Homework answers / question archive / Q1) What is the difference between the product cost and period cost? Give some examples for each type                                                                                                                                       Q2

Q1) What is the difference between the product cost and period cost? Give some examples for each type                                                                                                                                       Q2

Business

Share With

---

Q1) What is the difference between the product cost and period cost? Give some examples for each type                                                                                                                                      

Q2.  What do you understand by utilization rate? Give an example                                   

Q3.   The AMS Manufacturing Company uses a job costing system with machine hours as the allocation base for overhead.  The company uses normal costing to develop the overhead allocation rate.  The following data are available for the latest accounting period:

Estimated fixed factory overhead cost                     SAR 160,000

Estimated machine-hours                                                 100,000

Actual fixed factory overhead cost incurred            SAR 170,000

Actual machine-hours used                                              110,000

Jobs worked on:

Job No. Machine Hours Used

1020                                          12,000

1030                                          18,000

1040                                          15,000

1050                                          10,000

a.   Compute the overhead allocation rate.                                                                                 

b.   Determine the overhead allocated to job 1040.                                                 

c.   Determine total over or underapplied overhead at the end of the year             

Assignment Question(s): Q1. What is the difference between the product cost and period cost? Give some examples for each type Q2. What do you understand by utilization rate? Give an Q3. The AMS Manufacturing Company uses a job costing system with machine hours as the allocation base for overhead. The company uses normal costing to develop the overhead allocation rate. The following data are available for the latest accounting period: Estimated fixed factory overhead cost Estimated machine-hours SAR 160,000 100,000 Actual fixed factory overhead cost incurred Actual machine-hours used SAR 170,000 110,000 Jobs worked on: Job No. Machine Hours Used 1020 12,000 1030 18,000 1040 15,000 1050 10,000 a. Compute the overhead allocation rate. b. Determine the overhead allocated to job 1040. c. Determine total over or underapplied overhead at the end of the year Chapter 1 Introduction to Managerial Accounting Differences Between Managerial and Financial Accounting (slide 1 of 4) Types of accounting information Financial accounting Managerial accounting © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Financial Accounting and Managerial Accounting © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Differences Between Managerial and Financial Accounting (slide 2 of 4) • Financial accounting information is reported at fixed intervals (monthly, quarterly, yearly) in general-purpose financial statements. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Differences Between Managerial and Financial Accounting (slide 3 of 4) © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Differences Between Managerial and Financial Accounting (slide 4 of 4) • Unlike the financial statements prepared in financial accounting, managerial accounting reports do not always have to be: 1. Prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). ? Only the company’s management uses the information. ? In many cases, GAAP are not relevant to the specific decisionmaking needs of management. 2. Prepared at fixed intervals (monthly, quarterly, yearly). ? Although some management reports are prepared at fixed intervals, most reports are prepared as management needs the information. 3. Prepared for the business as a whole. ? Most management reports are prepared for products, projects, sales territories, or other segments of the company. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Managerial Accounting in the Organization (slide 1 of 2) • Most large companies are organized in terms of “verticals” and “horizontals.” o Verticals are sometimes referred to as business units, because they are often structured as separate businesses within the parent company. ? Verticals develop products that are sold directly co customers. o Horizontals are departments within the company that are not responsible for developing products. ? Horizontals provide services to the various verticals and other horizontals. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Managerial Accounting in the Organization (slide 2 of 2) Manager of the accounting function of a vertical Controller Chief financial officer Rank within the accounting and finance function © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. The Management Process (slide 1 of 2) © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. The Management Process (slide 2 of 2) © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Planning • Management uses planning in developing the company’s objectives (goals) and translating these objectives into courses of action. • Planning may be classified as follows: 1. Strategic planning, which is developing long-term actions to achieve the company’s objectives. ? These long-term courses of action are called strategies, which often involve periods of 5 to 10 years. 2. Operational planning, which develops short-term actions for managing the day-to-day operations of the company. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Directing • The process by which managers run day-to-day operations is called directing. o For example, directing is a production supervisor’s efforts to keep the production line moving without interruption (downtime). © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Controlling • Monitoring operating results and comparing actual results with the expected results is controlling. 1. • This feedback allows management to isolate areas for further investigation and possible remedial action. The philosophy of controlling by comparing actual and expected results is called management by exception. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Improving • Continuous process improvement is the philosophy of continually improving employees, business processes, and products. 1. The objective of continuous process improvement is to eliminate the source of problems in a process. ? In this way, the right products (or services) are delivered in the right quantities at the right time. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Decision Making • Inherent in each of the preceding management processes is decision making. 1. In managing a company, management must continually decide among alternative actions. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Uses of Managerial Accounting Information • Managerial accounting provides information and reports for managers to use in operating the business. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The cost of manufacturing a product could be used to determine its selling price. Comparing the costs of manufacturing products over time and can be used to monitor and control costs. Performance reports could be used to identify any large amounts of scrap or employee downtime. A report could analyze the potential efficiencies and savings of purchasing a new computerized equipment to speed up the production process. A report could analyze how many units need to be sold to cover operating costs and expenses. Such information could be used to set monthly selling targets and bonuses for sales personnel. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Manufacturing Operations • The operations of a business can be classified as service, retail, or manufacturing. 1. Most of the managerial accounting concepts that apply to manufacturing businesses also apply to service and merchandising businesses. ? The manufacturing operations for a guitar manufacturer, Legend Guitars, is illustrated on the following slide. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Direct and Indirect Costs (slide 1 of 2) • A cost is a sacrifice made to obtain some benefit. 1. In managerial accounting, costs are often classified according to the decision-making needs of management. ? For example, costs are often classified by their relationship to a segment of operations, called a cost object. – A cost object may be a product, a sales territory, a department, or an activity, such as research and development. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Direct and Indirect Costs (slide 2 of 2) • Costs identified with cost objects are either direct costs or indirect costs. 1. Direct costs are identified with and can be traced to a cost object. ? For example, the cost of wood used to make guitars is a direct cost. 2. Indirect costs cannot be identified with or traced to a cost object. ? For example, the salaries of production supervisors are indirect costs of producing a guitar because their salaries cannot be identified with or traced to any individual guitar. