Evaluation and Assessment

Improving Learning at UCR

Physics Lecture Hall

Annotated Inventory

Annotated Teaching Practices Inventory

The Teaching Practices Inventory was created by Carl Wieman and Sarah Gilbert. It asks instructors about various types of teaching practices that have been found to be effective and promoting student learning in the literature. This is a non-interactive version of that survey that highlights the connections to the literature of teaching and learning by providing links to many of the specific studies Wieman and Gilbert drew on. Links maybe missing for some kinds of resources where there was no easily accessible electronic version, say a chapter in a book.

If you would like to take the survey, please email ievalcontact@ucr.edu for a link to the survey.

After taking the survey (you will receive an email with your score), this website should help you easily find literature on effective teaching that may be of interest to you based on how you scored.

Instructor name:                              

Course number (i.e.: PSYC 001):   

Approximate number of students:

I. Course information provided to students via hard copy or course webpage. (check all that occurred in your course) a
  • List of topics to be covered
  • List of topic-specific competencies (skills, knowledge, ...) students should achieve (what students should be able to do)
  • List of competencies that are not topic related (critical thinking, problem solving, ...)
  • Affective goals – changing students’ attitudes and beliefs (interest, motivation, relevance, beliefs about their competencies, how to master the material)
  • Other, please specify:
II. Supporting materials provided to students (check all that occurred in your course)
  • Student wikis or discussion boards with little or no contribution from you.
  • Student wikis or discussion boards with significant contribution from you or TAb
  • Solutions to homework assignmentsc
  • Worked examples (text, pencast, or other format) 
  • Practice or previous year’s exams
  • Animations, video clips, or simulations related to course material
  • Lecture notes or course Powerpoint presentations (partial/skeletal or complete) d
  • Other instructor selected notes or supporting materials, pencasts, etc.
  • Articles from scientific literaturee
  • Other, please specify
III. In-class features and activities
A.    Various

In the lecture section of this course how often did you:

 

Several time each meeting

 Once or twice each meeting

Some weeks but not others

Never

Paused for students to ask questions

□

□

□

□

Had students discuss in small groupsf

□

□

□

□

Show demonstrations or simulations

□

□

□

□

Show demonstrations or simulations AND had students first record predictions and then compare observations with predictionsg

□

□

□

□

Discussed why material was useful and/or interesting from students' perspectiveh

□

□

□

□
B. Personal Response System (PRS)

If a student response system is used to collect responses from all students IN REAL TIME IN CLASS, what method is used? (Check all that occurred in your course.)

  • Electronic “clickers” with student identifier
  • Electronic “clickers” that were anonymous
  • raising hands
  • written student responses that are collected and reviewed in real time
  • A smartphone app, please specify
  • Other, please specify

Number of questions followed by student-student discussion per classm

Number of times used a quiz device (counts for marks and no student discussion) per class

IV. Assignments (check all that occurred in your course)
  • Problem sets/homework assigned or suggested but did not contribute to course grade
  • Problem sets/homework assigned and contributed to course grade at intervals of 2 weeks or lessn
  • Paper or project (an assignment taking longer than two weeks and involving some degree of student control in choice of topic or design)o
  • Encouragement and facilitation for students to work collaboratively on their assignmentsp
  • Explicit group assignmentsp
  • Other, please specify
V. Feedback and testing; including grading policies (check all that occurred in your course)
A. Feedback from students to instructor during the termq
  • Midterm course evaluation
  • Repeated online or paper feedback or via some other collection means such as clickers
  • Other, please specify
B. Feedback to students (check all that occurred in your course)r
  • Assignments with feedback before grading or with opportunity to redo work to improve grade
  • Students see graded assignments
  • Students see assignment answer key and/or grading rubric
  • Students see graded midterm exam(s)
  • Students see midterm exam(s) answer key(s)
  • Students explicitly encouraged to meet individually with you
  • Other, please specify

C. Testing and gradings

Number of midterm exams ___________________________________

Approximate fraction of exam grade from questions that required students to explain reasoning _____%

Approximate breakdown of course grade (% in each of the following categories)

  • Final Exam                                         
  • Midterm Exam(s)                                
  • Homework assignments                      
  • Paper(s) or project(s)                           
  • In-class activities                                
  • In-class quizzes                                    
  • Online quizzes                                     
  • Participation                                  
  • Lab component                                    
  • Other, please specify:            
VI. Other (check all that occurred in your course)
  • Assessment given at beginning of course to assess background knowledget
  • Use of pre-post test (e.g. concept inventory) to measure learning not developed by you 
  • Use of a consistent measure of learning that is repeated in multiple offerings of the course to compare learning
  • Use of pre-post survey of student interest and/or perceptions about the subject
  • Opportunities for students’ self-evaluation of learningu
  • Students provided with opportunities to have some control over their learning, such as choice of topics for course, paper, or project, choice of assessment methods, etc.v
  • New teaching methods or materials were tried along with measurements to determine their impact on student learning
VII. Training and guidance of Teaching Assistants (check all that occurred in your course)w
  • No TAs for course
  • TAs must satisfy English language skills criteriax
  • TAs receive 1⁄2 day or more of training in teaching
  • There are Instructor-TA meetings every two weeks or more frequently where student learning and difficulties, and the teaching of upcoming material are discussed.
  • TAs are undergraduates
  • TAs are graduate students
  • Other, please specify
VIII. Collaboration or sharing in teaching
  • Used or adapted materials provided by colleague(s)
  • Used “Departmental” course materials that all instructors of this course are expected to usez

