers who wish to improve the quality of their teaching.Fernández March, A.; Maiques March, JM.; Ábalos Galcerá, A. (2012). Las buenas prácticas docentes de los profesores universitarios: estudio de casos. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. 10(1):43-66. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2012.6121OJS4366101Bain, K. (2006). Lo que hacen los mejores profesores universitarios. Valencia: PUVBolívar, A. (2002). "¿De nobis ipsis silemus?: Epistemología de la investigación biográfico‐narrativa en educación. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 4(1). Consultado en: 18 marzo 2012. http://redie.uabc.uabc.mx/vol4n01/contenido‐bolivar.htmlCañas, A. J., Hill, G., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Eskridge, T. et al. (2004). CmapTools: A Knowledge Modeling and Sharing Environment. En: A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak & F. M. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping (Vol. I, pp. 125‐133). Pamplona, España: Universidad Pública de Navarra.Cooke, N.J. (1994). Varieties of Knowledge Elicitation Techniques. Internatinal Journal of Human‐Computer Studies, 41, 801‐849.Denny, T. (1978). Storytelling and educatinal understanding, address delibered ay national meeting of International Reading Association. Houston, Texas. En Guba. E.G & Lincoln. Y.S. (1981). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousands Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Dye, J.F., Schatz, I.M., Rosenberg, B.A. & Coleman, S.T. (2000). Constant Comparison Method: a kaleidoscope of data. The Qualitative Report, 4(1/2), www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3‐4/dye.htmlFernández, A. (2002). "La carpeta docente como estrategia formativa favorecedora de una actitud innovadora en los profesores universitarios" Boletín de la Red estatal de docencia Universitaria. Vol.2 (3). Septiembre.Fox, D. (1983). Personal Theories of Teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 8: 151‐163.Gargallo, B. Fernández, MªA. et.al. (2005). En el horizonte del espacio europeo de educación superior. Perfiles de docencia y evaluación de los profesores universitarios. Comunicación presentada en el X Congreso Interuniversitario de Teoría de la Educación. Nuevos espacios y nuevos entornos de educación. Alicante, 11‐13 de abril de 2005.González García, F.; Guruceaga Zubillaga, A.; Pozueta Mendía, E.; Porta Cuéllar, S. (2010). Una Aproximación al Conocimiento de una Profesora Universitaria, Agente de Buenas Prácticas Docentes, Utilizando Mapas Conceptuales. PROFESORADO. Revista de currículum y formación del profesorado. Vol. 14 (3), 117‐130González, F. & Ibañez, F. (2000). Una aportación a la mejora de la calidad de la docencia universitaria: los mapas conceptuales. Pamplona: UPNAGow, L. & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of Teaching and Their Relationship to Student Learning. British Journal or Educational Psychology, 63, 20‐33.Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to Teaching and their Effect on the Quality of Student Learning. Journal of Higjher Education, 65, 58‐74.Kember, D. (1997). A Reconceptualization of the Research into University Academics' Conceptions of Teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255‐285.Kember, D. (2001). Beliefs about Knowledge and the process of Teaching and Learning as a Factor in Adjusting to Study in Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 26 (2), 205‐221.Marcelo, C. (1987). El pensamiento del profesor. Barcelona: CEAC.Muradas, M. & Zabalza, M.A. (2006). Los mapas conceptuales como recurso para representar y analizar buenas prácticas docentes en la educación superior. Cañas, J. & Novak, (Eds.). Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Tehnology Proc. Of the Second Int. Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica.Murray, K. & McDonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers' conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher Education, 33, 331‐349.Quinlan, K.M. (2002). "Case Studies of Academics' Educational Beliefs about their Discipline: toward a doscourse on scholarly dimensions of teaching. Paper presentado al Congreso Anual de la Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. Adelaide, 8‐11 Julio.Oser, F. K. & Baeriswyl, F.J. (2001). Choreographies of Teaching: Bridging Instruction to Learning. En Richardson, V.: Handbook of Research onTeaching. AERA. Pág. 10311065.Rodriguez, G.; Gil Flores, J. & García Jiménez, E. (1996). Metodología de la investigación cualitativa. Málaga: Ediciones Aljibe.Samuelowicz, K. (1999). Academics' Educational Beliefs and Teaching Practices. Thesis. Griffith University. Australia.Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J.D. (2001). Revisiting Academics' Beliefs about Teaching and Learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 299‐325.Sigel, I.E. (1985). A conceptual analysis of beliefs. En Sigel, I.E. (Ed.): Parental belief systems: the psychological consequences for children. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 345‐ 371.Singer, E.R. (1996). Espoused Teaching Paradigms of College Faculty. Research in Higher Education, 37, 659‐679.Stark, S. et.al. (2002). Use of cognitive mapping to understand environmental characteristics that support social participation of individuals who have mobility impairments. Paper presented to the 130th Annual Meeting of APHA.Zabalza Beraza, M.A. (1988). Pensamiento del profesor y desarrollo didáctico, Enseñanza, nº 4‐5, 109‐138

