akademiskcoaching.se | Institutions
16679
page-template,page-template-full_width,page-template-full_width-php,page,page-id-16679,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-theme-ver-17.2,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_top,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.6,vc_responsive
 
Educational

Institutions

Coaching for your students

 

Socioeconomic status is a major predictor of educational achievement, but that does not mean that no effective academic interventions can be identified. The results of a recent meta-analysis indicate that it is possible to substantially improve educational achievement for target groups. Tutoring, feedback, progress monitoring and cooperative learning have effect sizes that are educationally important, statistically significant and robust. Coaching and personal feedback methods are increasingly used in industry or in individualised education. Students who are randomly assigned to a coach are much more likely to persist and complete their degree. Coaching proves more effective at increasing graduation rates than any other strategies, such as increasing financial aid, which is much more costly to implement.

 

Institutions are trying hard to increase retention and decrease dropout. It is essential to identify struggling students at an early stage. Students who do not show up or do not hand in assignments on time might be in acute need of help. The ability to recognise these signs and the willingness to offer assistance signal to students that they are important. Providing a coach gives students the opportunity to communicate their problems and develop effective strategies. It makes a world of difference. Motivation leads to achievement. Achievement, in turn, increases motivation and resilience and optimises learning. 

Coaching for your students

 

Socioeconomic status is a major predictor of educational achievement, but that does not mean that no effective academic interventions can be identified. The results of a recent meta-analysis indicate that it is possible to substantially improve educational achievement for target groups. Tutoring, feedback, progress monitoring and cooperative learning have effect sizes that are educationally important, statistically significant and robust. Coaching and personal feedback methods are increasingly used in industry or in individualised education. Students who are randomly assigned to a coach are much more likely to persist and complete their degree. Coaching proves more effective at increasing graduation rates than any other strategies, such as increasing financial aid, which is much more costly to implement.

 

Institutions are trying hard to increase retention and decrease dropout. It is essential to identify struggling students at an early stage. Students who do not show up or do not hand in assignments on time might be in acute need of help. The ability to recognise these signs and the willingness to offer assistance signal to students that they are important. Providing a coach gives students the opportunity to communicate their problems and develop effective strategies. It makes a world of difference. Motivation leads to achievement. Achievement, in turn, increases motivation and resilience and optimises learning. 

Instructional coaching for academics

 

Introduction

 

This text explains our intervention for learning institutions. Our strategy of micro-teaching workshops is based on the most recent literature on evidence-based teaching, feedback procedures and coaching practice. The workshops have been devised so that they combine the critical components of open communication, micro-teaching, peer review feedback and follow up. We first present some theory. Part 2 presents the intervention in detail.

 

The need for instructional coaching in higher education

 

Lecturers and professors enter their professions with little formal training in how to teach. My own history is typical in this respect. I was 24 years old when I had to teach a course at university level. I had no experience, except for a few hours I had been teaching as a PhD student. I had no insight in pedagogical theory or comprehension of how to improve my teaching. Interestingly, no one in the department considered it a problem. I learned by trial and error, following in the footsteps of the professors who had taught me.

 

Over the course of many years, I became more confident, more mature and more competent. I became a better teacher. However, there is no doubt in my mind that if my colleagues and I could have benefited from efficient and competent support, we would have done much better much faster. Research shows that this is true. Today evidence-based teaching theorists consider coaching the most effective intervention available in assisting lectures to improve teaching skills. Competent coaching leads to fast and substantial improvements.

 

 

Not a whole lot has changed since I was a beginner. As Gormally, Evans and Brickman (2017) write, rather incredibly, teaching at university level remains one of the very few vocations that requires neither formal training nor standard processes for evaluation and supervision. In 2017 in the US, only a third of science graduate students reported having had access to a one semester training in pedagogy. Many lecturers remain unaware of pedagogical techniques and the effective use of challenging pedagogical techniques. Evidently, this lack of training impacts teaching quality.

 

Teaching remains undervalued in the academia. This situation also reflects itself in the reward structure of universities (see extensively Gormally, Evans and Brickman, 2017). There exist few, if any, formal mechanisms for offering peer feedback beyond promotion and tenure evaluations. Since proper incentives to improve teaching are lacking, there is little motivation to engage in learning how to teach better.  

