The development of an instrument to assess the impact of media use and active learning on faculty performance

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

The development of an instrument to assess the impact of media use and active learning on faculty performance

Full text

Pdf (514 KB)

Source

Special Interest Group on Computer Personnel Research Annual Conference archive
Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel research table of contents

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Pages: 152 - 155

Year of Publication: 1998

ISBN:0-89791-959-9

Authors

Mark A. Serva	Information Systems Department, Baylor University, Waco, TX
Mark A. Fuller	Information Systems Department, Baylor University, Waco, TX

Sponsor

SIGCPR: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Personnel Research

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 0, Downloads (12 Months): 2, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

references index terms collaborative colleagues peer to peer

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/279179.279203 What is a DOI?

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Maryam Alavi, Computer-mediated collaborative learning: an empirical evaluation, MIS Quarterly, v.18 n.2, p.159-174, June 1994 [doi>10.2307/249763]
	2	Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
	3	Bagozzi, R. & Heatherton, T. (1994). A general approach to representing multifacted personality constructs: application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 1, pp. 35-67.
	4	Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative/it indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, pp. 238-246.
	5	Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. (1991). (Report No. ASHE-ERiC Higher Education Report 1). Washin~on, DC: The George Washin~on University School of Education and I/man Development.
	6	Brox~me, M. & Cudeck, IL (1989). Single-sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, pp. 445-455.
	7	Centra, 3. A. (1973). Effectiveness of student feedback in modifying college instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 65 (3), 395-401.
	8	Chiekering, 3_ W., & Gamson, Z~ F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice. ~ Bulleting, 39, 3-7.
	9	Coffman (1954). Determining students' concepts of effective teaching from their ratings of instructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1954, 45, 277-285.
	10	Cross, P. IC (1987). Teaching for learning. Agile Bulletin 39, 283(466), 3-7.
	11	Erickson, S. C. (1984). The essence of good teaching: helping studens learn and remember what they learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
	12	Fomell, C. (1983). Issues in the application of covariance structure analysis: a comment. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, pp. 443448.
	13	Grussing, P. G. (1994). Sources of error in student evaluation of teaching. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 58 (Fall), 316-318.
	14	Grussing, P. G., ~aluck, R. J., & Williams, R. G. (1994). Development and validation of behaviorallyanchored rating scales for student evaluation of pharmacy instruction. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 58(Spring), 25-37.
	15	Guernsey, L. (1997). Um'versity of Delaware library uses web to retrieve journal articles. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
	16	Hodgson (1958). The general and primary factors in student evaluation of teaching ability. Seattle: University of Washin~on Press, 1958.
	17	Ives, B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1996). Will the Internet revolutionize business education and research? Sloan Management Review, 37(3), 33.
	18	Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL VII user's guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.
	19	Lawley, D. & Maxwell, A. (1971). Factor Analysis as a Statistical Method. London: Butterworth.
	20	Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, $. L. (1993). The Information Age Confronts Education: Case Studies on Electronic Classrooms. Information Systems Research, 4(1), 24-54.
	21	Marsh, H. W. (1982). A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecing students' evaluations of university teaching. British Journal of Education Psychology, 52, 77-79.
	22	McDonald, R. and Marsh, H. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness-of-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, pp. 247-255.
	23	Marsh. H. W. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 3, pp. 391410.
	24	Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: strategies for the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
	25	Phillips, L., & Bagozzi, R. (1986). On measuring organizational properties of distribution channels: Methodological issues in the use of key informants. Research in Marketing, 8, 313-369.
	26	Seldin, P. (1984). Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
	27	Tagomori, H. T., & Bishop, L. A. (1995). Student Evaluation of Teaching: Flaws in the Instruments. The NEA Higher Education Journal, 11(1), 63-78.
	28	Torkzadeh, G. & Koufteros, X. (1996). Structural equation modeling for confirming the self-efficacy instrument. The 1996 Proceedings: Decision Sciences Institute.
	29	Van Ort, S. (1983). Developing a system for documenting teaching effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Education, 22(8), 324-328.
	30	Wotruba, T. R., & Wright, P. L. (1975). How to Develop a Teacher-Rating Instrument. Journal of Higher Education, XLVI(6), 653-663.