Abstract:

Eck et al., (in press) identified 46 effective college teaching characteristics spanning six categories (i.e., teaching pedagogy, student-centered instruction, diversity, equity, and inclusion [DEI], personal dispositions, technology integration, and online engagement) through a nationally disseminated Delphi study of effective college teaching experts. Although the list is comprehensive, the need existed to develop a validated instrument from these items to further prepare and support college instructors in their pursuit of teaching effectiveness (Eck et al. (in press)). The emphasis on teaching effectiveness advances the human capital of college instructors, which is essential in the rapidly evolving educational landscape. It is conceivable that the role of effective college teaching has never been more challenging than it is today, as more online classes and programs become available (Moloney & Oakley, 2010), fewer credit hours are required for degree completion (Johnson et al., 2012), and artificial intelligence becomes more rampant (Bearman & Ajjawi, 2022). Teacher human capital proposes that the improvement of student learning is based on an institution’s ability to acquire the best teachers, develop their professional growth, sustain their interest through proper challenges and rewards, and evaluate their effectiveness through appropriate assessment, feedback, and improvement plans (Myung et al., 2013). Given today’s challenges in higher education, the development of a current effective college teaching instrument is needed to “assess teaching practice” in and “provide feedback” to college instructors (Myung et al., 2013, p. 8).

Therefore, the purpose of the study was to validate a survey design instrument intended to measure the self-perceived teaching effectiveness of college instructors. A descriptive research design was implemented for this non-experimental study conducted across a statewide university system (i.e., junior/regional colleges, health science, 1862 Land Grant, 1890 Land Grant, and branch campuses). To address the research objectives, a principal component analysis was used to reduce the number of items to a smaller set of related components (Costello & Osborne, 2005) followed by a factorial analysis of variance to determine the impact of personal and professional characteristics on composite effective college teaching scores.

Data analysis resulted in the Effective College Teaching Instrument (ECTI), which consisted of 13 items across three components, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91. Composite effectiveness scores of participants (n = 467) ranged from a low of 13 to a high of 52. The mean composite effectiveness score was 32.49, with the most frequent effectiveness score being 42 (n = 29). The factorial ANOVA resulted in no significant interactions; therefore, main effects were analyzed resulting in statistically significant main effects for college instructors’ work sites, gender, and formal teacher preparation. It is recommended that the ECTI be used as a self-perceived assessment tool to help identify individual areas of growth for faculty instructors. The ECTI also might be helpful in offsetting the lack of teaching preparation many college instructors face (Hoyert et al., 2019). It is possible such self-assessments can lead to both the immediate and long-term development of human capital in college teaching (Myung et al., 2013).

Keywords:

Effective College Teaching Instrument, Human Capital, Professional Development.