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Manufacturing Costs • The cost of a manufactured product includes the cost of materials used in making the product. • In addition, the cost of a manufactured product includes the cost of converting the materials into a finished product. • Thus, the cost of a finished product includes: 1. Direct materials cost 2. Direct labor cost 3. Factory overhead cost © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Direct Materials Cost • Manufactured products begin with raw materials that are converted into finished products. • To be classified as a direct materials cost, the cost must be both of the following: • 1. An integral part of the finished product 2. A significant portion of the total cost of the product Examples of direct materials costs include the following: 1. The cost of the wood used in producing a guitar 2. The cost of electronic components for a television 3. Silicon wafers for microcomputer chips 4. Tires for an automobile © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Direct Labor Cost • Most manufacturing processes use employees to convert materials into finished products. • The cost of employee wages that is an integral part of the finished product is classified as direct labor cost. • A direct labor cost must meet both of the following criteria: • 1. An integral part of the finished product 2. A significant portion of the total cost of the product Examples of direct labor costs include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. The wages of employees who cut guitars out of raw lumber and assemble them Mechanics’ wages for repairing an automobile Machine operators’ wages for manufacturing tools Assemblers’ wages for assembling a laptop computer © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Factory Overhead Cost (slide 1 of 2) • Costs other than direct materials cost and direct labor that are incurred in the manufacturing process are combined and classified as factory overhead cost (sometimes called manufacturing overhead or factory burden). • All factory overhead costs are indirect costs of the product. • Some factory overhead costs include the following: 1. Heating and lighting the factory 2. Repairing and maintaining factory equipment 3. Property taxes on factory buildings and land 4. Insurance on factory buildings 5. Depreciation of factory plant and equipment © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Prime Costs and Conversion Costs (slide 1 of 2) • Direct materials, direct labor, and factory overhead costs may be grouped together for analysis and reporting. 1. Two such common groupings are as follows: ? Prime costs, which consist of direct materials and direct labor costs ? Conversion costs, which consist of direct labor and factory overhead costs – Conversion costs are the costs of converting the materials into a finished product. • Direct labor is both a prime cost and a conversion cost. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Product Costs and Period Costs (slide 1 of 2) Direct materials Product costs Direct labor Factory overhead Costs Selling expenses Incurred while marketing and delivering the product to the customer Administrative expenses Incurred while managing the company and are not directly related to the manufacturing or selling functions Period costs © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Product Costs and Period Costs (slide 2 of 2) • As product costs are incurred, they are recorded and reported on the balance sheet as inventory. When the inventory is sold, the cost of the manufactured product sold is reported as cost of goods sold on the income statement. • Period costs are reported as expenses on the income statement in the period in which they are incurred, and, thus, they never appear on the balance sheet. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Product Costs, Period Costs, and the Financial Statements © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Financial Statements for a Manufacturing Business • The statement of stockholders’ equity and statement of cash flows for a manufacturing business are similar to those for service and retail businesses. • However, the balance sheet and income statement for a manufacturing business are more complex. 1. This is because a manufacturer makes the products that it sells and, thus, must record and report product costs. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Balance Sheet for a Manufacturing Business • A manufacturing business reports three types of inventory on its balance sheet as follows: 1. Materials inventory (sometimes called raw materials inventory) consists of the costs of the direct and indirect materials that have not yet entered the manufacturing process. 2. Work in process inventory consists of the direct materials, direct labor, and factory overhead costs for products that have entered the manufacturing process, but are not yet completed (in process). 3. Finished goods inventory consists of completed (or finished) products that have not been sold. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Income Statement for a Manufacturing Business (slide 1 of 4) • The income statements for retail and manufacturing businesses differ primarily in the reporting of the cost of goods (merchandise) available for sale and sold during the period. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Income Statement for a Manufacturing Business (slide 2 of 4) • A retail business determines its cost of good sold by first adding its net purchases for the period to its beginning inventory. o • This determines inventory available for sale during the period. The ending inventory is then subtracted to determine the cost of good sold. A manufacturing business makes the products it sells, using direct materials, direct labor, and factory overhead. o Manufacturing business must determine its cost of goods manufactured during the period. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Income Statement for a Manufacturing Business (slide 3 of 4) • The cost of goods manufactured is determined by preparing a statement of cost of goods manufactured. o This statement summarizes the cost of goods manufactured during the period © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Income Statement for a Manufacturing Business (slide 4 of 4) • The statement of cost of goods manufactured is prepared using three steps Determine the cost of materials used Determine the total manufacturing costs incurred Determine the cost of goods manufactured © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Flow of Manufacturing Costs © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Utilization Rates (slides 1 of 3) • A utilization rate measures the use of a fixed asset in serving customers relative to the asset’s capacity. o • A higher utilization rate is considered favorable, while a lower utilization rate is considered unfavorable. Different service industries will have different names and computations used for measuring utilization rates. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Utilization Rates (slides 2 of 3) • In the hotel industry, for example, utilization is measured by the occupancy rate, which is computed as: Occupancy rate = o Guest nights Available room nights Where, ? Guest nights = Number of guests × Number of nights per visit (per time period) ? Available room nights = Number of available rooms × Number of nights per time period o The number of guests is determined under single room occupancy, so that the number of guests is equal to the number of occupied rooms. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Utilization Rates (slides 3 of 3) • Assume EasyRest Hotel is a single hotel with 150 rooms. During the month of June, the hotel had 3,600 guests, each staying for a single night. The occupancy rate would be determined as follows: Guest nights Available room nights 3,600 guest nights = = 80% 150 rooms × 30days Occupancy rate = o The hotel was occupied to 80% of capacity, which would be considered favorable. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Chapter 2 Job Order Costing Cost Accounting Systems Overview (slide 1 of 4) Measure, record, and report product costs Cost accounting systems Job order cost systems Process cost systems © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Cost Accounting Systems Overview (slide 2 of 4) Uses of product costs Setting product prices Controlling operations Developing financial statements © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Cost Accounting Systems Overview (slide 3 of 4) • A job order cost system provides product costs for each quantity of product that is manufactured. o • Each quantity of product that is manufactured is called a job. Job order cost systems are often used by companies that manufacture custom products for customers or batches of similar products. o Manufacturers that use a job order cost system are sometimes called job shops. ? Examples of job shops: – Apparel manufacturer – Guitar manufacturer © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Cost Accounting Systems Overview (slide 4 of 4) • A process cost system provides product costs for each manufacturing department or process. • Process cost systems are often used by companies that manufacture units of a product that are indistinguishable from each other and are manufactured using a continuous production process. o Examples: oil refineries, paper producers, chemical processers, food processors © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Job Order Cost Systems for Manufacturing Businesses (slide 1 of 2) • A job order cost system records and summarizes manufacturing costs by jobs. o While jobs are still in the production process, they are part of Work in Process Inventory. o When jobs are completed, they become part of Finished Goods Inventory. o When the finished goods are sold to customers, their costs become part of Cost of Goods Sold. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Job Order Cost Systems for Manufacturing Businesses (slide 2 of 2) • In a job order cost accounting system, perpetual inventory controlling accounts and subsidiary ledgers are maintained for materials, work in process, and finished goods inventories. