Patient Safety Standards Health Care Systems Paper.

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. Patient Safety Standards Health Care Systems Paper.

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 i mportant ideas or subjects in your paper. These help online readers search for your paper in a database. Patient Safety Standards Health Care Systems Paper.

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), “Faculty evaluation and development cannot be considered location of the quote in separately … evaluation without development is punitive, and development without evaluation is the document (in this case, guesswork” (p. 91). As the practices that constitute modern programmatic faculty development the page number) in have evolved from their humble beginnings to become a commonplace feature of university life the parenthetical. (Lewis, 1996), a variety of tactics to evaluate the proficiency of teaching faculty for development By contrast, here, we’ve purposes have likewise become commonplace. These include measures as diverse as peer merely paraphrased 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 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 (Gaff & Simpson, 1994; Lewis, 1996; McKeachie, 1996). By the mid-2000s, researchers had begun to characterize SETs in terms like “…the predominant measure of university teacher performance […] worldwide” Spell out abbreviations the first time you use them, except in cases where the abbreviations are very wellknown (e.g., “CIA”). For sources with two authors, use an ampersand (&) between the authors’ names rather than the word “and.” (Pounder, 2007, p. 178). Today, SETs play an important role in teacher assessment and faculty When listing development at most universities (Davis, 2009). Recent SET research practically takes the presence of some form of this assessment on most campuses as a given. Spooren et al. (2017), for instance, merely note that that SETs can be found at “almost every institution of higher education throughout the world” (p. 130). Similarly, Darwin (2012) refers to teacher evaluation as an established orthodoxy, labeling it a “venerated,” “axiomatic” institutional practice (p. 733). Patient Safety Standards Health Care Systems Paper.

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 multiple citations in the same parenthetical, list them alphabetically and separate them with semicolons. 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) finds that 86% of higher educational institutions use SETs as important factors in personnel decisions. 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 (Boring et al., 2017; Galbraith et al., 2012). 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. Patient Safety Standards Health Care Systems Paper.

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. Patient Safety Standards Health Care Systems Paper.

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. Patient Safety Standards Health Care Systems Paper.

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). Patient Safety Standards Health Care Systems Paper.

A variety of other the parenthetical, commentators have also made similar claims about the importance of contextual factors in as we’ve done here. contexts: due to vast differences between different kinds of students, a notion of what teaching effectiveness for decades (see, e.g., Bloom et al., 1956; Cashin, 1990; Theall, 2017). 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. Patient Safety Standards Health Care Systems Paper.

 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. Patient Safety Standards Health Care Systems Paper.

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 (L’hommedieu et al., 1990; Seldin, 1993). 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’ affe…