 

Lack of time is also a barrier: there are heavy teaching loads and administrative responsibilities, syllabi have to be developed, thesis students need supervision and papers have to be published. Erin Shortlidge and Sarah Eddy (2018) write that many academics believe that teaching effort and research success are inversely correlated. This assumption, they write, impedes efforts to increase the use of evidence-based teaching and implement effective teaching training programs. But the assumption seems to be incorrect. Shortlidge and Eddy tested the assumed trade-off, using a national sample of life science PhD students in the US. They document that PhD students who invested time into EBT did not suffer in confidence in research preparedness, scientific research communication or in publication output. On the contrary, the data trend towards a slight synergy between investing in EBT and research preparation.

 

Instructional coaching is not an assessment or a formal evaluation. It is a support for making teaching effective. Our understanding and practice of competent, professional, teaching must continually evolve so that it accurately reflects new insights. It has to optimally respond to the new contexts in which learning and teaching are being delivered.  

Instructional coaching for academics

 

Introduction

 

This text explains our intervention for learning institutions. Our strategy of micro-teaching workshops is based on the most recent literature on evidence-based teaching, feedback procedures and coaching practice. The workshops have been devised so that they combine the critical components of open communication, micro-teaching, peer review feedback and follow up. We first present some theory. Part 2 presents the intervention in detail.

 

The need for instructional coaching in higher education

 

Lecturers and professors enter their professions with little formal training in how to teach. My own history is typical in this respect. I was 24 years old when I had to teach a course at university level. I had no experience, except for a few hours I had been teaching as a PhD student. I had no insight in pedagogical theory or comprehension of how to improve my teaching. Interestingly, no one in the department considered it a problem. I learned by trial and error, following in the footsteps of the professors who had taught me.

 

Over the course of many years, I became more confident, more mature and more competent. I became a better teacher. However, there is no doubt in my mind that if my colleagues and I could have benefited from efficient and competent support, we would have done much better much faster. Research shows that this is true. Today evidence-based teaching theorists consider coaching the most effective intervention available in assisting lectures to improve teaching skills. Competent coaching leads to fast and substantial improvements.

 

 

Not a whole lot has changed since I was a beginner. As Gormally, Evans and Brickman (2017) write, rather incredibly, teaching at university level remains one of the very few vocations that requires neither formal training nor standard processes for evaluation and supervision. In 2017 in the US, only a third of science graduate students reported having had access to a one semester training in pedagogy. Many lecturers remain unaware of pedagogical techniques and the effective use of challenging pedagogical techniques. Evidently, this lack of training impacts teaching quality.

 

Teaching remains undervalued in the academia. This situation also reflects itself in the reward structure of universities (see extensively Gormally, Evans and Brickman, 2017). There exist few, if any, formal mechanisms for offering peer feedback beyond promotion and tenure evaluations. Since proper incentives to improve teaching are lacking, there is little motivation to engage in learning how to teach better.  

 

Lack of time is also a barrier: there are heavy teaching loads and administrative responsibilities, syllabi have to be developed, thesis students need supervision and papers have to be published. Erin Shortlidge and Sarah Eddy (2018) write that many academics believe that teaching effort and research success are inversely correlated. This assumption, they write, impedes efforts to increase the use of evidence-based teaching and implement effective teaching training programs. But the assumption seems to be incorrect. Shortlidge and Eddy tested the assumed trade-off, using a national sample of life science PhD students in the US. They document that PhD students who invested time into EBT did not suffer in confidence in research preparedness, scientific research communication or in publication output. On the contrary, the data trend towards a slight synergy between investing in EBT and research preparation.

 

Instructional coaching is not an assessment or a formal evaluation. It is a support for making teaching effective. Our understanding and practice of competent, professional, teaching must continually evolve so that it accurately reflects new insights. It has to optimally respond to the new contexts in which learning and teaching are being delivered.  

