Asee peer logo

Video Recording vs. Class Visits: A Comparison of Two Faculty Development Tools

Download Paper |

Conference

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Location

Atlanta, Georgia

Publication Date

June 23, 2013

Start Date

June 23, 2013

End Date

June 26, 2013

ISSN

2153-5965

Conference Session

Faculty and Course Evolution: Teaching With Technology, Online Delivery, and Addressing Emerging Student & Industry Needs

Tagged Division

Continuing Professional Development

Page Count

10

Page Numbers

23.1356.1 - 23.1356.10

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/22741

Download Count

15

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Michael J. Richards U.S. Air Force Academy

visit author page

Michael J. Richards is an instructor in the department of engineering mechanics at the United States Air Force Academy. He directs a course in Statics and Strength of Materials. He received his MS in Nuclear Engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology in Dayton Ohio and a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Brigham Young University in Provo Utah.

visit author page

biography

Daniel D. Jensen U.S. Air Force Academy

visit author page

Dr. Dan Jensen is a Professor of Engineering Mechanics at the U.S. Air Force Academy where he has been since 1997. He received his B.S. (Mechanical Engineering), M.S. (Applied Mechanics) and Ph.D. (Aerospace Engineering Science) from the University of Colorado at Boulder. He has worked for Texas Instruments, Lockheed Martin, NASA, University of the Pacific, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and MSC Software Corp. His research includes design of Micro Air Vehicles, development of innovative design methodologies and enhancement of engineering education. Dr Jensen has authored approximately 100 papers and has been awarded over $3 million of research grants.

visit author page

author page

Jason Daniel Christopher USAFA/DFEM

Download Paper |

Abstract

Video Recording: A Novel Addition to a Faculty Development ProgramAn engineering department has employed a structured faculty development program for anumber of years. A significant portion of the program is based on individual faculty membersvisiting other faculty members’ classes and providing feedback on the quality of instruction. Thevisiting faculty member quantitatively rates the teaching faculty member in 4 areas (Content,Delivery, Innovation, and Standards) using a scale of 1-5. The aggregate of these scores is usedto determine recipients of faculty recognition program awards each semester. The visitingfaculty member also provides qualitative feedback in a face-to-face discussion following thelesson. In these discussions the visiting faculty member identifies strengths of the lessonpresentation as well as areas for improvement. The face-to-face nature of the feedback, asopposed to simply providing a feedback form, allows for immediate clarification of identifiedstrengths and improvement areas and discussion on courses of action for improvement.Based on the faculty’s assessment of the program, it has been beneficial. New instructors (whojoin the department at a rate of about 3 per year) benefit from the experiences of senior facultymembers by both receiving feedback from them as well as observing the senior faculty teach.Senior faculty members benefit from the feedback of the newer faculty as it is often easier for thenewer faculty members to recall the difficulties they had when they first learned the material.Senior faculty members also benefit from seeing the newer faculty’s innovations and enthusiasmfor teaching.In an effort to continue to improve the faculty development program, a new technique has beenintroduced and is being evaluated. Instructors have been recorded teaching and the resultingvideos have been used to generate feedback for the instructor. A unique aspect of this techniqueis that the students are also recorded and a dual-image, simultaneous video of the instructor andthe students, is produced for the instructor. The hypothesis of the research reported in this paperis that the video portion of the faculty development program augments the visitation program ina positive manner by providing a different set of feedback data for the instructor to process intheir pursuit of increased effectiveness in the classroom. Initial results do indicate that this newtechnique augments the traditional visitation program by providing benefits that are not providedby the visitation program alone. This paper will detail the different benefits of the visitation andvideo programs, specifically indicating how the two methods complement each other. It willalso provide recommendations for implementing a similar program at other institutions.

Richards, M. J., & Jensen, D. D., & Christopher, J. D. (2013, June), Video Recording vs. Class Visits: A Comparison of Two Faculty Development Tools Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. https://peer.asee.org/22741

ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2013 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015