[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
article

Facilitated student discussions for evaluating teaching

Published: 07 March 2007 Publication History

Abstract

Trying to improve undergraduate teaching based on feedback collected by traditional student course evaluations can be a frustrating experience. Unclear, contradictory and ill-informed student comments leave instructors confused and discouraged. We designed and then implemented an evaluation mechanism where an independent CS faculty peer visits a lecture and holds an evaluation discussion with the students. These facilitated discussions begin by looking at overall strengths and weaknesses for the course but quickly focus on the key student concerns and suggestions for improvement. After conducting thirty four facilitated discussions, we find them appreciated by students who feel heard and valued. A survey of participating faculty indicates that the written discussion report is more useful to them than standard student survey results. Faculty report that they have made changes based on the recommendations and limited quantitative data suggests that teaching has improved and its value in the departmental culture has increased. In this paper we describe the evaluation process, discuss our experiences and offer some concrete suggestions for those who might want to try this approach in their own department.

References

[1]
R. A. Arreola. Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System. Anker Publishing Company, Bolton, Massachusetts, 1995.
[2]
K. T. Brinko. Instructional consultation with feedback in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 61(1):65--83, Jan/Feb 1990.
[3]
P. Hutchings. Making Teaching Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration and Peer Review. Americal Association for Higher Education, Washington, D.C., 1996.
[4]
F. Lyman. The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students. In A. Anderson, editor, Mainstreaming Digest, pages 109--113. College Park: University of Maryland Press., 1981.
[5]
H. W. Marsh and L. Roche. The use of students' evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1):217--251, Spring 1993.
[6]
J. Overall and H. W. Marsh. Midterm feedback from students: Its relationship to instrutional improvement and students' cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(6):856--865, June 1979.
[7]
R. M. R. L'Hommedieu and K. Brinko. Methodological explanations for the modest effects of feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1):232--241, 1990.
[8]
M. Redmond and D. Clark. A practical approach to improving teaching. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 1:9--10, 1982.
[9]
P. Seldin. The use and abuse of student ratings of professors. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 1993.
[10]
P. Seldin. Using student feedback to improve teaching. To Improve the Academy, 16:335--345, 1997.
[11]
M. Weimer. Improving College Teaching: Strategies for Developing Instructional Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1990.
[12]
R. C. Wilson. Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants. Journal of Higher Education, 57(2):196--211, March 1986.

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGCSE Bulletin
ACM SIGCSE Bulletin  Volume 39, Issue 1
March 2007
581 pages
ISSN:0097-8418
DOI:10.1145/1227504
Issue’s Table of Contents
  • cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGCSE '07: Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education
    March 2007
    634 pages
    ISBN:1595933611
    DOI:10.1145/1227310
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 March 2007
Published in SIGCSE Volume 39, Issue 1

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. facilitated discussions
  2. focus groups
  3. teaching evaluation

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)8
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 02 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media