The evaluation of the quality of teaching in the university: A review of the literature

[ES] Este artículo ofrece un panorama general del estado de la literatura sobre la evaluación de la docencia en educación superior universitaria. La revisión parte de los principales desafíos que, desde diferentes publicaciones, reportes de investigación y la literatura en general, enfrenta la evaluación de la docencia en educación superior en términos de concepciones, propósitos, enfoques e instrumentos. A través de este lente se han considerado cuatro aspectos transversales que estos desafíos conservan: la complejidad de la tarea docente, la falta de consenso frente a lo que significa ser un docente de calidad en la universidad, limitar la responsabilidad del docente únicamente a la adquisición de conocimientos por parte del estudiante y la proliferación de criterios de evaluación de un docente de calidad que podrían materializarse en algunas perspectivas sobre la “buena enseñanza”. La revisión proporciona una idea clara del estado del arte con respecto a la investigación en evaluación de la docencia en la universidad, aportando elementos de análisis que pueden servir para el desarrollo de futuros estudios sobre un tema actual y que merece un espacio dentro de las agendas de la investigación en educación. El texto finaliza con una propuesta flexible y abierta de un sistema integral de evaluación de la docencia, al servicio de la calidad en la universidad y algunos principios orientadores de su construcción.[EN] This article provides a general overview of the literature about faculty evaluation. The review process begins from the main challenges that have been found in different publications, research reports and literature, where faculty evaluation has been addressed by its conceptions, purposes, approaches and instruments. Through this lens four aspects has been considered: the complexity of the teacher activity, the lack of agreement towards what to be a good teacher at university is, to limit the teacher’s responsibility only to student learning, and the growth of the criteria for teaching evaluation. These criteria could be materialized in some perspectives about “good teaching”. The review offers a clear idea of the state of the art regarding faculty evaluation research. It gives elements of analysis for the development of research in the future. The paper concludes by describing a comprehensive, open and flexible approach to teaching evaluation. In addition, we describe some foundations for the development of this approach.Ramírez Garzón, MI.; Montoya Vargas, J. (2014). La evaluación de la calidad de la docencia en la universidad: Una revisión de la literatura. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. 12(2):77-95. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2014.5641OJS7795122Alles, M. A. (2002). Desempeño por competencias: evaluación de 360o. Ediciones Granica SA.Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and Evaluation. New York: American Council on Education.Bain, K. (2007). Lo que hacen los mejores profesores universitarios. Universitat de València.Bass, R. J. (2000). Technology, evaluation, and the visibility of teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 35-50.Biggs, J. (1999). Calidad del aprendizaje universitario. (3ra Ed.). Madrid, España: Narcea S.A. Ediciones.Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Braskamp, L. A. (2000). Toward a more holistic approach to assessing faculty as teachers. New directions for teaching and learning, 2000(83), 19-33.Buller, J. L. (2013). Best practices in faculty evaluation: a practical guide for academic leaders. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-BassChism, N. V. N. (2004). Characteristics of effective teaching in higher education: Between definitional despair and certainty. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 15 (3), 5-36.Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about "good teaching": An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 5-26.Feldman, K. A. (1997). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry and J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and Practice (pp. 368-395). NY: Agathon Press.Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 121-125.Fenstermacher, G., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. The Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186-213.Fox, M. A. & Hackerman, N. (Eds). (2002). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. National Academies Press.Hanushek, E. A. (2005). Economic outcomes and school quality (Education Policy Series, Volume 4). Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of educational research, 79(1), 491-525.Johnson, T. D., & Ryan, K. E. (2000). A comprehensive approach to the evaluation of college teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 109-123.Kember,D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255± 275.Kember, D. (1998). Teaching beliefs and their impact on students' approach to learning. In B. DART & G. BOULTON-LEWIS (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 1± 25). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Kember, D. & Leung, D. (2008). Establishing the validity and reliability of course evaluation questionnaires. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33:4, 341-353.Marczely, B. (1992). Teacher evaluation: research versus practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 5(3), 279-290.McKeachie, W. J. (1987). Instructional evaluation: Current issues and possible improvements. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(3), 344-350.Meeus, W., Van Petegem, P., & Engels, N. (2009). Validity and reliability of portfolio assessment in pre-service teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 401-413. doi: 10.1080/02602930802062659Murillo, F. J. (2007). Evaluación del desempeño y carrera profesional docente. Un estudio comparado entre 50 países de América y Europa. Santiago: OREALC/UNESCOMurphy, T., MacLaren, I., & Flynn, S. (2009). Toward a summative system for the assessment of teaching quality in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 226-236.O'Hanlon, J., & Mortensen, L. (1980). Making Teacher Evaluation Work. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(6), 664-672.Ory, J. C. (2000). Teaching Evaluation: Past, Present, and Future. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 13-18. doi: 10.1002/tl.8302Palomba, C. A. & Banta, T. W. (2001). Assessing student competence in accredited disciplines: pionnering approaches to assessment in higher education (1st Ed.). Canada: Stylus Publishing.Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002(93), 5-16.Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience of higher education. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics'conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217± 232.Rueda, M. (2009). La evaluación del desempeño docente: consideraciones desde el enfoque por competencias. Revista electrónica de investigación educativa, 11(2), 1-16.Samuelowicz, K. (1999). Academics' educational beliefs and teaching practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Education, Grif® th University, Australia.Samuelowicz, K.& Bain, J.D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24, 93± 111.Sarramona, J. (2003). Los indicadores de la calidad de la educación. In Trabalho apresentado no IX Congresso Interuniversitario de Teoria de la Educación, San Sebastián.Scott, D. E., & Scott, S. (s.f). Effective University Teaching and Learning.Shulman, L. S. (2004). Teaching as community property: Essays on higher education. P. Hutchings (Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching The State of the Art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598-642.Stake, R. E., & Cisneros-Cohernour, E. J. (2000). Situational Evaluation of Teaching on Campus. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 51-72.Stake, R. E., Contreras P., G., & Arbesú, I. (2011). Evaluando la calidad de la Universidad, particularmente su Docencia. Paper presented at the III Coloquio Internacional de la RIIED, Bogotá.Theall, M., & Franklin, J. (2000). Creating Responsive Student Ratings Systems to Improve Evaluation Practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 95-107.Uniandes (Producer). (2011). M. Scriven: El estado del arte de la evaluación de los profesores: fallas en la valoración de los pares, valoraciones de los estudiantes y mejoras del aprendizaje como base para la evaluación. RIIED: III Coloquio internacional. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo0dYwcIO3E&list=PL057113F01F9F84DC&index=2&feature=plpp_vide