The question of effective feedback

 

It is impossible to improve teaching performance without receiving feedback, but how effective feedback can or should be delivered is often unclear.

 

Currently, most instructional feedback occurs via student evaluations or via drop-in classroom observations and peer evaluation. Student evaluations typically focus on student satisfaction and didactic teaching, rather than measuring learning. Evaluation by peers is better, but it typically focuses on content accuracy. Drop-in classroom evaluations with follow ups by academic outsiders work better still, on the condition that they are being followed up. One-time observations have been shown to have virtually no impact. The same is true for summative peer evaluation.

 

Providing lecturers with formative teaching feedback may be the single most under-appreciated factor in enhancing education reform. Gormally, Evans and Brickman (2017) argue that models of coaching, rather than peer observation and review effectively encourage the adoption and use of evidence-based teaching strategies. Academics need exposure to these teaching practices at workshops, feedback from experts and peers and they need training and additional support throughout the process of implementation of new teaching methods.

 

Other methods of changing behaviour also lack effectiveness. One-time workshops raise awareness of evidence-based teaching strategies, but are insufficient in isolation. Effective dissemination of evidence-based teaching practices requires some intensive training, not just one-time workshops. The same holds true for courses. As Vickrey et al write, current instructional reforms in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses focus on enhancing adoption of evidence-based instructional practices among STEM teachers. These practices have been empirically demonstrated to enhance student learning. However, Vickrey et al show that lecturers often adapt rather than adopt practices, unknowingly compromising their effectiveness.

 

Aside from this, surveys show that teachers, lecturers and professors express a strong preference for collaborative forms of professional development, such as training, questioning seminars and demonstration lessons that are being provided by outside experts.

The question of effective feedback

 

It is impossible to improve teaching performance without receiving feedback, but how effective feedback can or should be delivered is often unclear.

 

Currently, most instructional feedback occurs via student evaluations or via drop-in classroom observations and peer evaluation. Student evaluations typically focus on student satisfaction and didactic teaching, rather than measuring learning. Evaluation by peers is better, but it typically focuses on content accuracy. Drop-in classroom evaluations with follow ups by academic outsiders work better still, on the condition that they are being followed up. One-time observations have been shown to have virtually no impact. The same is true for summative peer evaluation.

 

Providing lecturers with formative teaching feedback may be the single most under-appreciated factor in enhancing education reform. Gormally, Evans and Brickman (2017) argue that models of coaching, rather than peer observation and review effectively encourage the adoption and use of evidence-based teaching strategies. Academics need exposure to these teaching practices at workshops, feedback from experts and peers and they need training and additional support throughout the process of implementation of new teaching methods.

 

Other methods of changing behaviour also lack effectiveness. One-time workshops raise awareness of evidence-based teaching strategies, but are insufficient in isolation. Effective dissemination of evidence-based teaching practices requires some intensive training, not just one-time workshops. The same holds true for courses. As Vickrey et al write, current instructional reforms in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses focus on enhancing adoption of evidence-based instructional practices among STEM teachers. These practices have been empirically demonstrated to enhance student learning. However, Vickrey et al show that lecturers often adapt rather than adopt practices, unknowingly compromising their effectiveness.

 

Aside from this, surveys show that teachers, lecturers and professors express a strong preference for collaborative forms of professional development, such as training, questioning seminars and demonstration lessons that are being provided by outside experts.

Micro-teaching workshops

 

The micro-teaching workshop is a highly specific intervention that has been developed by Akademisk Coaching.

 

Workshops are group meetings of six to ten lecturers and professors and one coach. The workshop starts off with a question and answer session. This is meant to initiate a discussion, generate a flow of ideas and suggestions and lead to reflection of teaching practice, individual strengths and weaknesses and areas in need of improvement.  

 

This discussion is open to all topics, for example, teaching methods, the design of lecturers and syllabi, assignment and grading, delivery skills, teaching styles, group activities, the use of instructional materials, dealing with students on a personal level, detecting demotivation and cognitive overload, assessing the risk of dropout, thesis supervision, etc.

 

Thesis supervision is especially important, because while there are courses that teach teaching, there are few, if any, courses that prepare academics for supervising. Most often, supervision remains a matter of trial and error, repeating what has been done in the past.