Discussed how to teach the course with colleague(s)

  • 1 Never
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5 Very Frequently

Read literature about teaching and learning relevant to this kind of  courseaa

  • 1 Never
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5 Very Frequently

Sat in on colleague's class (any class) to get/share ideas for teachingy

  • 1 Never
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5 Very Frequently

  

a Froyd J (2008). White Paper on Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education, Commissioned Papers, Washington, DC: Board on Science Education, National Academy of Science; Ambrose S, Bridges M, DiPietro M, Lovett M, Normal M (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

b  Black P, Wiliam D (1998). Assessment and classroom learning; Hattie J, Timperley H (2007). The power of feedback. Froyd J (2008). White Paper on Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education, Commissioned Papers, Washington, DC: Board on Science Education, National Academy of Science; Ambrose S, Bridges M, DiPietro M, Lovett M, Normal M (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

c Atkinson R, Derry S, Renkl K, Wortham D (2000). Learning from example: instructional principles from the worked examples research. Rev Educ Res 70, 181-214.

d Kiewra K (1985). Providing the instructor’s notes: an effective addition to student note taking. Educ Psychol 20, 33-39.

e Pintrich P (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. J Educ Psychol 95, 667-686.

f  Black P, Wiliam D (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ Princ Pol Pract 5, 7-74; Hattie J, Timperley H (2007). The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 77, 81-112.

g Atkinson R, Derry S, Renkl K, Wortham D (2000). Learning from example: instructional principles from the worked examples research. Rev Educ Res 70, 181-214.

h Kiewra K (1985). Providing the instructor’s notes: an effective addition to student note taking. Educ Psychol 20, 33-39.

i Novak G, Patterson E, Gavrin A, Christian W (1999). Just-In-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning and Web Technology, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

j Froyd J (2008). White Paper on Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education, Commissioned Papers, Washington, DC: Board on Science Education, National Academy of Science; Pascarella E, Terenzini P (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

k  Froyd J (2008). White Paper on Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education, Commissioned Papers, Washington, DC: Board on Science Education, National Academy of Science; Ambrose S, Bridges M, DiPietro M, Lovett M, Normal M (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

l  Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman N (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ 22, 665-701.

m Froyd J (2008). White Paper on Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education, Commissioned Papers, Washington, DC: Board on Science Education, National Academy of Science; Ambrose S, Bridges M, DiPietro M, Lovett M, Normal M (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Wiley

nAmbrose S, Bridges M, DiPietro M, Lovett M, Normal M (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Wiley; Cooper H, Robinson J, Patall E (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research 1987-2003. Rev Educ 13, 321-341; Walberg HJ, Paschal RA, Weinstein T (1895). Homework’s powerful effects on learning. Educ Leadership 42, 76-79; Richards-Babb M, Drelick J, Henry Z, Robertson-Honecker J (2011). Online homework, help or hindrance? What students think and how they perform. J Coll Sci Teach 40, 81-93; Cheng K, Thacker B, Cardenas R, Crouch C (2004). Using an online homework system enhances students’ learning of physics course. Am J Phys 72, 1447-1453.

o  Kuh G (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter, Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

p  Froyd J (2008). White Paper on Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education, Commissioned Papers, Washington, DC: Board on Science Education, National Academy of Science.

q Centra J (1973). Effectiveness of student feedback in modifying college instruction. J Educ Psychol 65, 395-401; Cohen P (1980). Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: a meta-analysis of findings. Res High Educ Res 76, 1-62; Diamond M (2004). The usefulness of structured mid-term feedback as a catalyst for change in higher education classes. Active Learn Higher Educ 5, 217-231.

r Black P, Wiliam D (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ Princ Pol Pract 5, 7-74; Froyd J (2008). White Paper on Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education, Commissioned Papers, Washington, DC: Board on Science Education, National Academy of Science; Ambrose S, Bridges M, DiPietro M, Lovett M, Normal M (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Wiley

s Gibb G, Simpson C (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learn Teach Higher Educ 1, 3-31.  

t Ambrose S, Bridges M, DiPietro M, Lovett M, Normal M (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Wiley; Brandford J, Brown A, Cocking R, Donovan SM, Pellegrino J (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, expanded ed., Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

u Ambrose S, Bridges M, DiPietro M, Lovett M, Normal M (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Wiley; Brandford J, Brown A, Cocking R, Donovan SM, Pellegrino J (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, expanded ed., Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

v Pintrich P (2003). Amotivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. J Educ Psychol 95, 667-686; Ambrose S, Bridges M, DiPietro M, Lovett M, Normal M (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Wiley

w Seymour E (2005). Partners in Innovation: Teaching Assistants in College Science Courses, Lanham, ND: Rowman & Littlefield.

x Anderson-Hsieh J, Koehler K (1988). The effect of foreign accent and speaking rate on native speaker comprehension. Lang Learn 38, 561-613; Hinofotis F, Bailey K (1981). American undergraduates’ reactions to the communication skills of foreign teaching assistants. In: On TESOL’80—Building Bridges: Research and Practice in Teaching English, ed. JC Fisher, M Clark, and J Schachter, Washington, DC: TESOL, 120-133; Jacobs L, Friedman C (1988). Student achievement under foreign teaching associates compared with native teaching associates. J Higher Educ 59, 551-563; Williams J (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Q 26, 693-711.

y  

z

aa Sadler P, Sonnert G, Coyle H, Cook-Smith N, Miller J (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. Am Educ Res J 50, 1020-1049.