Abstract
AbstractAlthough many kinds of data can be used to guide instructional consultations, research comparing the efficacy of such data is scant, especially in engineering. In this study, multiple modes of assessment were used to evaluate the impact of consultations informed by different kinds of data. This study illuminates two key aspects of instructional consultations: (1) their efficacy varies depending on the kind of data used to guide them, with student feedback from a Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) having the largest positive impact, and (2) the instructional consultant plays a key role in helping both interpret the available data and identify strategies for improvement. These findings suggest three implications for practice: (1) whenever possible, SGID‐based consultations should be offered systematically and proactively for engineering faculty, (2) data for other kinds of consultations should be tailored to the needs of the individual instructor, and (3) instructional consultants should be available to collaborate with faculty to enhance their teaching, thereby building an engineering culture that actively supports teaching and learning.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