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Materials (slide 1 of 6) • The materials account in the general ledger is a controlling account. A separate account for each type of material is maintained in a subsidiary materials ledger. Materials ledger account Increases (debits) are based on receiving reports, which is supported by the supplier’s invoice Decreases (credits) are based on materials requisitions © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Materials (slide 2 of 6) • A receiving report is prepared when materials that have been ordered are received and inspected. • The quantity received and the condition of the materials are entered on the receiving report. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Materials (slide 3 of 6) • When the supplier’s invoice is received, it is compared to the receiving report. • If there are no discrepancies, a journal entry is made to record the purchase. o The journal entry to record the supplier’s invoice related to Receiving Report No. 196 (see Slide 12) is as follows: Materials Accounts payable 10,500 10,500 Materials purchased during December © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Materials (slide 4 of 6) • The storeroom releases materials for use in manufacturing when a materials requisition is received. • The materials requisitions for each job serve as the basis for recording materials used. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Materials (slide 5 of 6) • For direct materials, the quantities and amounts from the materials requisitions are posted to job cost sheets. o Job cost sheets make up the work in process subsidiary ledger. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Materials (slide 6 of 6) • A summary of the materials requisitions is used as a basis for the journal entry recording the materials used for the month. o For direct materials, this entry increases (debits) Work in Process and decreases (credits) Materials. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Factory Labor (slide 1 of 2) • When employees report for work, they may use electronic badges, clock cards, or in-and-out cards to clock in. • When employees work on an individual job, they use time tickets to record the amount of time they have worked on a specific job. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Factory Labor (slide 2 of 2) • A summary of the time tickets is used as the basis for the journal entry recording direct labor for the month. o This entry increases (debits) Work in Process and increases (credits) Wages Payable. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Factory Overhead • Factory overhead includes all manufacturing costs except direct materials and direct labor. • Factory overhead costs come from a variety of sources, including the following: o o o o Indirect materials come from a summary of materials requisitions. Indirect labor comes from the salaries of production supervisors and the wages of other employees such as janitors. Factory power comes from utility bills. Factory depreciation comes from Accounting Department computations of depreciation. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Allocating Factory Overhead (slide 1 of 2) • Factory overhead is different from direct labor and direct materials in that it is indirectly related to the jobs. That is, factory overhead costs cannot be identified with or traced to specific jobs. For this reason, factory overhead costs are allocated to jobs. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Allocating Factory Overhead (slide 2 of 2) • The process by which factory overhead or other costs are assigned to a cost object, such as a job, is called cost allocation. o The factory overhead costs are allocated to jobs using a common measure related to each job. ? This measure is called an activity base, allocation base, or activity driver. – Three common activity bases used to allocate factory overhead costs are as follows: 1. Direct labor hours 2. Direct labor cost 3. Machine hours © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Predetermined Factory Overhead Rate (slide 1 of 3) • Factory overhead costs are normally allocated or applied to jobs using a predetermined factory overhead rate. • The predetermined factory overhead rate is computed as follows: Predetermined factory overhead rate = Estimated total factory overhead costs Estimated activity base © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Predetermined Factory Overhead Rate (slide 2 of 3) • Assume that Legend Guitars estimates the total factory overhead cost as $50,000 for the year and the activity base as 10,000 direct labor hours. The predetermined factory overhead rate is computed as follows: Predetermined factory overhead rate = $50,000 = $5 per direct labor hour 10,000 direct labor hours © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Predetermined Factory Overhead Rate (slide 3 of 3) Activity-based costing Method for accumulating and allocating factory overhead costs Uses a different overhead rate for each type of factory overhead activity Inspecting, moving, and machining © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Applying Factory Overhead to Work in Process (slide 1 of 2) • • The factory overhead account is: o Increased (debited) for the actual overhead costs incurred. o Decreased (credited) for the applied overhead. The actual and applied overhead usually differ because the actual overhead costs are normally different from the estimated overhead costs. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Applying Factory Overhead to Work in Process (slide 2 of 2) • Depending on whether actual overhead is greater or less than applied overhead, the factory overhead account will either have a debit or credit ending balance as follows: o If the applied overhead is less than the actual overhead incurred, the factory overhead account will have a debit balance. ? This debit balance is called underapplied factory overhead or underabsorbed factory overhead. o If the applied overhead is more than the actual overhead incurred, the factory overhead account will have a credit balance. ? This debit balance is called overapplied factory overhead or overabsorbed factory overhead. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Disposal of Factory Overhead Balance (slide 1 of 2) • During the year, the balance in the factory overhead account is carried forward and reported as a deferred debit or credit on the monthly (interim) balance sheets. • However, any balance in the factory overhead account should not be carried over to the next year. o This is because any such balance applies only to operations of the current year. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Disposal of Factory Overhead Balance (slide 2 of 2) • The balance of Factory Overhead at the end of the year is disposed of by transferring it to the cost of goods sold account as follows: o If there is an ending debit balance (underapplied overhead) in the factory overhead account, it is disposed of by the entry that follows: Cost of goods sold XXX Factory overhead XXX Transfer of underapplied overhead of cost of goods sold o If there is an ending credit balance (overapplied overhead) in the factory overhead account, it is disposed of by the entry that follows: Factory overhead Cost of goods sold XXX XXX Transfer of overapplied overhead of cost of goods sold © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Work in Process Direct materials cost Increased Work in Process Direct labor cost Applied factory overhead cost © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Finished Goods • The finished goods account is a controlling account for the subsidiary finished goods ledger or stock ledger. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Period Costs (slide 1 of 2) Used in generating revenue during the current period Period costs Not involved in the manufacturing process Selling expenses Recorded as expenses of the current period Administrative expenses © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Period Costs (slide 2 of 2) • Selling expenses are incurred in marketing and delivering the sold product to customers. • Administrative expenses are incurred in managing the company, but are not related to the manufacturing or selling functions. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Job Order Cost Systems for Service Businesses (slide 1 of 2) • A job order cost accounting system may be used by a professional service business. o For example, an advertising agency, an attorney, and a physician each provide services to individual customers, clients, or patients. In such cases, the customer, client, or patient can be viewed as a job for which costs are accumulated. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Job Order Cost Systems for Service Businesses (slide 2 of 2) • The primary product costs for a service business are direct labor and overhead costs. Any materials or supplies are insignificant and are included as part of overhead costs. • Like a manufacturing business, direct labor and overhead costs of rendering services to clients are accumulated in a work in process account. • When the job is completed and the client is billed, the costs are transferred to a cost of services account. o Cost of Services is similar to the cost of merchandise sold account for a merchandising business or the cost of goods sold account for a manufacturing business. • A finished goods account and related finished goods ledger are not necessary. o This is because the revenues for the services are recorded only after the services are provided. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Flow of Costs through a Service Business © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Job Order Costing for Decision Making (slide 1 of 2) • A job order cost accounting system accumulates and records product costs by jobs. The resulting total and unit product costs can be compared to similar jobs, compared over time, or compared to expected costs. o In this way, a job order cost system can be used by managers for cost evaluation and control. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Job Order Costing for Decision Making (slide 2 of 2) • The job cost sheets can be analyzed for possible reasons for the increased materials cost for Job 63. • Because the materials price did not change ($10 per board foot), the increased materials cost must be related to the wood used. • Thus, Legend Guitars should conduct an investigation to determine the cause of the extra 100 board feet used for Job 63. © 2020 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Note that there is no running head on a student paper. Note: Green text boxes contain explanations of APA 7's paper formatting guidelines... Page numbers begin on the first page and follow on every subsequent page without interruption. No other information (e.g., authors' last names) is required. ...while blue text boxes contain directions for writing and citing in APA 7. 1 Branching Paths: A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for Faculty Development James P. Bavis and Ahn G. Nu Department of English, Purdue University The paper's title should be centered, bold, and written in title case. It should be three or four lines below the top margin of the page. In this sample paper, we've put three blank lines above the title. ENGL 101: Course Name Dr. Richard Teeth Jan. 30, 2020 Authors' names appear two lines below the title. They should be written as follows: First name, middle initial(s), last name. Authors' affiliations follow immediately after their names. For student papers, these should usually be the department containing the course for which the paper is being written. Student papers do not contain an author's note. Follow authors' affiliations with the number and name of the course, the instructor's name and title, and the assignment's due date. Note again that no running head appears on student papers. The word "Abstract" should be centered and bolded at the top of the page. Note that the page number continues on the pages that follow the title. 2 Abstract The main A large body of assessment literature suggests that students’ evaluations of their teachers paragraph of the abstract (SETs) can fail to measure the construct of teaching in a variety of contexts. This can should not be indented. compromise faculty development efforts that rely on information from SETs. The disconnect between SET results and faculty development efforts is exacerbated in educational contexts By standard convention, that demand particular teaching skills that SETs do not value in proportion to their local abstracts do importance (or do not measure at all). This paper responds to these challenges by proposing an not contain citations of other works. instrument for the assessment of teaching that allows institutional stakeholders to define the If you need to refer to teaching construct in a way they determine to suit the local context. The main innovation of this another work in the instrument relative to traditional SETs is that it employs a branching “tree” structure populated abstract, mentioning by binary-choice items based on the Empirically derived, Binary-choice, Boundary-definition the authors in the text can (EBB) scale developed by Turner and Upshur for ESL writing assessment. The paper argues often suffice. Note also that this structure can allow stakeholders to define the teaching construct by changing the order that some institutions and and sensitivity of the nodes in the tree of possible outcomes, each of which corresponds to a publications may allow for specific teaching skill. The paper concludes by outlining a pilot study that will examine the citations in the abstract. differences between the proposed EBB instrument and a traditional SET employing series of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that correspond to Likert scale values. Keywords: college teaching, student evaluations of teaching, scale development, EBB scale, pedagogies, educational assessment, faculty development An abstract quickly summarizes the main points of the paper that follows it. The APA 7 manual does not give explicit directions for how long abstracts should be, but it does note that most abstracts do not exceed 250 words (p. 38). It also notes that professional publishers (like academic journals) may have a variety of rules for abstracts, and that writers should typically defer to these. Follow the abstract with a selection of keywords that describe the important ideas or subjects in your paper. These help online readers search for your paper in a database. The keyword list should have its first line indented. Begin the list with the label "Keywords:" (note the italics and the colon). Follow this with a list of keywords written in lowercase (except for proper nouns) and separated by commas. Do not place a period at the end of the list. Note: Past this point, the student paper and professional papers are virtually identical, besides the absence of a running head in the student paper. The paper's title is bolded and centered Here, we've above the first body paragraph. There borrowed a 3 should be no "Introduction" header. quote from an external source, so Branching Paths: A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for Faculty Development we need to provide the According to Theall (2017), “Faculty evaluation and development cannot be considered location of the quote in separately ... evaluation without development is punitive, and development without evaluation is the document (in this case, guesswork" (p. 91). As the practices that constitute modern programmatic faculty development the page number) in have evolved from their humble beginnings to become a commonplace feature of university life the parenthetical. (Lewis, 1996), a variety of tactics to evaluate the proficiency of teaching faculty for development By contrast, here, we've purposes have likewise become commonplace. These include measures as diverse as peer merely paraphrased observations, the development of teaching portfolios, and student evaluations. an idea from the external One such measure, the student evaluation of teacher (SET), has been virtually source. Thus, no location or page number ubiquitous since at least the 1990s (Wilson, 1998). Though records of SET-like instruments can is required. be traced to work at Purdue University in the 1920s (Remmers & Brandenburg, 1927), most modern histories of faculty development suggest that their rise to widespread popularity went hand-in-hand with the birth of modern faculty development programs in the 1970s, when universities began to adopt them in response to student protest movements criticizing mainstream university curricula and approaches to instruction (Gaff & Simpson, 1994; Lewis, 1996; McKeachie, 1996). By the mid-2000s, researchers had begun to characterize SETs in terms like “…the predominant measure of university teacher performance […] worldwide” Spell out abbreviations the first time you use them, except in cases where the abbreviations are very wellknown (e.g., "CIA"). For sources with two authors, use an ampersand (&) between the authors' names rather than the word "and." (Pounder, 2007, p. 178). Today, SETs play an important role in teacher assessment and faculty When listing development at most universities (Davis, 2009). Recent SET research practically takes the presence of some form of this assessment on most campuses as a given. Spooren et al. (2017), for instance, merely note that that SETs can be found at “almost every institution of higher education throughout the world” (p. 130). Similarly, Darwin (2012) refers to teacher evaluation as an established orthodoxy, labeling it a “venerated,” “axiomatic” institutional practice (p. 733). Moreover, SETs do not only help universities direct their faculty development efforts. They have also come to occupy a place of considerable institutional importance for their role in multiple citations in the same parenthetical, list them alphabetically and separate them with semicolons. Here, we've made an indirect or secondary citation (i.e., we've cited a source that we found cited in a different source). Use the phrase "as cited in" in the parenthetical to indicate that the firstlisted source was referenced in the secondlisted one. Include an entry in the reference list only for the secondary source (Pounder, in this case). 