 

Research shows that question and answer sessions are only marginally effective. We start off with it because good conversation increases buy-in for the process. Not only does it provide opportunities to suggest areas of concern or interest, it leads to a two-way conversation, elevating the process from problem formulation and evaluation to communicative coaching and effective learning.

 

After the question and answer session, three to four lecturers present part of a lecture of, say, ten to fifteen minutes. The presentation can also consist of a recording of a real lecture. This micro-teaching components demonstrate the teaching methods that are commonly being used. The presentation are meant to generate comments, remarks, insights, suggestions and tips from peers and the coach. Strengths and weaknesses are being identified. We discuss what could be done differently and why and how. The role of the coach consists of many things: she more or less guides the discussion, brings up new topics, makes suggestions, informs about recent insights. She will ask the lecturer to do her or his mini-lecture or part of it over if this is considered helpful. Most often, it will be. Teaching is a craft. Knowing how to do teach is insufficient. Doing it right takes practice. The combination of peer and expert review enhances teachers’ reflection. It assists them with learning and adopting new teaching practices and improve performance.  

 

It is essential that this process is being followed up. You ask people to change their behaviour. They have to take on board new insights, new methods. This is difficult for everyone. It is also essential that feedback is timely. It is necessary to reconvene after two weeks and have a new discussion. Lecturers can bring videos with them if they desire. The emphasis lies on how the peer and expert review of the first session led to concrete change. This needs to be analysed, re-adjusted and fine-tuned.

 

The workshop will need to be done over one more time, now after six weeks. In the meantime, individual support is available. It is always possible for individual lecturers to contact us. Having a third workshop is not a luxury. We need to make sure that changes occur, that they are being understood, that they are being implemented correctly and that they become standard practice. This intervention leads to real and significant improvements in teaching practice and outcomes.

 

Workshops need to take place in a real classroom or meeting room. It cannot be done online. Face-to-face interaction delivers much better results than virtual meetings. This is a hot issue in education at the moment, given the evolution towards ‘virtual schools’.  Some American states and territories in Canada oblige students to take online courses as a condition for graduation. The results are poor. Researchers from Stanford University have found that students with low test scores tend to fall even further behind. High-performing students do worse than if they would have done if they had not enrolled in a virtual school. The differences are substantial. Online teaching does not destroy all rapport between people, but it certainly decreases it. Rapport between students and teachers is essential. The key to effective education lies in the nurturing of this relationship. According to Comer, no significant learning occurs without a significant relationship. Human interaction is critical for success in all developing cognitive areas. For results to be optimal, real-time, face-to-face interactions between people are necessary. 

Micro-teaching workshops

 

The micro-teaching workshop is a highly specific intervention that has been developed by Akademisk Coaching.

 

Workshops are group meetings of six to ten lecturers and professors and one coach. The workshop starts off with a question and answer session. This is meant to initiate a discussion, generate a flow of ideas and suggestions and lead to reflection of teaching practice, individual strengths and weaknesses and areas in need of improvement.  

 

This discussion is open to all topics, for example, teaching methods, the design of lecturers and syllabi, assignment and grading, delivery skills, teaching styles, group activities, the use of instructional materials, dealing with students on a personal level, detecting demotivation and cognitive overload, assessing the risk of dropout, thesis supervision, etc.

 

Thesis supervision is especially important, because while there are courses that teach teaching, there are few, if any, courses that prepare academics for supervising. Most often, supervision remains a matter of trial and error, repeating what has been done in the past.

 

Research shows that question and answer sessions are only marginally effective. We start off with it because good conversation increases buy-in for the process. Not only does it provide opportunities to suggest areas of concern or interest, it leads to a two-way conversation, elevating the process from problem formulation and evaluation to communicative coaching and effective learning.

