Re: Albert Camus and Intro

Computer Software for Conducting Content Analysis

Hi All,

A few years ago there was discussion about content analysis computer
software on this listserv.  I am thinking of purchasing software and I
would love to hear from you about pluses and minuses of different
programs.

Thanks!

Darlaine

_______________
Darlaine C. Gardetto, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology
Chair, Behavioral Sciences Department
St. Louis Community College-Meramec
St. Louis, MO 63122
Email: dgardetto@...
Phone: 314 984-7695  (Voicemail)
Fax:  314 984-7489

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Teaching Sociology" group.
To post to this group, send email to teachsoc@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to teachsoc-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

HELP! How to Integrate SOC, SW, CJ and ANTHRO

In our department we have Sociology, Criminal Justice and Social Work
Majors. In addition we have an Anthropology concentration. All together we
have about 100 majors, but are growing.  Some of the courses are similar.
Students would benefit from courses in all areas, but sometimes do not have
the prerequisites. SOC students often want CJ and SW because of their
professional content and because of job possibilities. CJ and SW students
often want SOC because of its broader, liberal arts approach. Students want
other electives and semester long international study and internships.

We now use double majors,  majors and minors, concentrations, etc. but that
is cumbersome.   What are creative ways to "package" programs and majors to
give identity and integrity to the parts yet find synergy and efficiency in
courses students take?  

Specifically, what are creative ways to integrate Sociology and
Anthropology?  Does a combined major work? 

John W. Eby
Messiah College
Jeby@... 

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Teaching Sociology" group.
To post to this group, send email to teachsoc@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to teachsoc-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Re: Computer Software for Conducting Content Analysis

Re: shorter intro text with interaction coverage

Soc of education articles

IS THERE A METHODOLOGIST IN THE HOUSE

Re: IS THERE A METHODOLOGIST IN THE HOUSE

Thank you for you insight, Anne. Here the scale reads: left worst and right best.

The frustrating part is that the administration just reads the quantitative responses which are usually
slightly below the school mean, not always, though.

I think that they should read the qualitative ones too so that they will understand the "rationale" for some
of the students' responses and the "contradictory" response ( go more by the book, go less by the book, more
exams, fewer exams, more class participation, less participation, etc.

Best Wishes,
Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Lincoln [mailto:aelincol@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:23 PM
To: Klausner, Michael
Subject: Re: TEACHSOC: IS THERE A METHODOLOGIST IN THE HOUSE

Michael, how is the scale arranged on the forms?  At my university,
the quantitative scale reads from left (most favorable) to right
(least favorable), rather than the reverse.  It is believed that for
this reason, there has sometimes been a disconnect between the
quantitative and qualitative portions of the evaluations and now each
semester, students' attention is brought to the counterintuitiveness
of the scale in an attempt to combat the problem.

Anne Lincoln
Southern Methodist University

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Klausner, Michael <klausner@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Greetings:
>
>
>
>
>
> Students "grade" faculty here  via both quantitative and qualitative
> measures. The former uses a likert scale. The latter involve such questions
> as:
>
>
>
> What did you like most about the course?
> What were the instructor's strengths?
> "                                    "weaknesses?
> What did you find most beneficial about the course?
> How do you think the course could be improved?
>
>
>
> I note that there usually is a fairly pronounced "disconnect" between
> students responses to the quantitative and the qualitative questions.
>
>
>
> Specifically, their responses n-ended questions are usually very positive.
> If one read them first one would think that the ratings on the quantative
> questions would be well above the "school mean." However, such has not
> usually been the case.
>
>
>
> Comments/explanations welcome.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Michael
>  >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Teaching Sociology" group.
To post to this group, send email to teachsoc@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to teachsoc-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Re: IS THERE A METHODOLOGIST IN THE HOUSE

Re: IS THERE A METHODOLOGIST IN THE HOUSE

Hi Folks

Having just this minute finished grading exams, .... And a day early at that!

I am not an expert on teaching evaluation instruments. Indeed, after 15-20 years, I am not sure there really
could be such an expert. While I have had plenty colleagues in psychology, education, and sociology claim
such expertise regarding measurement, I was convinced many of them actually knew little about defining
the threshold at which we could deem teaching practices to be effective/non-effective. Nonetheless, at
each institution, there always seems to be a faculty group claiming expertise for constructing and
managing teaching evaluation instruments. 

For me, these instruments are always flawed, because they assume a static model of teaching premised upon a
few quantifiable activities that (a) can be mastered in short order, and (b) can be perpetually repeated
across every social setting.

To make matters worse, I have seen several fundamentally different instruments at several different
institutions. Logically, this would imply some institutions do not know what they are assessing (or
possibly all?). At one institution which claimed teaching excellence in all it's marketing literature,
the process involved a practice in which junior faculty seeking tenure were required to achieve a summary
measure (e.g., overall mean) that exceed the mean for the institution. The tenured faculty seemed to miss
the irony of that approach to defining teaching excellence. 

To make matters worse however, there were also administrators at each institution who too often simply
asked that some lower-level administrative unit provide a summary statistic so as to legitimate
decisions as to who should be kept, and who should be denied tenure on the basis of teaching evaluations. As
if one number could possible capture the essence of teaching. 

At another institution, each department was deemed free to create its own items and its own scales. No
commonalities were known to exist across departments, much less within colleges. No attempts were made
to create such either. For its own part, the administration simply required each department use a scale of
1-to-5 for each item evaluated, and to present a summary score for each faculty member that ranged from
1-to-5. For promotion and tenure, the single index score needed to be a 3.0 on a five point scale. No attempt
was made to define what a 3.0 was intended to represent. Faculty members were simply required to achieve a 3.0.

When evaluation instruments are constructed for the purpose of improving teaching, they can be quite
fluid, and quite useful. However, when these instruments are established for the purpose of exclusion
(which is how they are often used), they rarely are effective. Such instruments are not intended to
improve teaching, but instead are intended to deny tenure. And as such, teaching to the instrument is a
remarkably rational strategy. Indeed, it would seem prudent to give our students candy at Halloween and
at Easter, since these dates tend to occur at about the same time as assessment instruments are handed out. 

The fact that educators everywhere have forever been seeking to create and recreate a summary scale of
items which can universally define teaching excellence across classes, clusters of students, course
content, departments, colleges and institutions, suggests the problem in not with the variance in
scores across faculty. The flaw is that we are participating in the process of excluding faculty, and
ignoring the responsibility to teach each other how to teach better. 

Peace to each

Robert

Robert J. Hironimus-Wendt, Ph.D.
Sociology and Anthropology
Western Illinois University
1 University Circle
Macomb, IL 61455-1390
phone: (309) 298-1457
fax: (309) 298-1857
email: RJ-Hironimus-Wendt@...

"You must surround your students with models of 
  straightforward conduct, clarified character, and 
  open reasonableness, for I believe it is in the hope
  of seeing such models that many serious people 
  go to lectures rather than more conveniently 
  reading books"  (C. Wright Mills [1954] 1963: 371-372).

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Teaching Sociology" group.
To post to this group, send email to teachsoc@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to teachsoc-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---