E-learning: you don't always get what you hope for

Despite substantial growth in the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) throughout western societies, there is much evidence of technology-led innovations within Higher Education (HE) failing to achieve the anticipated transformations in learning and teaching. This paper reviews evidence from research and evaluation studies relating not only to e-learning, but also to wider HE practices. It argues that the use of ICT does not, in itself, result in improved educational outcomes and ways of working. It considers contextual factors that are of greater significance in determining how and why e-learning is used in HE. Students' engagement with e-learning relates to their expectations and conceptions of learning and to assessment demands. Academics need to re-assess their own beliefs and practices concerning teaching and assessment and their impact on the experience of learners. Both teachers and learners need to understand why e-learning activities are to be undertaken and the rewards expected to be derived

Active Methodologies in Higher Education: Perception and Opinion as Evaluated by Professors and Their Students in the Teaching-Learning Process

The goal of this study is both to determine the opinion that professors and students at the university have of active methodologies and to describe the perception and opinion of the modes of organization, methodological focuses, and evaluation systems that define the teaching-learning process. On surveying the professors and the students in their classes, we found significant differences in 32 of the 92 variables in common. The content of these results shows that professors and students are believe they are making progress toward a learning-centered model, that implementation of active methodologies implies new functions in their teaching practice

Learning Problems of Overseas Students: Two Sides of a Story

Research into the nature and extent of problems faced by over-seas students in Australia is based almost entirely on surveys of this population either by staff of support services or by or on behalf of policy making bodies. The nature of educational difficulties — 'language’ and 'study’ problems — is still relatively unknown, however it has been explored to some extent by study skills counsellors and teachers of English as a second language. Little is known about perception of these problems by academic staff. This paper describes learning problems of overseas students as seen by the academic staff at the University of Queensland and compares them with the perception of learning problems held by overseas students. Academic staff (145) representing 50 departments, and 136 overseas students representing 14 courses at postgraduate level and 10 courses at undergraduate level responded to questionnaires identifying educational problems and suggesting possible solutions. Copyrigh