 

After the question and answer session, three to four lecturers present part of a lecture of, say, ten to fifteen minutes. The presentation can also consist of a recording of a real lecture. This micro-teaching components demonstrate the teaching methods that are commonly being used. The presentation are meant to generate comments, remarks, insights, suggestions and tips from peers and the coach. Strengths and weaknesses are being identified. We discuss what could be done differently and why and how. The role of the coach consists of many things: she more or less guides the discussion, brings up new topics, makes suggestions, informs about recent insights. She will ask the lecturer to do her or his mini-lecture or part of it over if this is considered helpful. Most often, it will be. Teaching is a craft. Knowing how to do teach is insufficient. Doing it right takes practice. The combination of peer and expert review enhances teachers’ reflection. It assists them with learning and adopting new teaching practices and improve performance.  

 

It is essential that this process is being followed up. You ask people to change their behaviour. They have to take on board new insights, new methods. This is difficult for everyone. It is also essential that feedback is timely. It is necessary to reconvene after two weeks and have a new discussion. Lecturers can bring videos with them if they desire. The emphasis lies on how the peer and expert review of the first session led to concrete change. This needs to be analysed, re-adjusted and fine-tuned.

 

The workshop will need to be done over one more time, now after six weeks. In the meantime, individual support is available. It is always possible for individual lecturers to contact us. Having a third workshop is not a luxury. We need to make sure that changes occur, that they are being understood, that they are being implemented correctly and that they become standard practice. This intervention leads to real and significant improvements in teaching practice and outcomes.

 

Workshops need to take place in a real classroom or meeting room. It cannot be done online. Face-to-face interaction delivers much better results than virtual meetings. This is a hot issue in education at the moment, given the evolution towards ‘virtual schools’.  Some American states and territories in Canada oblige students to take online courses as a condition for graduation. The results are poor. Researchers from Stanford University have found that students with low test scores tend to fall even further behind. High-performing students do worse than if they would have done if they had not enrolled in a virtual school. The differences are substantial. Online teaching does not destroy all rapport between people, but it certainly decreases it. Rapport between students and teachers is essential. The key to effective education lies in the nurturing of this relationship. According to Comer, no significant learning occurs without a significant relationship. Human interaction is critical for success in all developing cognitive areas. For results to be optimal, real-time, face-to-face interactions between people are necessary. 

Instructional coaching for gymnasium teachers

 

Most of the above is fully applicable for gymnasium teachers. Instructional coaching has become important in teachers’ development, especially given the lack of real impact of much professional instructional development on student learning. Improving teachers’ classroom practices has great potential to improve learning. Teachers vary widely in their ability to instill learning in pupils. Eric Hanushek, one of the founding fathers of the economics of education, wrote that no other attribute of schools comes close to having this much influence on student achievement. Good teachers are absolutely essential.

 

In the US, the No Child Left Behind Act requires that school districts develop professional development plans, including coaching, for teachers at schools that make inadequate yearly progress. However, as Sims writes, instructional coaching is much else and much more than providing remedial teaching for struggling teachers, or, for that matter, students. There is reason to be somewhat skeptical about instructional coaching in the narrow, traditional, sense of an assistant aiding the teacher in the classroom. For example, results are substantial for English, but remain unimpressive for mathematics or physics. The wide range of frameworks that are available to structure coaching interaction mainly concentrate on language acquisition, for example the SIPIC programme, the TRI model, Content Focused Coaching and My Teaching Partner. A series of micro-teaching workshops lead to better results than providing assistants to teachers. It is also much cheaper.

 

Just as above, teachers produce short videos of their teaching practice. These videos are subsequently discussed in group. The outline of the process is the same as for lecturers. The goal of the workshop consists in formulating specific recommendations for individual teachers. In a follow-up workshop, new videos will be discussed. This process creates real and significant improvements. It has also been shown that micro-teaching workshop strengthens group coherence and collegiality. According to Sam Sims, to date, instructional coaching is the best-evidenced form of professional development available. Schools should therefore strongly consider using instructional coaching for professional development.  As Sims writes, it would be hard to justify the use of alternative approaches in the face of the existing evidence. Schools that aspire to be evidence-based should absolutely use micro-teaching.

