Selection index for desired gains

<p/

THE Effect of a single locus (Halothane) on variances of and correlations among quantitative production traits

International audienc

Characterization of Lake Littoral Zone Habitats and Invertebrate Communities in Northern Glaciated Plains and Northwestern Glaciated Plains Ecoregions

The objective of this project was to characterize lake littoral habitat and macroinvertebrate community structure among two ecoregions in eastern South Dakota. Water temperature, conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, substrate particle size, vegetation biomass, shoreline slope and invertebrate samples were collected from twelve lake basins in the Northern Glaciated Plains (NGP, n=8) and Northwestern Glaciated Plains Ecoregions (NWGP, n=4). Five random locations were sampled from each basin during the growing season on one date in 1996 and two dates in 1997 and 1998. Over half of all habitat and invertebrate measurements displayed greater coefficients of variability from NGP sites. Higher percentages of cobble and boulder substrate were found in lake littoral areas of NGP basins while silt and clay fractions were found in greater proportions from NWGP basins. Vegetation dry weight and ash free dry weight biomass were significantly greater in NWGP basins. Total invertebrate abundance ranged from 0 to 9235 individuals per 3 minute sweepnet (mean = 1739). Insecta and Annelida were numerically most abundant, contributing on average 61% and 11% of total numbers, respectively. Invertebrate total abundance was not found to vary significantly between ecoregions. However, Insecta and Nematoda abundances were greater from NGP sites and Mollusca abundance was greater from NWGP sites. Results of this effort demonstrate significant differences in littoral habitat and invertebrate community structure between these two landscape regions

Assessment, evaluation and quality assurance: implications for integrity in reporting academic achievement in higher education

The terms assessment, evaluation and quality assurance have various interpretations in higher education. The first two, assessment and evaluation, share considerable conceptual ground and interconnected histories. Quality assurance, on the other hand, is a more recent development. The issue of academic achievement standards in particular has significant implications for quality assurance. The first half of this article provides a selective broad-brush outline of the topics just described. The second half is about an emerging concept, grade integrity, which is focused on the trustworthiness of course grades recorded on student academic transcripts. This focus serves as a platform to illustrate: how difficult issues can be analysed; why established conventions and assumptions need to be challenged; and how ways forward can be sought out and thought through. The context for the paper is higher education but the principles also apply to other educational sectors

The evaluation of the quality of teaching in the university: A review of the literature

