Participative Evaluation

Gradually, I have been converted to believer in
cooperative teaching and learning strategies. After
years of lecturing, I have come to understand that
students can learn from each other almost as well as
they can learn from the thoroughly thought-out,
meticulously prepared, and brilliantly delivered
lecture. Amazingly, students sometimes learn from
other students better than from discerning and sharp-
witted lecturers. Moreover, sometimes they can
improve on the lecturer’s finely tuned examples, often
providing examples that are more meaningful (and
perhaps more interesting).

Just as student interaction can promote and enhance
learning, teacher-student interaction can promote and
enhance teaching. However, teacher-student evalua-
tion, or participatory evaluation, needs to be carefully
structured to offset real or perceived status differences
between teacher and students (or at least the “power”
that the giving of grades bestows on the teacher). The
following evaluation strategy has proven to be useful.

CECE

Shortly after mid-term, I devote one class day to
evaluation. I explain that (1) I value student opinions
about the course, my teaching, and their learning, and
(2) | wish to gather opinions now because I believe end-
of-the-quarter evaluations occur too late to serve the
students providing them.

I write three or four questions on the board. Most
often, the first question addresses some specific aspect
of the course. Often this question deals with the
students’ reaction regarding some change in pedagogy
I have tried—for example, a new testing technique or
type of assignment. The other questions probe for
information about changes the students would recom-
mend and about techniques they found useful.

In order to ensure concrete and utilitarian feedback,
all questions require at least a three-item response. For
example, “List three things | could do to help you
understand and learn the material.” Because | am
looking for concrete “how-to” ideas, students are to
include suggestions for implementing proposed
changes.

Students are divided into teams (three to five
members). I attempt to put students together who may
not be familiar with each other, hoping that they might
recognize in this new relationship that learners have
different learning styles and different expectations of

the teacher, that teaching often involves balancing the os
needs of all individuals.

Each group discusses the three evaluation items and
agrees On a group response. One member of each
group is selected to record the responses in writing.
(Typically, students are to assign this responsibility to
the youngest group member. The process of identify-
ing the youngest member serves as a nice ice-breaker.]
I leave the room for 20 minutes; students discuss the
three evaluation items, record their responses without
identifying themselves, and place the written answers
on my desk.

Thus far, the process involves students only. When I
return to the classroom, teacher-student participation
begins. I take one question at a time and read each
group’s responses aloud. All of the students are
invited to participate as I probe for additional informa-
tion to clarify responses, inquire about alternatives for
implementing suggestions, and discuss the suggestions
that all agree should be implemented. Finally, I
identify the suggestions that I can incorporate into
instruction and reject, with explanation, those I cannot.

SCCSe

This technique provides an opportunity for students 9
to discuss learning likes and dislikes, first with one
another and then with the instructor. The participatory
nature of the exercise requires the students and the
professor to acknowledge and celebrate the uniqueness
of individual learners.

John P. Murray, Professor, Philosophy and Coordinator,
Arts & Sciences

For further information, contact the author at Clark

State Community College, P.O. Box 570, Springfield,
OH 45501.

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor

November 1, 1991, Vol. Xill, No. 26

©The University of Texas at Austin, 1991
Further duplication is permitted by MEMBER
institutions for their own personnel.

wou”

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Developmenit (NISOD),
Department of Educational Admmnistration, College of Education, EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
78712, (512) 471-7545. Funding in part by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the Sid W. Richardson Foundation. Issued weekly
when classes are in session during fall and spning terms. ISSN 0199-106X.

an MR