4 personnel considerations, informing important decisions like hiring, firing, tenure, and promotion. Seldin (1993, as cited in Pounder, 2007) finds that 86% of higher educational institutions use SETs as important factors in personnel decisions. A 1991 survey of department chairs found 97% used student evaluations to assess teaching performance (US Department of Education). Since the mid-late 1990s, a general trend towards comprehensive methods of teacher evaluation that include multiple forms of assessment has been observed (Berk, 2005). However, recent research suggests the usage of SETs in personnel decisions is still overwhelmingly common, though hard percentages are hard to come by, perhaps owing to Here, we've cited a source that does not have a named author. The correspondin g reference list entry would begin with "US Department of Education." the multifaceted nature of these decisions (Boring et al., 2017; Galbraith et al., 2012). In certain Sources with three authors or more are instructors. Particularly as public schools have experienced pressure in recent decades to adopt cited via the first-listed author's neoliberal, market-based approaches to self-assessment and adopt a student-as-consumer name followed by mindset (Darwin, 2012; Marginson, 2009), information from evaluations can even feature in the Latin phrase "et department- or school-wide funding decisions (see, for instance, the Obama Administration’s al." Note that the period Race to the Top initiative, which awarded grants to K-12 institutions that adopted value-added comes after "al," rather models for teacher evaluation). than "et." contexts, student evaluations can also have ramifications beyond the level of individual However, while SETs play a crucial role in faulty development and personnel decisions for many education institutions, current approaches to SET administration are not as well-suited to these purposes as they could be. This paper argues that a formative, empirical approach to teacher evaluation developed in response to the demands of the local context is better-suited for helping institutions improve their teachers. It proposes the Heavilon Evaluation of Teacher, or HET, a new teacher assessment instrument that can strengthen current approaches to faculty development by making them more responsive to teachers’ local contexts. It also proposes a pilot study that will clarify the differences between this new instrument and the Introductory Composition at Purdue (ICaP) SET, a more traditional instrument used for similar purposes. The results of this study will direct future efforts to refine the proposed instrument. Note: For the sake of brevity, the next page of the original paper was cut from this sample document. 6 Methods section, which follows, will propose a pilot study that compares the results of the proposed instrument to the results of a traditional SET (and will also provide necessary background information on both of these evaluations). The paper will conclude with a discussion of how the results of the pilot study will inform future iterations of the proposed instrument and, more broadly, how universities should argue for local development of assessments. Literature Review Effective Teaching: A Contextual Construct Second-level headings are flush left, bolded, and written in title case. Third level headings are flush left, bolded, written in title case, and italicized. The validity of the instrument this paper proposes is contingent on the idea that it is possible to systematically measure a teacher’s ability to teach. Indeed, the same could be said for virtually all teacher evaluations. Yet despite the exceeding commonness of SETs and the faculty development programs that depend on their input, there is little scholarly consensus on precisely what constitutes “good” or “effective” teaching. It would be impossible to review the entire history of the debate surrounding teaching effectiveness, owing to its sheer scope—such a summary might need to begin with, for instance, Cicero and Quintilian. However, a cursory overview of important recent developments (particularly those revealed in meta-analyses of empirical studies of teaching) can help situate the instrument this paper proposes in relevant academic conversations. Fourth-level headings are bolded and written in title case. They are also indented and written in-line with the following paragraph. Meta-analysis 1. One core assumption that undergirds many of these conversations is When presenting the notion that good teaching has effects that can be observed in terms of student achievement. decimal fractions, put A meta-analysis of 167 empirical studies that investigated the effects of various teaching factors a zero in front of the decimal if the on student achievement (Kyriakides et al., 2013) supported the effectiveness of a set of quantity is something teaching factors that the authors group together under the label of the “dynamic model” of that can exceed one teaching. Seven of the eight factors (Orientation, Structuring, Modeling, Questioning, (like the number of Assessment, Time Management, and Classroom as Learning Environment) corresponded to standard deviations moderate average effect sizes (of between 0.34–0.41 standard deviations) in measures of here). Do not put a zero if the quantity cannot exceed one (e.g., if the number is a proportion). 7 student achievement. The eighth factor, Application (defined as seatwork and small-group tasks oriented toward practice of course concepts), corresponded to only a small yet still significant effect size of 0.18. The lack of any single decisive factor in the meta-analysis supports the idea that effective teaching is likely a multivariate construct. However, the authors also note the context-dependent nature of effective teaching. Application, the least-important teaching factor overall, proved more important in studies examining young students (p. 148). Modeling, by contrast, was especially important for older students. Meta-analysis 2. A different meta-analysis that argues for the importance of factors like clarity and setting challenging goals (Hattie, 2009) nevertheless also finds that the effect sizes of various teaching factors can be highly context-dependent. For example, effect sizes for homework range from 0.15 (a small effect) to 0.64 (a moderately large effect) based on the level of education examined. Similar ranges are observed for differences in academic subject (e.g., math vs. English) and student ability level. As Snook et al. (2009) note in their critical response to Hattie, while it is possible to produce a figure for the average effect size of a particular teaching factor, such averages obscure the importance of context. Meta-analysis 3. A final meta-analysis (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007) found generally small average effect sizes for most teaching factors—organization and academic domainspecific learning activities showed the biggest cognitive effects (0.33 and 0.25, respectively). Here, again, however, effectiveness varied considerably due to contextual factors like domain of study and level of education in ways that average effect sizes do not indicate. These pieces of evidence suggest that there are multiple teaching factors that produce measurable gains in student achievement and that the relative importance of individual factors can be highly dependent on contextual factors like student identity. This is in line with a welldocumented phenomenon in educational research that complicates attempts to measure teaching effectiveness purely in terms of student achievement. This is that “the largest source of variation in student learning is attributable to differences in what students bring to school - their 8 abilities and attitudes, and family and community” (McKenzie et al., 2005, p. 2). Student achievement varies greatly due to non-teacher factors like socio-economic status and home life (Snook et al., 2009). This means that, even to the extent that it is possible to observe the effectiveness of certain teaching behaviors in terms of student achievement, it is difficult to set generalizable benchmarks or standards for student achievement. Thus is it also difficult to make true apples-to-apples comparisons about teaching effectiveness between different educational To list a few sources as examples of constitutes highly effective teaching in one context may not in another. This difficulty has a larger body of work, you featured in criticism of certain meta-analyses that have purported to make generalizable claims can use the word "see" in about what teaching factors produce the biggest effects (Hattie, 2009). A variety of other the parenthetical, commentators have also made similar claims about the importance of contextual factors in as we've done here. contexts: due to vast differences between different kinds of students, a notion of what teaching effectiveness for decades (see, e.g., Bloom et al., 1956; Cashin, 1990; Theall, 2017). The studies described above mainly measure teaching effectiveness in terms of academic achievement. It should certainly be noted that these quantifiable measures are not generally regarded as the only outcomes of effective teaching worth pursuing. Qualitative outcomes like increased affinity for learning and greater sense of self-efficacy are also important learning goals. Here, also, local context plays a large role. SETs: Imperfect Measures of Teaching As noted in this paper’s introduction, SETs are commonly used to assess teaching performance and inform faculty development efforts. Typically, these take the form of an end-ofterm summative evaluation comprised of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that allow students to rate statements about their teachers on Likert scales. These are often accompanied with short-answer responses which may or may not be optional. SETs serve important institutional purposes. While commentators have noted that there are crucial aspects of instruction that students are not equipped to judge (Benton & Young, 2018), SETs nevertheless give students a rare institutional voice. They represent an opportunity 9 to offer anonymous feedback on their teaching experience and potentially address what they deem to be their teacher’s successes or failures. Students are also uniquely positioned to offer meaningful feedback on an instructors’ teaching because they typically have much more extensive firsthand experience of it than any other educational stakeholder. Even peer observers only witness a small fraction of the instructional sessions during a given semester. Students with perfect attendance, by contrast, witness all of them. Thus, in a certain sense, a student can theoretically assess a teacher’s ability more authoritatively than even peer mentors can. While historical attempts to validate SETs have produced mixed results, some studies have demonstrated their promise. Howard (1985), for instance, finds that SET are significantly more predictive of teaching effectiveness than self-report, peer, and trained-observer assessments. A review of several decades of literature on teaching evaluations (Watchel, 1998) found