[ES] Este artículo ofrece un panorama general del estado de la literatura sobre la evaluación de la docencia en educación superior universitaria. La revisión parte de los principales desafíos que, desde diferentes publicaciones, reportes de investigación y la literatura en general, enfrenta la evaluación de la docencia en educación superior en términos de concepciones, propósitos, enfoques e instrumentos. A través de este lente se han considerado cuatro aspectos transversales que estos desafíos conservan: la complejidad de la tarea docente, la falta de consenso frente a lo que significa ser un docente de calidad en la universidad, limitar la responsabilidad del docente únicamente a la adquisición de conocimientos por parte del estudiante y la proliferación de criterios de evaluación de un docente de calidad que podrían materializarse en algunas perspectivas sobre la “buena enseñanza”. La revisión proporciona una idea clara del estado del arte con respecto a la investigación en evaluación de la docencia en la universidad, aportando elementos de análisis que pueden servir para el desarrollo de futuros estudios sobre un tema actual y que merece un espacio dentro de las agendas de la investigación en educación. El texto finaliza con una propuesta flexible y abierta de un sistema integral de evaluación de la docencia, al servicio de la calidad en la universidad y algunos principios orientadores de su construcción.[EN] This article provides a general overview of the literature about faculty evaluation. The review process begins from the main challenges that have been found in different publications, research reports and literature, where faculty evaluation has been addressed by its conceptions, purposes, approaches and instruments. Through this lens four aspects has been considered: the complexity of the teacher activity, the lack of agreement towards what to be a good teacher at university is, to limit the teacher’s responsibility only to student learning, and the growth of the criteria for teaching evaluation. These criteria could be materialized in some perspectives about “good teaching”. The review offers a clear idea of the state of the art regarding faculty evaluation research. It gives elements of analysis for the development of research in the future. The paper concludes by describing a comprehensive, open and flexible approach to teaching evaluation. In addition, we describe some foundations for the development of this approach.Ramírez Garzón, MI.; Montoya Vargas, J. (2014). La evaluación de la calidad de la docencia en la universidad: Una revisión de la literatura. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. 12(2):77-95. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2014.5641OJS7795122Alles, M. A. (2002). Desempeño por competencias: evaluación de 360o. Ediciones Granica SA.Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and Evaluation. New York: American Council on Education.Bain, K. (2007). Lo que hacen los mejores profesores universitarios. Universitat de València.Bass, R. J. (2000). Technology, evaluation, and the visibility of teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 35-50.Biggs, J. (1999). Calidad del aprendizaje universitario. (3ra Ed.). Madrid, España: Narcea S.A. Ediciones.Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Braskamp, L. A. (2000). Toward a more holistic approach to assessing faculty as teachers. New directions for teaching and learning, 2000(83), 19-33.Buller, J. L. (2013). Best practices in faculty evaluation: a practical guide for academic leaders. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-BassChism, N. V. N. (2004). Characteristics of effective teaching in higher education: Between definitional despair and certainty. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 15 (3), 5-36.Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about "good teaching": An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 5-26.Feldman, K. A. (1997). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry and J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and Practice (pp. 368-395). NY: Agathon Press.Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 121-125.Fenstermacher, G., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. The Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186-213.Fox, M. A. & Hackerman, N. (Eds). (2002). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. National Academies Press.Hanushek, E. A. (2005). Economic outcomes and school quality (Education Policy Series, Volume 4). Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of educational research, 79(1), 491-525.Johnson, T. D., & Ryan, K. E. (2000). A comprehensive approach to the evaluation of college teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 109-123.Kember,D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255± 275.Kember, D. (1998). Teaching beliefs and their impact on students' approach to learning. In B. DART & G. BOULTON-LEWIS (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 1± 25). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Kember, D. & Leung, D. (2008). Establishing the validity and reliability of course evaluation questionnaires. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33:4, 341-353.Marczely, B. (1992). Teacher evaluation: research versus practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 5(3), 279-290.McKeachie, W. J. (1987). Instructional evaluation: Current issues and possible improvements. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(3), 344-350.Meeus, W., Van Petegem, P., & Engels, N. (2009). Validity and reliability of portfolio assessment in pre-service teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 401-413. doi: 10.1080/02602930802062659Murillo, F. J. (2007). Evaluación del desempeño y carrera profesional docente. Un estudio comparado entre 50 países de América y Europa. Santiago: OREALC/UNESCOMurphy, T., MacLaren, I., & Flynn, S. (2009). Toward a summative system for the assessment of teaching quality in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 226-236.O'Hanlon, J., & Mortensen, L. (1980). Making Teacher Evaluation Work. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(6), 664-672.Ory, J. C. (2000). Teaching Evaluation: Past, Present, and Future. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 13-18. doi: 10.1002/tl.8302Palomba, C. A. & Banta, T. W. (2001). Assessing student competence in accredited disciplines: pionnering approaches to assessment in higher education (1st Ed.). Canada: Stylus Publishing.Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002(93), 5-16.Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience of higher education. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics'conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217± 232.Rueda, M. (2009). La evaluación del desempeño docente: consideraciones desde el enfoque por competencias. Revista electrónica de investigación educativa, 11(2), 1-16.Samuelowicz, K. (1999). Academics' educational beliefs and teaching practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Education, Grif® th University, Australia.Samuelowicz, K.& Bain, J.D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24, 93± 111.Sarramona, J. (2003). Los indicadores de la calidad de la educación. In Trabalho apresentado no IX Congresso Interuniversitario de Teoria de la Educación, San Sebastián.Scott, D. E., & Scott, S. (s.f). Effective University Teaching and Learning.Shulman, L. S. (2004). Teaching as community property: Essays on higher education. P. Hutchings (Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching The State of the Art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598-642.Stake, R. E., & Cisneros-Cohernour, E. J. (2000). Situational Evaluation of Teaching on Campus. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 51-72.Stake, R. E., Contreras P., G., & Arbesú, I. (2011). Evaluando la calidad de la Universidad, particularmente su Docencia. Paper presented at the III Coloquio Internacional de la RIIED, Bogotá.Theall, M., & Franklin, J. (2000). Creating Responsive Student Ratings Systems to Improve Evaluation Practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 95-107.Uniandes (Producer). (2011). M. Scriven: El estado del arte de la evaluación de los profesores: fallas en la valoración de los pares, valoraciones de los estudiantes y mejoras del aprendizaje como base para la evaluación. RIIED: III Coloquio internacional. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo0dYwcIO3E&list=PL057113F01F9F84DC&index=2&feature=plpp_vide

Description of three Rhacophorus tadpoles (Lissamphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Sarawak, Malaysia (Borneo)