Academics' Educational Beliefs and Teaching Practices

The research presented in this thesis focuses on two questions—how academics conceptualise teaching and learning and whether their educational beliefs and teaching and assessment practices are ‘thematically related’. The interest in finding answers to these questions lies in their implications for improving teaching and ultimately students’ learning. Although academic staff development as such was not the main focus of the present research, understanding how academics think about teaching, how they teach and what they value as learning outcomes is a prerequisite for effective staff development. Several literatures were relevant to the present research: phenomenographic analysis of conceptions of teaching (eg. Prosser, Trigwell & Taylor 1994); research focused on academics’ educational beliefs (eg. Fox 1983; Gow & Kember 1993); and research exploring the relationship between beliefs and practices of academics (Quinlan 1997; Bain 1998) and of school teachers (eg. Thompson 1984; Wilson & Wineburg 1988). The relevance of the ‘conceptions’ research lies in a shared research focus on how academics perceive teaching and learning. The relevance of the ‘beliefs’ research in the school sector lies in the methods used and the beliefs described thus far. The present research was conceived within the ‘beliefs’ framework and borrowed the research approach from it. The dimensions revealed by both streams of research were used in devising the interview schedules. Thirteen academics participated in Study 1 and 37 in Study 2, with 20 of the latter also participating in Study 3. Data were obtained through semi-structured interviews which, in Studies 1 and 2, ranged widely over such issues as teaching, learning, understanding, knowledge, knowing, and curriculum design. In Study 3 the questions were closely focused on participants’ assessment tasks and desired learning outcomes. Participants were encouraged to exemplify their perspectives by reference to their teaching practices because the aim was to elicit beliefs grounded in practice rather than espoused beliefs (Argyris & Schön 1974). The method of analysis proceeded from global categorisation of the participants’ orientations to teaching and learning to detailed analysis of the similarities and differences between orientations. The initial categorisation process was based on the constant comparison method (Glaser & Strauss 1967) and proceeded on the working hypothesis that beliefs and practices were ‘internally related’ (Marton & Svensson 1979) in thematically coherent ways. Once the orientation categories were stabilised they were analysed for the qualitative dimensions on which their underlying similarities and differences could be arranged. The resulting framework is a matrix comprising orientations (rows) and qualitative dimensions (columns). This framework enables academics’ ‘typical’ and relatively stable ways of thinking about, and understanding, teaching (Studies 1 and 2) and assessment (Study 3) to be described and compared. The results (Study 2) confirm previous findings that academics conceptualise teaching in qualitatively different ways. Seven orientations to teaching, ranging from imparting knowledge to encouraging knowledge creation, were identified. Broadly, academics think about teaching in two major ways—they either orchestrate situations in which students are encouraged to learn (learning-centred orientations) or they transmit knowledge/information to students (teaching-centred orientations). Within each of these major groupings several distinct orientations to teaching were identified. These seven orientations to teaching are described in terms of nine dimensions that reflect academics’ beliefs about: learning, desired learning outcomes, students’ understandings, the nature of and responsibility for transforming/organising knowledge and the nature of teacher-student interaction. Dimensions (and the coding system developed) also provide a mechanism for ordering the categories from simple (less well developed) to complex. Findings (Study 3) show that assessment practices are not belief-free. What is assessed depends on how knowledge, learning and the role of teachers and students in the getting of knowledge are conceptualised. The six orientations range from assessing students’ ability to recall information presented to them in lectures and study materials, to assessing students’ ability to integrate, transform and use knowledge purposefully. The six orientations can be simplified (in an analogous way to orientations to teaching and learning) into two major orientations expressing the two contrasting beliefs just implied: assessing knowledge as presented by teachers and texts versus assessing knowledge (re)formulated by students and used to understand and interpret the world. The orientations just referred to are composites of beliefs and practice (or beliefs grounded