that a majority of researchers believe SETs to be generally valid and reliable, despite occasional misgivings. This review notes that even scholars who support SETs frequently argue that they alone cannot direct efforts to improve teaching and that multiple avenues of feedback are necessary (L’hommedieu et al., 1990; Seldin, 1993). Finally, SETs also serve purposes secondary to the ostensible goal of improving instruction that nonetheless matter. They can be used to bolster faculty CVs and assign departmental awards, for instance. SETs can also provide valuable information unrelated to teaching. It would be hard to argue that it not is useful for a teacher to learn, for example, that a student finds the class unbearably boring, or that a student finds the teacher’s personality so unpleasant as to hinder her learning. In short, there is real value in understanding students’ affective experience of a particular class, even in cases when that value does not necessarily lend itself to firm conclusions about the teacher’s professional abilities. However, a wealth of scholarly research has demonstrated that SETs are prone to fail in certain contexts. A common criticism is that SETs can frequently be confounded by factors 10 external to the teaching construct. The best introduction to the research that serves as the basis for this claim is probably Neath (1996), who performs something of a meta-analysis by presenting these external confounds in the form of twenty sarcastic suggestions to teaching faculty. Among these are the instructions to “grade leniently,” “administer ratings before tests” (p. 1365), and “not teach required courses” (#11) (p. 1367). Most of Neath’s advice reflects an overriding observation that teaching evaluations tend to document students’ affective feelings toward a class, rather than their teachers’ abilities, even when the evaluations explicitly ask students to judge the latter. Beyond Neath, much of the available research paints a similar picture. For example, a study of over 30,000 economics students concluded that “the poorer the student considered his teacher to be [on an SET], the more economics he understood” (Attiyeh & Lumsden, 1972). A 1998 meta-analysis argued that “there is no evidence that the use of teacher ratings improves learning in the long run” (Armstrong, 1998, p. 1223). A 2010 National Bureau of Economic Research study found that high SET scores for a course’s instructor correlated with “high contemporaneous course achievement,” but “low follow-on achievement” (in other words, the students would tend to do well in the course, but poor in future courses in the same field of study. Others observing this effect have suggested SETs reward a pandering, “soft-ball” teaching style in the initial course (Carrell & West, 2010). More recent research suggests that course topic can have a significant effect on SET scores as well: teachers of “quantitative courses” (i.e., math-focused classes) tend to receive lower evaluations from students than their humanities peers (Uttl & Smibert, 2017). Several modern SET studies have also demonstrated bias on the basis of gender (Anderson & Miller, 1997; Basow, 1995), physical appearance/sexiness (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993), and other identity markers that do not affect teaching quality. Gender, in particular, has attracted significant attention. One recent study examined two online classes: one in which instructors identified themselves to students as male, and another in which they identified as This citation presents quotations from different locations in the original source. Each quotation is followed by the corresponding page number. 11 female (regardless of the instructor’s actual gender) (Macnell et al., 2015). The classes were identical in structure and content, and the instructors’ true identities were concealed from students. The study found that students rated the male identity higher on average. However, a few studies have demonstrated the reverse of the gender bias mentioned above (that is, women received higher scores) (Bachen et al., 1999) while others have registered no gender bias one way or another (Centra & Gaubatz, 2000). The goal of presenting these criticisms is not necessarily to diminish the institutional importance of SETs. Of course, insofar as institutions value the instruction of their students, it is important that those students have some say in the content and character of that instruction. Rather, the goal here is simply to demonstrate that using SETs for faculty development purposes—much less for personnel decisions—can present problems. It is also to make the case that, despite the abundance of literature on SETs, there is still plenty of room for scholarly attempts to make these instruments more useful. Empirical Scales and Locally-Relevant Evaluation One way to ensure that teaching assessments are more responsive to the demands of teachers’ local contexts is to develop those assessments locally, ideally via a process that involves the input of a variety of local stakeholders. Here, writing assessment literature offers a promising path forward: empirical scale development, the process of structuring and calibrating instruments in response to local input and data (e.g., in the context of writing assessment, student writing samples and performance information). This practice contrasts, for instance, with deductive approaches to scale development that attempt to represent predetermined theoretical constructs so that results can be generalized. Supporters of the empirical process argue that empirical scales have several advantages. They are frequently posited as potential solutions to well-documented reliability and validity issues that can occur with theoretical or intuitive scale development (Brindley, 1998; Turner & Upshur, 1995, 2002). Empirical scales can also help researchers avoid issues caused Quotations longer than 40 words should be formatted as block quotations. Indent the entire passage half an inch and present the passage without quotation marks. Any relevant page numbers should follow the concluding punctuation mark. If the author and/ or date are not referenced in the text, as they are here, place them in the parenthetical that follows the quotation along with the page numbers. 12 by subjective or vaguely-worded standards in other kinds of scales (Brindley, 1998) because they require buy-in from local stakeholders who must agree on these standards based on their understanding of the local context. Fulcher et al. (2011) note the following, for instance: Measurement-driven scales suffer from descriptional inadequacy. They are not sensitive to the communicative context or the interactional complexities of language use. The level of abstraction is too great, creating a gulf between the score and its meaning. Only with a richer description of contextually based performance, can we strengthen the meaning of the score, and hence the validity of score-based inferences. (pp. 8–9) There is also some evidence that the branching structure of the EBB scale specifically can allow for more reliable and valid assessments, even if it is typically easier to calibrate and use conventional scales (Hirai & Koizumi, 2013). Finally, scholars have also argued that theory-based approaches to scale development do not always result in instruments that realistically capture ordinary classroom situations (Knoch, 2007, 2009). The most prevalent criticism of empirical scale development in the literature is that the local, contingent nature of empirical scales basically discards any notion of their results’ generalizability. Fulcher (2003), for instance, makes this basic criticism of the EBB scale even as he subsequently argues that “the explicitness of the design methodology for EBBs is impressive, and their usefulness in pedagogic settings is attractive” (p. 107). In the context of this particular paper’s aims, there is also the fact that the literature supporting empirical scale development originates in the field of writing assessment, rather than teaching assessment. Moreover, there is little extant research into the applications of empirical scale development for the latter purpose. Thus, there is no guarantee that the benefits of empirical development approaches can be realized in the realm of teaching assessment. There is also no guarantee that they cannot. In taking a tentative step towards a better understanding of how these assessment schema function in a new context, then, the study described in the next section When citing multiple sources from the same author(s), simply list the author(s), then list the years of the sources separated by commas. 13 asks whether the principles that guide some of the most promising practices for assessing students cannot be put to productive use in assessing teachers. Materials and Methods This section proposes a pilot study that will compare the ICaP SET to the Heavilon Evaluation of Teacher (HET), an instrument designed to combat the statistical ceiling effect described above. In this section, the format and composition of the HET is described, with special attention paid to its branching scale design. Following this, the procedure for the study is outlined, and planned interpretations of the data are discussed. The Purdue ICaP SET The SET employed by Introductory Composition at Purdue (ICaP) program as of January 2019 serves as an example of many of the prevailing trends in current SET administration. The evaluation is administered digitally: ICaP students receive an invitation to complete the evaluation via email near the end of the semester, and must complete it before finals week (i.e., the week that follows the normal sixteen-week term) for their responses to be counted. The evaluation is entirely optional: teachers may not require their students to complete it, nor may they offer incentives like extra credit as motivation. However, some instructors opt to devote a small amount of in-class time for the evaluations. In these cases, it is common practice for instructors to leave the room so as not to coerce high scores. The ICaP SET mostly takes the form of a simple multiple-choice survey. Thirty-four MCQs appear on the survey. Of these, the first four relate to demographics: students must indicate their year of instruction, their expected grade, their area of study, and whether they are taking the course as a requirement or as an elective. Following these are two questions related to the overall quality of the course and the instructor (students must rate each from “very poor” to “excellent” on a five-point scale). These are “university core” questions that must appear on every SET administered at Purdue, regardless of school, major, or course. The Students are Italicize the anchors of scales or responses to scale-like questions, rather than presenting them in quotation marks. Do not italicize numbers if the scale responses are numbered. 