In The Name of God

1. 1

2. Islamic Azad University (UAE Branch) Educational Evaluation & Assessment Behnaz Farahani ,M.S.A,M.S.S June 2011

3. 3

4. Concepts Measure Evaluation 4

5. Measurement + Judgment = Evaluation 5

6. Difference Between Measurement & Evaluation 6

7. 7

8. Of what we learn, we retain approximately the following: 10% of what we read. 20% of what we hear. 30% of what we see (we “see” what we read). 50% of what we hear & see. 70% of what we discuss with others. 80% of what we experience. 90% of what we teach someone else. 8 http://www.joner/cs-reten.htmhttp://www.joner/cs-reten.htm

9. 9

10. A. Evaluation of Teaching B. Evaluation of Research and Scholarly Activity C. Evaluation of Service 10

11. Evaluation of Teaching Course content The number of course preparations a faculty member is responsible for during a given semester Interviews with both undergraduate and graduate majors The standardized student-evaluation results 11

12. Faculty Evaluation Head of The group & supervisor Evaluation. Peer (colleagues) Evaluation. Students Evaluation. Self - Evaluation. 12

13. 1-Head of The group & supervisor Evaluation Teaching dossiers. Student ratings of teaching (Student evaluation). Letters & individual interview. Course portfolio. Classroom assessment. 13

14. 2 -Peer (colleagues) Evaluation Quality of learning environment (labs, lecture hall, online discussion, groups, seminars, studies, etc.) based on classroom visits. Level of student engagement. Clarity of presentation, ability to convey course content in a variety of ways. 14

15. Range of instructional methods & how they support student understanding. Student – instructor rapport . Overall effectiveness. 15

16. Retention of learning Average retention rates from various in structional modes include the following: Lecture: 5% Reading: 10% Audiovisual: 20% Demonstration: 30% Discussion group: 50% Practicing by doing: 75% Teaching Others: 90% Immediate application of learning in a real situation: 90% 16

17. 17 WHAT IS THE AVERAGE RATE OF RETENTION FOR THE LEARNING STRATEGIES THAT YOU SELECTED? HOW DID YOU DO? AFTER SEEING THIS SLIDE, WHAT CHANGES WOULD YOU CONSIDER IN YOUR CURRICULUM? WHAT IS THE AVERAGE RATE OF RETENTION FOR THE LEARNING STRATEGIES THAT YOU SELECTED? HOW DID YOU DO? AFTER SEEING THIS SLIDE, WHAT CHANGES WOULD YOU CONSIDER IN YOUR CURRICULUM?

18. 3 -Student ratings of teaching(Student evaluation) Effectiveness of instructor Impact of instruction on student learning Perceived value of the course to the student Preparation & organization Knowledge of object matter & ability to stimulate interest in the course Clarity & understandability Ability to establish rapport & encourage discussion with the classroom Sensitivity to and concern with students’ level of understanding & progress 18

19. 19

20. 4 -Self - Evaluation How can we ask faculty to evaluate their own teaching? Is it possible for us to be impartial about our own performance? Probably not. It is natural to portray ourselves in the best light possible. 20

21. 4 -Self -Evaluation Unfortunately, the research on this issue is skimpy and inconclusive. A few studies found that faculty rate themselves higher than (Centra, 1999), equal to (Bo-Linn, Gentry, Lowman, Pratt, and Zhu, 2004; Feldman,1989), or lower than (Bo-Linn et al., 2004) their students rate them. Highly rated instructors give themselves higher ratings than less highly rated instructors (Doyle & Crichton, 1978; Marsh, Overall, & Kesler, 1979). Superior teachers provide more accurate self-ratings than mediocre or putrid teachers (Centra,1973; Sorey, 1968). 21

22. 22

23. Curriculum evaluationCIPP model Context Input Product Process 23

24. 24 Decision to adopt a curriculum. Overview of developing a teaching schedule. Elements to include in staff professional development. Context

25. Input Goals for restructuring curriculum. Addressing specific needs or concerns. 25

26. Product Goals achieved or not. Potential problem areas on first implementation. 26

27. 27 Process Monitoring during implementation. Outputs of the implementation phase.

28. 28 Evaluation Criteria of Curriculum

29. 29

30. Diagnostic assessment (now referred to more often as "pre-assessment") Assessment made to determine what a student does and does not know about a topic Assessment made to determine a student's learning style or preferences used to determine how well a student can perform a certain set of skills related to a particular subject or group of subjects Occurs at the beginning of a unit of study Used to inform instruction: makes up the initial phase of assessment for learning 30

31. Formative assessment Assessment made to determine a student’s knowledge and skills, including learning gaps as they progress through a unit of study Used to inform instruction and guide learning Occurs during the course of a unit of study Makes up the subsequent phase of assessment for learning 31

32. Summative assessment Assessment that is made at the end of a unit of study to determine the level of understanding the student has achieved Includes a mark or grade against an expected standard 32

33. 33

34. Bloom's Taxonomy  From Learning and Teaching Taxonomy of learning objectives is an attempt (within the behavioral paradigm) to classify forms and levels of learning. It identifies three “domains” of learning, each of which is organized as a series of levels or pre-requisites. It is suggested that one cannot effectively — or ought not try to — address higher levels until those below them have been covered (it is thus effectively serial in structure). 34

35. Cognitive The most-used of the domains, refers to knowledge structures (although sheer “knowing the facts” is its bottom level). It can be viewed as a sequence of progressive contextualization of the material. 35

36. 36

37. 37

38. 38

39. 39

40. Affective Domain The Affective domain has received less attention, and is less intuitive than the Cognitive. It is concerned with values, or more precisely perhaps with perception of value issues, and ranges from mere awareness (Receiving), through to being able to distinguish implicit values through analysis. 40 (Kratwohl, Bloom and Masia (1964)) (Kratwohl, Bloom and Masia (1964))

41. 41

42. 42

43. Psycho-Motor Domain Bloom never completed work on this domain, and there have been several attempts to complete it. 43

44. 44

45. 45

46. 46