gu, INNOVATION ABSTRACTS x22
GO

os

i
Published by the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development
With support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation

 

 

 

MID-COURSE EVALUATIONS: A USEFUL OPTION

Evaluation of courses by students is a topic that generates much heat (and occasionally even a little light)
among teachers. Whatever the concerns about using such evaluations for administrative purposes, many
teachers agree that information provided by students often may be quite useful in considering improvements __ |
in how the course is conducted.

The usual pattern is to have students complete a short questionnaire the last day or two of the term.
While this may produce useful information, any improvements that may result fall upon only future
students, not those in the given course. This disadvantage can be overcome by conducting an evaluation
three or four weeks into the term, after students have become fully acquainted with the general pattern of
the course and its procedures. The instructor may be able to institute some modifications that lead to more
effective learning, thus benefiting both teacher and student.

Mid-course evaluation can be done in a variety of ways, including a traditional questionnaire. Other
possibilities are videotaping and studying instructional segments, conferring with a committee of
representative students, seeking feedback from individual students, and discussing specific questions with
the class as a whole: e.g., Are the office hours sufficient? How can handouts be more useful? Are library
reserve materials accessible? What suggestions do you have for improving recitations?

Whether one uses a personal or an impersonal approach, some problems attendant to most evaluation
procedures remain. Some students are reluctant to speak openly for fear it will reflect on their grades.
Others give totally bland ratings, regardless of their true feelings. While anonymity can work for validity, it
can also work against it: some feel so free to open up that one gets completely off-the-wall responses.

One recently developed method, known as "Small Group Instructional Diagnosis," can help overcome
some of these problems. The central feature of the method involves an outside party coming into the
classroom and collecting data on three general questions: 1. What do you like about the course; what is
going well? 2. What improvements do you think can be made? 3. What strategies can you suggest for
bringing these about? (The third question is a vital one, though rarely found in course evaluations; it gives
students an opportunity to realize that some changes may be difficult to make.) ,

In the SGID technique, students meet in small groups to try to reach some consensus on the above
questions. This process helps temper hastily-considered or outlandish comments. Results are reported
verbally to the moderator and clarified further, as necessary. (The course instructor is not in the room.)
This procedure helps insure individual anonymity. When fully employed, SGID includes consultation
between instructor and evaluator both before and after data collection. A very important dimension of the
process is the discussion that the instructor holds with the class after the results of the evaluation have been
received and considered.

The SGID process requires about 25 minutes of classroom time—a few minutes more than the usual
paper-and-pencil evaluation. Those who have tried it consider the additional benefits well worth the extra
time and recommend the method highly. It does require a person who is familiar with the process and who
has a minimal facility for working with small groups. It often can be accomplished by two instructors
helping each other. Shortened versions, using some of the key elements, are possible for those who prefer
simpler arrangements. :

Teachers who want to improve their courses stand to gain significant benefits from mid-course evaluations
by students, no matter what system is used. Moreover, involving students in this process at a time when it
can still make a difference in their instruction can only result in gaining increased confidence and respect
from them. ;

 

Linc. Fisch

This article is reprinted with permission from EKU Teaching, Vol. 2, No. 1, Eastern Kentucky University.

 

G Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712 j “