in practice), because the relationship between these domains was emphasised in the method of questioning and in the method of analysis. The force of this claim is demonstrated through narrative descriptions of the perspectives of academics selected to illustrate major orientations to teaching and learning. These narratives provide a strong sense of thematic coherence: academics’ beliefs are closely aligned with their practices; there is a compelling sense in which one constrains the other. For example, academics who set tasks requiring students to transform knowledge or to use knowledge to interpret the world believe that students have to ‘do the learning’ and that their role as teachers is to facilitate the learning process. Conversely, academics who test students’ ability to recall information or emulate a decision process believe that reproduction of knowledge and skill are worthwhile learning outcomes and that their task is to provide the knowledge and skill in an accessible form. Finally, investigation of the congruence between orientations to teaching and assessment practice showed a strong relationship between beliefs and practice. The assessment practices of all but three academics (17 out of 20) were congruent with their orientations to teaching and learning. The research presented in this thesis makes a considerable contribution to the literature. First, it extends understanding of the ways in which academics conceptualise teaching by describing their typical and stable ways of thinking about teaching indicative of a disposition to teach in a particular way. In contrast, ‘conceptions’-based research, prevalent in higher education and mostly conducted using phenomenographic methods, identifies possible ways in which teaching and learning can be conceptualised (eg. Dall’Alba 1991; Prosser, Trigwell & Taylor 1994), The two features—typicality and disposition to act in a particular way—increase the usefulness of the findings of the present research for staff development activities. Second, the present research confirms previous findings of Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) that academics conceptualise teaching in two broadly distinct ways (teaching-centred versus learning-centred) and provides no empirical support for Kember’s (1997a) ‘transitional’ category which he conjectured may provide a bridge between the two major sets of orientations. Third, the present research adds to a rather modest literature on how assessment is conceptualised and practised. And perhaps most importantly it advances understanding of the relationship between beliefs and practice by detailed mapping of the patterns of this relationship, providing a firmer foundation for conceptualisation of activities aimed at improving teaching and ultimately learning. And finally, the present research provides the first empirical support for studies (eg. Quinlan 1997; Bain 1998) which have reported congruence between beliefs and self-reported teaching practices in higher education. Further research is needed in several areas. Given the claims (eg. Quinlan 1997) that teaching is framed by beliefs about the nature of academic disciplines, further research is needed into how discipline knowledge is conceptualised and how such knowledge is translated into courses. Efforts to improve teaching are predicated on the assumed link between teaching and learning, but this relationship has to be further investigated since only three articles (Gow & Kember 1993 and Kember & Gow 1994; Sheppard & Gilbert 1991) have been published in this area. The strong alignment of beliefs and practices documented in the research presented in this thesis has implications for how staff development activities are formulated. It suggests that efforts should be directed more at changing beliefs than on altering teaching approaches. Because relatively little is known about effective ways to change educational beliefs further research in this area is needed.Thesis (PhD Doctorate)Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)School of Curriculum, Teaching and LearningFull Tex

The effects of linguistic factors on student performance on economics multiple choice questions

This paper proposes a framework to analyse performance on multiple choice questions with the focus on linguistic factors. Item Response Theory (IRT) is deployed to estimate ability and question difficulty levels. A logistic regression model is used to detect Differential Item Functioning questions. Probit models testify relationships between performance and linguistic factors controlling the effects of question construction and students’ background. Empirical results have important implications. The lexical density of stems affects performance. The use of non-Economics specialised vocabulary has differing impacts on the performance of students with different language backgrounds. The IRT-based ability and difficulty help explain performance variations