FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W319002191> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W319002191 startingPage "105" @default.
• W319002191 abstract "INTRODUCTION In spite of the seemingly ever-increasing emphasis on research and publishing in academia, the perceived importance of teaching in business schools has increased in recent decades (Ehie & Karathanso, 1994). Attempts to evaluate both the performance of students and teachers may become even more prevalent as larger numbers of institutions require demonstration of the effectiveness of teaching via outcome based assessments (Smart, Kelley & Conant, 1999). Changing accreditation standards, tenure and post-tenure review processes, and merit-pay systems are among the many factors leading universities to change the way teaching is being assessed. Bilimoria (2000, 704) cites an unprecedented attention to pedagogical issues as one of the factors leading to a renewed scholarship of teaching and learning. The results of the Boyer Commission, in particular, have led many business schools to reevaluate the role of teaching and its evaluation (e.g., Boyer, 1990). Increasingly, faculty are asked to demonstrate evidence of an application of the scholarship of teaching beyond the traditional end-of-term evaluations. End-of-term evaluations (Webster, 1990) provide a forum for students to express their opinions about course content and pedagogy. However, they may be inadequate for both making substantial and appropriate course changes and for evidence in the faculty evaluation process. Shaw and McIntyre (1996) identify five shortcomings of end-of-term evaluations: 1) instructors can make course improvements only after the course is completed; 2) differences in class composition may render changes inappropriate for future courses; 3) students are unable to benefit from their suggestions; 4) given students' lack of benefit from suggestions, high levels of involvement are not encouraged ; and 5) end of the semester and final exam preparation may lead students to overstate dissatisfaction or frustration. Thus, end-of-term evaluations may be an inadequate tool for course adjustments and may prove inaccurate when used as a means to evaluate faculty effectiveness in the classroom. This article presents the Minute Paper as a recommended methodology to be used in conjunction with traditional end-of-term evaluations to solicit student feedback, leading to improved student learning. The Minute Paper, also called the One-Minute Paper and the Half-Sheet Response, is a simple and quick way to gather written feedback throughout the term from students. The following sections describe the Minute Paper and provide an overview of its application in two undergraduate business courses. Student perceptions of it use are presented. Finally, alternative uses of the Minute Paper and research questions to be addressed in future studies are provided. THE MINUTE PAPER The Minute Paper is a relatively simple and low-tech method designed to gather feedback from students on a regular basis (Chizmar & Ostrosky, 1998, 3). Instructors take two to three minutes of class and ask students to respond to some variation of two questions: 1) What important thing have you learned? and 2) What question(s) do you still have at this point? (Angelo & Cross, 1993). This on-going feedback provides faculty with data to assess student learning, and it increases student involvement in the learning process. Once students have responded to the Minute Paper, a simple tabulation of the responses can provide the instructor with valuable information. It can serve as confirmation that students understand the major points of a lecture, and it can identify problem topics. Using this information, the instructor can then take a few minutes in the next class to review the results, providing praise when students have mastered a difficult concept, or reviewing material when problems still exist. Anecdotal evidence indicates that students have positive attitudinal responses to the Minute Paper. Weaver and Cotrell (1985, 24) documented student comments about the technique and concluded that most students not just supportive, they were enthusiastic as well. …" @default.
• W319002191 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W319002191 creator A5020444855 @default.
• W319002191 creator A5085241514 @default.
• W319002191 date "2001-05-01" @default.
• W319002191 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W319002191 title "A Business Application of the Minute Paper" @default.
• W319002191 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W319002191 type Work @default.
• W319002191 sameAs 319002191 @default.
• W319002191 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W319002191 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W319002191 hasAuthorship W319002191A5020444855 @default.
• W319002191 hasAuthorship W319002191A5085241514 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C61521584 @default.
• W319002191 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C120912362 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C144024400 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C151719136 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C154945302 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C15744967 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C17744445 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C19417346 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C199539241 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C2777212361 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C2778061430 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C39549134 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C41008148 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C509550671 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C61521584 @default.
• W319002191 hasConceptScore W319002191C71924100 @default.
• W319002191 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W319002191 hasLocation W3190021911 @default.
• W319002191 hasOpenAccess W319002191 @default.
• W319002191 hasPrimaryLocation W3190021911 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W1872535547 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W2029966075 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W2111100653 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W2114408031 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W2195736056 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W2287866364 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W2292105355 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W250703439 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W2561194213 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W2601502674 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W277005957 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W2904650704 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W3123765636 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W3153910861 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W3210397394 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W37824436 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W52941488 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W623399268 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W182254376 @default.
• W319002191 hasRelatedWork W3124456519 @default.
• W319002191 hasVolume "5" @default.
• W319002191 isParatext "false" @default.
• W319002191 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W319002191 magId "319002191" @default.
• W319002191 workType "article" @default.