Table 2.
Abbreviated descriptions of the list of inventory items that receive points on the rubric sorted according to general factors that support learning and teacher effectiveness, along with references on their impacta
| Factor | Practice that supports | References on benefits |
|---|---|---|
| Section 1. Practices that support learning | ||
| Knowledge organization | I. List of topics to be covered | Promising Practice No. 1: Learning Outcomes in Froyd (2008); Chapters 2 and 5 in Ambrose et al. (2010) |
| I. List of topic-specific competencies (+ practice + feedback + metacognition) | Promising Practice No. 4: Scenario-based Content Organization in Froyd (2008) | |
| I. List of competencies that are not topic related (critical thinking, problem solving) | ||
| II. Animations, video clips, simulations | ||
| II. Lecture notes or copy of class materials1 (partial/skeletal or complete) | 1 Kiewra (1985) | |
| III. Time spent on the process2 | 2Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) | |
| Long-term memory and reducing cognitive load | II. Worked examples1 | 1Atkinson et al. (2000). Also implies that preclass reading would reduce cognitive load and thereby enhance in-class activities. |
| III. Students read/view material on upcoming class and quizzed2 | 2Roediger et al. (2010) | |
| Novak et al. (1999) | ||
| Motivation | I. Affective goals—changing students’ attitudes and perceptions | Chapter 3 in Ambrose et al. (2010); Pintrich (2003); Promising Practice No. 4: Scenario-based Content Organization in Froyd (2008) |
| II. Articles from scientific literature | ||
| III. Discussions on why material useful | ||
| V. Students explicitly encouraged to meet individually with you (+ feedback) | ||
| VI. Students provided with opportunities to have some control over their learning | ||
| Practice | II. Practice or previous years’ exams + feedback for all items below | Chapter 5 in Ambrose et al. (2010); Promising Practice No. 6: Designing In-class Activities to Actively Engage Students in Froyd (2008); Freeman et al. (2014); Ericsson (2006) |
| III. Number of small-group discussions or problem solving | ||
| III. Demonstrations in which students first predict behavior1III. Student presentationsIII. Fraction of class time [not] lecturingIII. Number of PRS questions posed followed by student–student discussionIV. Problem sets/homework assigned and contributing to course grade2IV. Paper or project (involving some degree of student control)3 (+ knowledge organization + motivation)V. Fraction of exam mark from questions that require reasoning explanation (+ metacognition) | 1Crouch et al. (2004); Sokoloff and Thornton (1997, 2004)2Walberg et al. (1985); Cooper et al. (2006). The reviews by Walberg et al. (1985) and Cooper et al. (2006) are of the extensive K–12 research literature on the beneficial effects of graded homework. Numerous research articles report the educational benefits in undergraduate math and science. Two examples are Cheng et al. (2004) and Richards-Babb et al. (2011).3Kuh (2008) | |
| Feedback | II. Student wikis or discussion board with significant contribution from instructor/TA | Black and Wiliam (1998); Hattie and Timperley (2007); Promising Practice No. 5: Providing Students Feedback through Systematic Formative Assessment in Froyd (2008); Chapter 5 in Ambrose et al. (2010); Gibbs and Simpson (2005) |
| II. Solutions to homework assignments | ||
| III. Number of times pause to ask for questions | ||
| IV. Assignments with feedback and opportunity to redo work (+ metacognition) | ||
| IV. Students see marked assignments | Atkinson et al. (2000) | |
| IV. Students see assignment answer key and/or marking rubric | ||
| IV. Students see marked midterm exams | ||
| IV. Students see midterm answer keys | ||
| V. Number of midterm exams | ||
| V. Breakdown of course mark | ||
| Metacognition | III. Reflective activity at end of class | Pascarella and Terenzini (2005); Froyd (2008) |
| VI. Opportunities for self-evaluationAlso all group learning | Chapter 7 in Ambrose et al. (2010); Chapter 3 in Bransford et al. (2000) | |
| Group learning (has elements of most other categories) | IV. Encouragement for students to work collaboratively on their assignments | Promising Practice No. 2: Organize Students in Small Groups in Froyd (2008); Chapter 5 in Ambrose et al. (2010) |
| IV. Explicit group assignments Also all in-class student discussions | ||
| Section 2. Practices that support teacher effectiveness | ||
| Connect with student prior knowledge and beliefs | VI. Assessment at beginning of courseVI. Use of pre–post survey of student interest and/or perceptions (also feedback on effectiveness) | Bransford et al. (2000); Chapter 1 in Ambrose et al. (2010) |
| Feedback on effectiveness | V. Midterm course evaluation1 | Ericsson (2006) and the other general references above on value of feedback for developing expertise apply here as well.1 Centra (1973); Cohen (1980); Diamond (2004) |
| V. Repeated feedback from students1 | ||
| VI. Use of instructor-independent pre–post test (e.g., concept inventory) | ||
| VI. Use of a consistent measure of learning that is repeated | ||
| VI. New teaching methods with measurements of impact on learning | ||
| Gain relevant knowledge and skills | VII. TAs satisfy English-language criteria1 | 1Hinofotis and Bailey (1981); Anderson-Hsieh and Koehler (1988); Jacobs and Friedman (1988); Williams (1992)2Seymour (2005)3General references above on value of collaborative learning would also apply here, but in the context of teacher knowledge, skills, and metacognition.Sadler et al. (2013) |
| VII. TAs receive one-half day or more of training2 | ||
| VII. Instructor–TA meetings on student learning and difficulties, etc.2 | ||
| VIII. Used “departmental” course materials | ||
| VIII. Discussed how to teach the course with colleague(s)3 | ||
| VIII. Read literature about teaching and learning relevant to this course (+ connect with student prior knowledge and beliefs) | ||
| VIII. Sat in on colleague's class3 | ||
aNote that the item descriptions are abbreviated to save space. The full version of inventory in the Appendix should be consulted to fully understand what that item on the survey is asking. The classification is for the convenience of the reader rather than any sort of factor analysis. Many of the practices represented by a single inventory item contribute via several of the factors listed, and the factors themselves are not orthogonal. We list practices according to a somewhat arbitrary choice as to their single “most important” factor and the most relevant references, noting in italics some of the most important other factors by which that practice contributes. The references listed are not an exhaustive list and in most cases are reviews that contain many original references. This table does not include 14 commonly used teaching practices that are captured by the inventory to characterize the teaching methods used but are not given points in the scoring rubric due to insufficient evidence as to their impact on learning. Superscript numbers in column 2 refer to applicable references in column 3.