This study turns a rhetorical lens on the debate about how best to use value-added modeling (VAM) in teacher evaluation by addressing the question, Which arguments legitimize the dismissal of expert caution about proposed education reforms? My rhetorical analysis of a corpus of nonacademic texts (e.g., newspapers, magazines, political speeches) reveals three persuasive strategies that function to get around technical concerns about VAM. By pointing out these strategies and explaining how they work, the study disrupts their persuasive potential and suggests a potentially overlooked role of expertise in public decision making.
Constructive Alignment (CA) is a pedagogical tool for designing student-centered instruction aligned to learning outcomes. Despite strong evidence that CA and student-centered instruction are superior to lecture-based pedagogy, the latter remains prevalent across higher education. This descriptive-explanatory case study ( n=20) investigates how programs of reciprocal, non-evaluative peer observation can help faculty understand and use CA at the lesson level. Analysis of exit interviews and faculty-faculty dialogue reveals that participants are able to apply principles of CA at the lesson level; most report this is new learning. Two program features that support this learning are described.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.