14 also invited to respond to two short-answer prompts: “What specific suggestions do you have for improving the course or the way it is taught?” and “what is something that the professor does well?” Responses to these questions are optional. The remainder of the MCQs (thirty in total) are chosen from a list of 646 possible questions provided by the Purdue Instructor Course Evaluation Service (PICES) by department administrators. Each of these PICES questions requires students to respond to a statement about the course on a five-point Likert scale. Likert scales are simple scales used to indicate degrees of agreement. In the case of the ICaP SET, students must indicate whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, or are undecided. These thirty Likert scale questions assess a wide variety of the course and instructor’s qualities. Examples include “My instructor seems well-prepared for class,” “This course helps me analyze my own and other students' writing,” and “When I have a question or comment I know it will be respected,” for example. One important consequence of the ICaP SET within the Purdue English department is the Excellence in Teaching Award (which, prior to Fall 2018, was named the Quintilian or, colloquially, “Q” Award). This is a symbolic prize given every semester to graduate instructors who score highly on their evaluations. According to the ICaP site, “ICaP instructors whose teaching evaluations achieve a certain threshold earn [the award], recognizing the top 10% of teaching evaluations at Purdue.” While this description is misleading—the award actually goes to instructors whose SET scores rank in the top decile in the range of possible outcomes, but not necessarily ones who scored better than 90% of other instructors—the award nevertheless provides an opportunity for departmental instructors to distinguish their CVs and teaching portfolios. Insofar as it is distributed digitally, it is composed of MCQs (plus a few short-answer responses), and it is intended as end-of-term summative assessment, the ICaP SET embodies 15 the current prevailing trends in university-level SET administration. In this pilot study, it serves as a stand-in for current SET administration practices (as generally conceived). The HET Like the ICaP SET, the HET uses student responses to questions to produce a score that purports to represent their teacher’s pedagogical ability. It has a similar number of items (28, as opposed to the ICaP SET’s 34). However, despite these superficial similarities, the instrument’s structure and content differ substantially from the ICaP SET’s. The most notable differences are the construction of the items on the text and the way that responses to these items determine the teacher’s final score. Items on the HET do not use the typical Likert scale, but instead prompt students to respond to a question with a simple “yes/no” binary choice. By answering “yes” and “no” to these questions, student responders navigate a branching “tree” map of possibilities whose endpoints correspond to points on a 33point ordinal scale. The items on the HET are grouped into six suites according to their relevance to six different aspects of the teaching construct (described below). The suites of questions correspond to directional nodes on the scale—branching paths where an instructor can move either “up” or “down” based on the student’s responses. If a student awards a set number of “yes” responses to questions in a given suite (signifying a positive perception of the instructor’s teaching), the instructor moves up on the scale. If a student does not award enough “yes” responses, the instructor moves down. Thus, after the student has answered all of the questions, the instructor’s “end position” on the branching tree of possibilities corresponds to a point on the 33-point scale. A visualization of this structure is presented in Table 1. 16 Figure 1 Illustration of HET’s Branching Structure Tables and figures are numbered sequentially (i.e., 1, 2, 3 ...). They are identified via a second-level heading (flushleft, bold, and title case) followed by an italic title that briefly describes the content of the table or figure. Note. Each node in this diagram corresponds to a suite of HET/ICALT items, rather than to a single item. The questions on the HET derive from the International Comparative Analysis of Learning and Teaching (ICALT), an instrument that measures observable teaching behaviors for Table and figure notes are preceded by the label "Note." written in italics. General notes that apply to the entire table should come before specific notes (indicated with superscripted lowercase letters that correspond to specific locations in the figure or table. Table notes are optional. 17 the purpose of international pedagogical research within the European Union. The most recent version of the ICALT contains 32 items across six topic domains that correspond to six broad teaching skills. For each item, students rate a statement about the teacher on a four-point Likert scale. The main advantage of using ICALT items in the HET is that they have been independently tested for reliability and validity numerous times over 17 years of development (see, e.g., Van de Grift, 2007). Thus, their results lend themselves to meaningful comparisons between teachers (as well as providing administrators a reasonable level of confidence in their ability to model the teaching construct itself). The six “suites” of questions on the HET, which correspond to the six topic domains on the ICALT, are presented in Table 1. Table 1 HET Question Suites Tables are formatted similarly to figures. They are titled and numbered in the same way, and table-following notes are presented the same way as figure-following notes. Use separate sequential numbers for tables and figures. For instance, this table is presented as Table 1 rather than as Table 2, despite the fact that Figure 1 precedes it. Suite # of Items Description Safe learning environment 4 Whether the teacher is able to maintain positive, nonthreatening relationships with students (and to foster these sorts of relationships among students). Classroom management 4 Whether the teacher is able to maintain an orderly, predictable environment. Clear instruction 7 Whether the teacher is able to explain class topics comprehensibly, provide clear sets of goals for assignments, and articulate the connections between the assignments and the class topics in helpful ways. 18 Suite # of Items Description Activating teaching methods 7 Whether the teacher uses strategies that motivate students to think about When a table is so long that it stretches across multiple pages, repeat the column labels on each new page. Most word processors have a feature that does this automatically. the class’s topics. Learning strategies 6 Whether teachers take explicit steps to teach students how to learn (as opposed to merely providing students informational content). Differentiation 4 Whether teachers can successfully adjust their behavior to meet the diverse learning needs of individual students. Note. Item numbers are derived from original ICALT item suites. The items on the HET are modified from the ICALT items only insofar as they are phrased In addition to presenting as binary choices, rather than as invitations to rate the teacher. Usually, this means the addition figures and tables in the text, you may of the word “does” and a question mark at the end of the sentence. For example, the second also present them in safe learning climate item on the ICALT is presented as “The teacher maintains a relaxed appendices at the end of atmosphere.” On the HET, this item is rephrased as, “Does the teacher maintain a relaxed the document. atmosphere?” See Appendix for additional sample items. You may also use As will be discussed below, the ordering of item suites plays a decisive role in the teacher’s appendices to present final score because the branching scale rates earlier suites more powerfully. So too does the material that would be “sensitivity” of each suite of items (i.e., the number of positive responses required to progress distracting or tedious in the upward at each branching node). This means that it is important for local stakeholders to body of the paper. In participate in the development of the scale. In other words, these stakeholders must be involved either case, you can use simple in-text in decisions about how to order the item suites and adjust the sensitivity of each node. This is references to direct described in more detail below. readers to the Once the scale has been developed, the assessment has been administered, and the appendices. teacher’s endpoint score has been obtained, the student rater is prompted to offer any textual 19 feedback that s/he feels summarizes the