The effect of writing assignments on achievement in college general chemistry

This study was designed to determine if student learning in college general chemistry could be increased through the addition of required writing assignments. Sixty-four students enrolled in the same section of a general chemistry II course were randomly assigned to two groups. Treatment group members were required to turn in written summaries of 8 class lectures. These summaries were graded and returned with mistakes in chemistry and writing noted. Feedback concerning errors in chemical content was shared with the entire class prior to the posttest. Analysis of covariance of the posttest results showed that the treatment group members scored significantly higher than the students who did not write the summaries (F = 6.78, p < .05). No interaction was observed between group membership and pretest scores. These results indicate that student achievement in chemistry may be enhanced through required writing assignments. The study results are inconclusive as to whether the gains in achievement were due to the processes involved in organizing and writing the summaries, or due to the additional study time required to write the summaries.     

Bias and the intended use of student evaluations of university faculty

This study examines whether the intended use of data obtained from student evaluations of university faculty biases the ratings. The paper reviews and critiques previous research done in the area. Previous studies produced contradictory results, but the results were confounded by several methodological problems. The research reported here remedied some of the problems in previous studies. The findings indicated that, while students are aware of the intended use of ratings as stipulated in written directions, different uses do not result in statistically significant differences in the ratings. Implications for the use of student ratings in the evaluation of faculty are discussed.     

Perceived Value of Certification as a Process for Training Managers: A Case Study From the Hospitality Industry

This paper uses a qualitative research methodology to investigate the perceived value of certification as a process for training managers in the lodging industry. Using a “stakeholder group” to provide face validity, a dual-level sample was contacted, consisting of 10 high-ranking corporate-level managers and 185 hotel general managers. Respondents were asked to determine how they would distribute resources in support of various academic qualifications, including a certification program sponsored by the American Hotel and Motel Association—the “Certified Rooms Division Executive” (CRDE). Respondents also were asked to rank qualifications in terms of utility for hiring and promotion. The following major conclusions were reached. In the hospitality industry: (a) Certification is seen as a viable methodology for training in lower-level management skills, especially among those property level general managers who have little formal education; (b) there was a clear distinction between support for certification at the corporate vice-presidential level and the property general managers' level, with property level managers expressing greater support; and (c) the CRDE is “valued” above a generic two-year degree, in both hiring and first promotion, if other “personal” factors are ignored.