Instructional coaching for gymnasium teachers

 

Most of the above is fully applicable for gymnasium teachers. Instructional coaching has become important in teachers’ development, especially given the lack of real impact of much professional instructional development on student learning. Improving teachers’ classroom practices has great potential to improve learning. Teachers vary widely in their ability to instill learning in pupils. Eric Hanushek, one of the founding fathers of the economics of education, wrote that no other attribute of schools comes close to having this much influence on student achievement. Good teachers are absolutely essential.

 

In the US, the No Child Left Behind Act requires that school districts develop professional development plans, including coaching, for teachers at schools that make inadequate yearly progress. However, as Sims writes, instructional coaching is much else and much more than providing remedial teaching for struggling teachers, or, for that matter, students. There is reason to be somewhat skeptical about instructional coaching in the narrow, traditional, sense of an assistant aiding the teacher in the classroom. For example, results are substantial for English, but remain unimpressive for mathematics or physics. The wide range of frameworks that are available to structure coaching interaction mainly concentrate on language acquisition, for example the SIPIC programme, the TRI model, Content Focused Coaching and My Teaching Partner. A series of micro-teaching workshops lead to better results than providing assistants to teachers. It is also much cheaper.

 

Just as above, teachers produce short videos of their teaching practice. These videos are subsequently discussed in group. The outline of the process is the same as for lecturers. The goal of the workshop consists in formulating specific recommendations for individual teachers. In a follow-up workshop, new videos will be discussed. This process creates real and significant improvements. It has also been shown that micro-teaching workshop strengthens group coherence and collegiality. According to Sam Sims, to date, instructional coaching is the best-evidenced form of professional development available. Schools should therefore strongly consider using instructional coaching for professional development.  As Sims writes, it would be hard to justify the use of alternative approaches in the face of the existing evidence. Schools that aspire to be evidence-based should absolutely use micro-teaching.

The evidence for instructional coaching

 

Sam Sims is a quantitative educational researcher at the Institute of Education at the University of London. Sims recently looked into the effectiveness of instructional coaching. According to him, instructional coaching is currently the best-evidenced form of Continuing Professional Development (CPD).

 

Instructional coaching is supported by evidence from replicated randomised controlled trials, meta-analysis, A-B testing and evidence from systematic research programmes. Replicated randomised controlled trials show that the effect size of instructional coaching is robust. Interestingly, pupils whose test scores improved the most were taught by the teachers who made the most progress in their coaching sessions. Sims explains that these trials are extremely good in at isolating the impact of interventions. As there is always the chance that the treatment group and the control group differ in relevant aspects, replication adds additional weight to the evidence base. Apart from this there are meta-analyses. For example, in 2018, a team of researchers from Brown and Harvard published a meta-analysis of all available studies on instructional coaching. They found 31 causal studies looking at the effects of instructional coaching on attainment, with an average effect size of 0.18. positive and statistically significant. The fourth source consists of A-B tests. Instead of comparing treatment and control groups, a control group is being compared to A) a group of teachers trained on new techniques for teaching reading and B) a group of teachers trained on the exact same content using coaching. This type of A-B testing provides an opportunity to isolate the active ingredients of an intervention. You can read a lot more about this on Sam Sims’s blog.

The evidence for instructional coaching

 

Sam Sims is a quantitative educational researcher at the Institute of Education at the University of London. Sims recently looked into the effectiveness of instructional coaching. According to him, instructional coaching is currently the best-evidenced form of Continuing Professional Development (CPD).

 

Instructional coaching is supported by evidence from replicated randomised controlled trials, meta-analysis, A-B testing and evidence from systematic research programmes. Replicated randomised controlled trials show that the effect size of instructional coaching is robust. Interestingly, pupils whose test scores improved the most were taught by the teachers who made the most progress in their coaching sessions. Sims explains that these trials are extremely good in at isolating the impact of interventions. As there is always the chance that the treatment group and the control group differ in relevant aspects, replication adds additional weight to the evidence base. Apart from this there are meta-analyses. For example, in 2018, a team of researchers from Brown and Harvard published a meta-analysis of all available studies on instructional coaching. They found 31 causal studies looking at the effects of instructional coaching on attainment, with an average effect size of 0.18. positive and statistically significant. The fourth source consists of A-B tests. Instead of comparing treatment and control groups, a control group is being compared to A) a group of teachers trained on new techniques for teaching reading and B) a group of teachers trained on the exact same content using coaching. This type of A-B testing provides an opportunity to isolate the active ingredients of an intervention. You can read a lot more about this on Sam Sims’s blog.