course experience, good or bad. Like the short response items in the ICaP SET, this item is optional. The short-response item is as follows: • What would you say about this instructor, good or bad, to another student considering taking this course? The final four items are demographic questions. For these, students indicate their grade level, their expected grade for the course, their school/college (e.g., College of Liberal Arts, School of Agriculture, etc.), and whether they are taking the course as an elective or as a degree requirement. These questions are identical to the demographic items on the ICaP SET. To summarize, the items on the HET are presented as follows: • Branching binary questions (32 different items; six branches) o These questions provide the teacher’s numerical score • Short response prompt (one item) • Demographic questions (four items) Scoring The main data for this instrument are derived from the endpoints on a branching ordinal scale with 33 points. Because each question is presented as a binary yes/no choice (with “yes” suggesting a better teacher), and because paths on the branching scale are decided in terms of whether the teacher receives all “yes” responses in a given suite, 32 possible outcomes are possible from the first five suites of items. For example, the worst possible outcome would be five successive “down” branches, the second-worst possible outcome would be four “down” branches followed by an “up,” and so on. The sixth suite is a tie-breaker: instructors receive a single additional point if they receive all “yes” responses on this suite. By positioning certain suites of items early in the branching sequence, the HET gives them more weight. For example, the first suite is the most important of all: an “up” here automatically places the teacher above 16 on the scale, while a “down” precludes all scores Note: For the sake of brevity, the next few pages of the original paper were cut from this sample document. 26 Start the Source with two authors. References Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431 Source with organizational author. American Association of University Professors. (n.d.). Background facts on contingent faculty positions. https://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-facts American Association of University Professors. (2018, October 11). Data snapshot: Contingent faculty in US higher ed. AAUP Updates. https://www.aaup.org/news/data-snapshotcontingent-faculty-us-higher-ed#.Xfpdmy2ZNR4 Anderson, K., & Miller, E. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. PS: Political Science and Politics, 30(2), 216–219. https://doi.org/10.2307/420499 Armstrong, J. S. (1998). Are student ratings of instruction useful? American Psychologist, 53(11), 1223–1224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.11.1223 Attiyeh, R., & Lumsden, K. G. (1972). Some modern myths in teaching economics: The U.K. experience. American Economic Review, 62(1), 429–443. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1821578 Bachen, C. M., McLoughlin, M. M., & Garcia, S. S. (1999). Assessing the role of gender in college students' evaluations of faculty. Communication Education, 48(3), 193–210. Shortened http://doi.org/cqcgsr All citation DOI. entries Basow, S. A. (1995). Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. Journal should be doublespaced. After of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 656–665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022the first line of each entry, 0663.87.4.656 every following line Becker, W. (2000). Teaching economics in the 21st century. Journal of Economic Perspectives, should be indented a 14(1), 109–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.1.109 half inch (this is called a Benton, S., & Young, S. (2018). Best practices in the evaluation of teaching. Idea paper, 69. "hanging indent"). references list on a new page. The word "References" (or "Reference," if there is only one source), should appear bolded and centered at the top of the page. Reference entries should follow in alphabetical order. There should be a reference entry for every source cited in the text. Note that sources in online academic publications like scholarly journals now require DOIs or stable URLs if they are available. 27 Berk, R. A. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Print book. Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 48–62. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd. Brandenburg, D., Slinde, C., & Batista, J. (1977). Student ratings of instruction: Validity and normative interpretations. Research in Higher Education, 7(1), 67–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00991945 Carrell, S., & West, J. (2010). Does professor quality matter? Evidence from random assignment of students to professors. Journal of Political Economy, 118(3), 409–432. https://doi.org/10.1086/653808 Cashin, W. E. (1990). Students do rate different academic fields differently. In M. Theall, & J. L. Franklin (Eds.), Student ratings of instruction: Issues for improving practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning (pp. 113–121). Chapter in an edited collection. Centra, J., & Gaubatz, N. (2000). Is there gender bias in student evaluations of Second edition of a print book. teaching? The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11780814 Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Denton, D. (2013). Responding to edTPA: Transforming practice or applying shortcuts? AILACTE Journal, 10(1), 19–36. Dizney, H., & Brickell, J. (1984). Effects of administrative scheduling and directions upon student ratings of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 9(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(84)90001-8 DuCette, J., & Kenney, J. (1982). Do grading standards affect student evaluations of teaching? Some new evidence on an old question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(3), 308– 314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.3.308 Academic article for which a DOI was unavailable. 28 Edwards, J. E., & Waters, L. K. (1984). Halo and leniency control in ratings as influenced by format, training, and rater characteristic differences. Managerial Psychology, 5(1), 1–16. Fink, L. D. (2013). The current status of faculty development internationally. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070204 Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. Pearson Education. Fulcher, G., Davidson, F., & Kemp, J. (2011). Effective rating scale development for speaking tests: Performance decision trees. Language Testing, 28(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209359514 Gaff, J. G., & Simpson, R. D. (1994). Faculty development in the United States. Innovative Higher Education, 18(3), 167–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01191111 Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Hoffman, R. A. (1983). Grade inflation and student evaluations of college courses. Educational and Psychological Research, 3(3), 51–160. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101557981 Howard, G., Conway, C., & Maxwell, S. (1985). Construct validity of measures of college teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 187–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.2.187 Kane, M. T. (2013) Validating interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. Kelley, T. (1927) Interpretation of educational measurements. World Book Co. Knoch, U. (2007). Do empirically developed rating scales function differently to conventional rating scales for academic writing? Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 5, 1–36. English Language Institute, University of Michigan. Knoch, U. (2009). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275-304. Note: For the sake of brevity, the next few pages of the original paper were cut from this sample document. 32 Appendix Sample ICALT Items Rephrased for HET Appendices begin after the references list. The word "Appendix" should appear at the top of the page, bolded and centered. If there are multiple appendices, label them with capital letters (e.g., Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C). Start each appendix on a new page. Suite Sample ICALT Item HET Phrasing Safe learning environment The teacher promotes mutual Does the teacher promote mutual respect. respect? The teacher uses learning time Does the teacher use learning time efficiently. efficiently? The teacher gives feedback to Does the teacher give feedback to pupils. pupils? The teacher provides interactive Does the teacher provide interactive instruction and activities. instruction and activities? The teacher provides interactive Does the teacher provide interactive instruction and activities. instruction and activities? The teacher adapts the instruction Does the teacher adapt the to the relevant differences between instruction to the relevant pupils. differences between pupils? Classroom management Clear instruction Activating teaching methods Learning strategies Differentiation Paragraphs of text can also appear in appendices. If they do, paragraphs should be indented normally, as they are in the body of the paper. If an appendix contains only a single table or figure, as this one does, the centered and bolded "Appendix" replaces the centered and bolded label that normally accompanies a table or figure. If the appendix contains both text and tables or figures, the tables or figures should be labeled, and these labels should include the letter of the appendix in the label. For example, if Appendix A contains two tables and one figure, they should be labeled "Table A1," "Table A2," and "Figure A1." A table that follows in Appendix B should be labeled "Table B1." If there is only one appendix, use the letter "A" in table/figure labels: "Table A1," "Table A2," and so on.