This communication reports the discovery of the hitherto unknown larval forms of Rhacophorus rufipes and R. penanorum, and re-describes the tadpole of R. dulitensis. Tadpoles of all three species were discovered at Gunung Mulu National Park, Sarawak (Borneo), Malaysia. The identity of the larvae was determined by DNA barcoding techniques using partial 16S rRNA mitochondrial gene sequences. Larval DNA sequences matched those of syntopic adults of respective species. Detailed descriptions of external morphology and colouration in life are provided along with ecological notes. The tadpole of R. rufipes and R. dulitensis can be classified as generalized, benthic-nectonic type, whereas tadpoles of R. penanorum show adaptations typical for a lotic, rheophilous lifestyle

Toward Optimizing Global Learning Opportunities for US Physical Therapy Students: A Description of Current Practices and Initial Recommendations

Purpose. To examine and describe the structure, curricular objectives, and outcome measurement practices of faculty developing and providing international opportunities in physical therapy education programs and to provide guidance and initial recommendations for faculty. Background. Physical therapy educational programs are adding international opportunities as a way to address the increasingly global nature of the profession. Guidelines to enhance practice, optimize the experience, and provide structure for managing risk are warranted. Methods. A researcher-developed survey was distributed to 216 physical therapy education programs and professional listservs. Respondents from 56 programs (26%) returned the survey. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results. Most respondents cited global understanding as critical to the physical therapy profession, and the reason for involving students in global learning opportunities. Knowledge of the host site, sustainability, and potential strength of partnership were cited as the most important factors when choosing an international community partner. Risk management efforts included supplemental insurance, availability of emergency contact information, safe transportation and housing plans, and plans for adverse occurrences. Conclusion. This study supplements previous literature in designing international student experiences. Activities addressing clear purposes and expected outcomes for all participants, including the community partner, and the university-community partnership before, during, and after the experience are essential

Combined student ratings and self-assessment provide useful feedback for clinical teachers

Many evaluation instruments have been developed to provide feedback to physicians on their clinical teaching but written feedback alone is not always effective. We explored whether feedback effectiveness improved when teachers’ self-assessment was added to written feedback based on student ratings. 37 physicians (10 residents, 27 attending physicians) from different specialties (Internal Medicine, Surgery, Obstetrics/Gynecology, Pediatrics, Neurology, Dermatology, Ophthalmology, ENT, and Psychiatry) were invited to fill out a self-assessment questionnaire on their teaching skills. Students completed an almost identical questionnaire to evaluate the same teachers based on their experiences during clerkships. After receiving written feedback incorporating their self-assessment and the student ratings, the teachers indicated their perceptions of the self-assessment exercise and the written feedback in a questionnaire (five-point Likert scale items) and next, in more detail, in semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 12 of the participating teachers. 25 physicians participated (67%). The results showed that self-assessment and student feedback were both perceived as useful (3.7, SD 1.0) but the latter was considered more effective. The physicians we interviewed considered the combination of self-assessment with student ratings more effective than either self-assessment or written feedback alone. Notably, discrepancies between student ratings and self-assessment were deemed a strong incentive for change. We conclude that self-assessment can be a useful tool to stimulate improvement of clinical teaching when it is combined with written feedback based on student ratings. Future research among larger groups is needed to confirm our findings and examine whether these combined tools actually lead to improved teaching

Evaluating teaching effectiveness in nursing education:An Iranian perspective

BACKGROUND: The main objective of this study was to determine the perceptions of Iranian nurse educators and students regarding the evaluation of teaching effectiveness in university-based programs. METHODS: An exploratory descriptive design was employed. 143 nurse educators in nursing faculties from the three universities in Tehran, 40 undergraduate, and 30 graduate students from Tehran University composed the study sample. In addition, deans from the three nursing faculties were interviewed. A researcher-developed questionnaire was used to determine the perceptions of both faculty and students about evaluating the teaching effectiveness of nurse educators, and an interview guide was employed to elicit the views of deans of faculties of nursing regarding evaluation policies and procedures. Data were analyzed using parametric and nonparametric statistics to identify similarities and differences in perceptions within the Iranian nurse educator group and the student group, and between these two groups of respondents. RESULTS: While faculty evaluation has always been a major part of university based nursing programs, faculty evaluation must be approached more analytically, objectively, and comprehensively to ensure that all nursing educators receive the fairest treatment possible and that the teaching-learning process is enhanced. CONCLUSION: Educators and students stressed that systematic and continuous evaluation as well as staff development should be the primary goals for the faculty evaluation process. The ultimate goals is the improvement of teaching by nurse educators

Variable BCG efficacy in rhesus populations: Pulmonary BCG provides protection where standard intra-dermal vaccination fails

Pathogenesis and treatment of chronic pulmonary disease