More information

 

The Partnership for Undergraduate Life Science Education (PULSE):

 

www.pulsecommunity.org

 

The Center for Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL):

 

www.cirtl.net

 

Measures of Effective Teaching (MET):

 

www.metproject.org/faq.php

 

Faculty Institutes for Reforming Science Teaching (FIRST IV): 

 

www.msu.edu/first4/Index.html.

 

 

Further Reading

 

Addy TM, Blanchard MR (2010). The problem with reform from the bottom up: instructional practises and teacher beliefs of graduate teaching assistants following a reform-minded university teacher certificate programme. Int J Sci Educ. 32 (Link). 

 

Anderson WA, et al (2011). Changing the culture of science education at research universities. Science (Link). 

 

Allen, J. P., Hafen, C. A., Gregory, A. C., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. (2015). Enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement: Replication and extension of the My Teaching Partner-Secondary intervention. Journal of research on educational effectiveness8(4), 475-489 (Link).

 

Allen, R., Sims, S. (2018). Teacher Gap Book. Routledge: London (Link).

 

Bentley, P. (2019). The Death of the Teacher. Counterpunch (Link).

 

Bernstein DJ. (2008). Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teaching. Change 40 (Link).

 

Brownell SE, Tanner KD (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: lack of training, time, incentives, and … tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sci Educ. 11 (Link).

 

Fletcher-Wood, H. (2018). Responsive Teaching. Cognitive Science and Formative Assessment in Practice, Taylor and Francis: London (Link).

 

Gibbs G, Coffey M (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learn Higher Educ. 5 (Link). 

 

Gormally M, Evans M, Brickman P. (2017) Feedback about Teaching in Higher Ed: Neglected Opportunities to Promote Change, CBE Life Sci Educ, 13 (2) (Link).

 

Hattie J, Timperley H (2007). The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 77 (Link). 

 

Hays JC, Williams JR (2011). Testing multiple motives in feedback seeking: the interaction of instrumentality and self protection motives. J Vocat Behav. (Link).

 

Hendricks, M. D. (2014). Does it pay to pay teachers more? Evidence from Texas. Journal of Public Economics109, 50-63. (Link).

 

Jackson, C. K., & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics1(4), 85-108. (Link).

 

Jacobs, J., Boardman, A., Potvin, A. and Wang, C. (2018). Understanding Teacher Resistance to Instructional Coaching. Professional Development in Education. 44. 5. 690-703 (Link). 

 

Jones, G. (2018). Evidence-Based School Leadership and Management. A Practical Guide. SAGE: London (Link).

 

Kowal, J., Steiner, L. (2007). Issue Brief ‘ Instructional Coaching. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement (Link).

 

Kraft, M.A. & Papay, J.P. (2014). Can Professional Environments in Schools Promote Teacher Development? Explaining Heterogeneity in Returns to Teaching Experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4) (Link).

 

Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2017). The Effect of Teacher Coaching on Instruction and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence (Link).

 

Mansfield, R. K. (2015). Teacher quality and student inequality. Journal of Labor Economics33(3) (Link).

 

Papay, J. P., & Kraft, M. A. (2015). Productivity returns to experience in the teacher labor market: Methodological challenges and new evidence on long-term career improvement. Journal of Public Economics. (Link)

 

Schneider G. Student evaluations, grade inflation and pluralistic teaching: moving from customer satisfaction to student learning and critical thinking. Forum Soc Econ. 42 (Link)

 

Shortlidge E., Eddy S. (2018), The trade-off between graduate student research and teaching: A myth?, Plos One (Link)

 

Vickrey T., Rosploch K., Rhamanian R. Pilarz M., Stains M (2017), Research-based implementation of peer instruction: a literature review, CBE Life Sci Educ 14 (1) (Link)

 

Pendar F., (2013) Teacher-coach-student coaching model: A vehicle to improve efficiency of adult institutions, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences   97 (2) (Link).

More information

 

The Partnership for Undergraduate Life Science Education (PULSE):

 

www.pulsecommunity.org

 

The Center for Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL):

 

www.cirtl.net

 

Measures of Effective Teaching (MET):

 

www.metproject.org/faq.php

 

Faculty Institutes for Reforming Science Teaching (FIRST IV): 

 

www.msu.edu/first4/Index.html.

 

 

Further Reading

 

Addy TM, Blanchard MR (2010). The problem with reform from the bottom up: instructional practises and teacher beliefs of graduate teaching assistants following a reform-minded university teacher certificate programme. Int J Sci Educ. 32 (Link). 

 

Anderson WA, et al (2011). Changing the culture of science education at research universities. Science (Link). 

 

Allen, J. P., Hafen, C. A., Gregory, A. C., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. (2015). Enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement: Replication and extension of the My Teaching Partner-Secondary intervention. Journal of research on educational effectiveness8(4), 475-489 (Link).

 

Allen, R., Sims, S. (2018). Teacher Gap Book. Routledge: London (Link).

 

Bentley, P. (2019). The Death of the Teacher. Counterpunch (Link).

 

Bernstein DJ. (2008). Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teaching. Change 40 (Link).

 

Brownell SE, Tanner KD (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: lack of training, time, incentives, and … tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sci Educ. 11 (Link).

 

Fletcher-Wood, H. (2018). Responsive Teaching. Cognitive Science and Formative Assessment in Practice, Taylor and Francis: London (Link).

 

Gibbs G, Coffey M (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learn Higher Educ. 5 (Link). 

 

Gormally M, Evans M, Brickman P. (2017) Feedback about Teaching in Higher Ed: Neglected Opportunities to Promote Change, CBE Life Sci Educ, 13 (2) (Link).

 

Hattie J, Timperley H (2007). The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 77 (Link). 

 

Hays JC, Williams JR (2011). Testing multiple motives in feedback seeking: the interaction of instrumentality and self protection motives. J Vocat Behav. (Link).

 

Hendricks, M. D. (2014). Does it pay to pay teachers more? Evidence from Texas. Journal of Public Economics109, 50-63. (Link).

 

Jackson, C. K., & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics1(4), 85-108. (Link).

 

Jacobs, J., Boardman, A., Potvin, A. and Wang, C. (2018). Understanding Teacher Resistance to Instructional Coaching. Professional Development in Education. 44. 5. 690-703 (Link). 

 

Jones, G. (2018). Evidence-Based School Leadership and Management. A Practical Guide. SAGE: London (Link).

 

Kowal, J., Steiner, L. (2007). Issue Brief ‘ Instructional Coaching. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement (Link).

 

Kraft, M.A. & Papay, J.P. (2014). Can Professional Environments in Schools Promote Teacher Development? Explaining Heterogeneity in Returns to Teaching Experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4) (Link).

 

Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2017). The Effect of Teacher Coaching on Instruction and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence (Link).

 

Mansfield, R. K. (2015). Teacher quality and student inequality. Journal of Labor Economics33(3) (Link).

 

Papay, J. P., & Kraft, M. A. (2015). Productivity returns to experience in the teacher labor market: Methodological challenges and new evidence on long-term career improvement. Journal of Public Economics. (Link)

 

Schneider G. Student evaluations, grade inflation and pluralistic teaching: moving from customer satisfaction to student learning and critical thinking. Forum Soc Econ. 42 (Link)

 

Shortlidge E., Eddy S. (2018), The trade-off between graduate student research and teaching: A myth?, Plos One (Link)

 

Vickrey T., Rosploch K., Rhamanian R. Pilarz M., Stains M (2017), Research-based implementation of peer instruction: a literature review, CBE Life Sci Educ 14 (1) (Link)

 

Pendar F., (2013) Teacher-coach-student coaching model: A vehicle to improve efficiency of adult institutions, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences   97 (2) (Link).