Tag Archives: student evaluations of teaching

Are you wondering about my 2014/2015 courses?

Update: yes, I meant 2015/2016 courses here! Apparently I was really not ready to let go of last year yet when I wrote this!


Thanks for your interest in my courses! Here is some information that might be helpful for you.

My past syllabi are available here https://blogs.ubc.ca/catherinerawn/teaching/courses/. I have not yet prepared the fresh ones for fall, but the most recent ones should give you a good sense.

If a course is full, please keep an eye out for a spot to open up later this summer or at the start of the term. Note that Psychology does not have waitlists. For Psyc 217 and 218, note that we *cannot* go above the course enrollment limits because of the way these courses are organized. Please find another section that still has space.

Psyc 101 and 102: If you’re taking one of these with me, I highly recommend you take both with me! J Not only do I want to get to know you better (which is easier over the full year), but you’ll also use the same textbook and other resources both semesters.

Psyc 325: (soon to be called “Social media psychology”). It’s a brand new course for me, and I’m working on a big development! I do not have any past syllabi, but I have posted my ideas so far in a Googledoc, which you are free to check out via the link posted here: https://blogs.ubc.ca/catherinerawn/2015/02/16/using-social-media-to-build-a-class-on-social-media/ Note: nothing is considered final on that website, but you can get an idea of what I’m thinking.

Instead of using ratemyprofessors, check out this website for official student evaluation of teaching datahttp://teacheval.ubc.ca/results/ (see also here for graphs of mine.).

Hope to see you in the fall!

2013/2014 Student Evaluations Response Part 4: Psyc 218

Thank you to each of my students who took the time to complete a student evaluation of teaching this year. I value hearing from each of you, and every year your feedback helps me to become a better teacher. As I explained here, I’m writing reflections on the qualitative and quantitative feedback I received from each of my courses.

This is my second time teaching Psyc 218: Analysis of Behavioural Data, and I must say, I truly love teaching students this course. I didn’t make many changes from the last time, with two exceptions: (1) I attempted to even out the midterm difficulty in response to feedback and self-analysis from last time, (2) I integrated a new reading and treatment of the “New Statistics” debate/movement going on in our discipline right now. I didn’t change the textbook, overall teaching methods (largely lecture punctuated frequently by clicker questions where students practice calculations and interpretation), or the assignments (which we all have to do across sections).


Like last time, quantitative feedback was quite positive, and even a bit higher than last time (e.g., 4.7/5 on average for the “overall efficacy” item, up from 4.4; see the graph above). Qualitative feedback helps me to figure out specifics of what’s going well and what isn’t. Overwhelmingly, the most common comments noted the energy and enthusiasm I bring to class – which was awesome. I really had fun every day, so I’m glad I can help students build positive vibes toward statistics. Quite a few students commented on the high expectations I have for them: indeed, this course is challenging. Some students felt they were appropriately supported to rise to the challenge, whereas others felt pushed a bit too far. Given the differences there, I think the course is probably pitched at an appropriate level, at least when coupled with the way I handled it. Quite a few students asked for more problems to practice with. There are about 30 in the book at the end of each chapter, and every day in class there are clicker questions. However, I know that very few of these problems are at the high level of difficulty I ask for on exams. I wonder if I could offer students a model of how to take a research paper (of which there are a gazillion they could find on their own) and turn it into a problem set. Is there a common set of questions students could ask to help them link the course material to a research article? Hmm. Think more about how to help students learn how to make their own problems/examples. That will be more useful in the long run for the students than me trying to come up with a whole pile of artificial ones.

I was delighted with the number of students who mentioned that incorporating the New Statistics (vs. NHST) framework was motivating and engaging. In the context of discussing these current issues, one student wrote,

“I think that’s really important in terms of training us to be strong, statistically sound researchers. As well, it made me feel like I’m truly part of this field, instead of just being a student taking a course. Overall I would give Dr. Rawn an A+ because she has truly changed the way I think about statistics and about the field in general.”

The identity shift that this student in particular expresses is profoundly important to me. This and similar comments like it bolster my belief that incorporating current issues in statistics and research methods is crucial when training the next generation of psychological scientists. Overall, I’m quite pleased with how this course went, and overall the students seem to be as well.

2013/2014 Student Evaluations Response Part 3: Psyc 217

Thank you to each of my students who took the time to complete a student evaluation of teaching this year. I value hearing from each of you, and every year your feedback helps me to become a better teacher. As I explained here, I’m writing reflections on the qualitative and quantitative feedback I received from each of my courses.


Of all the courses I teach to learners, Research Methods is my oldest. Over the past 7 years I have taught 12 groups of learners (N = 846)! The core design has largely stayed the same, but I have made many changes on the basis of my own reflections, my adapting knowledge of the topic and our discipline, and—crucially—feedback from students. Quantitative feedback from the student evaluations has remained high this year (see the graph below for a comparison across years).


Now that I have used my own textbook for two years, I was able to explore quantitative ratings on the item “How would you rate the contribution of textbook(s) and assigned readings to this course?” As noted in the graph below, there seems to be a small shift favouring Cozby & Rawn, Canadian Edition (M=4.10 across four sections), over Cozby’s older editions (M=3.84 across 8 sections). Is the textbook perceived a bit more positively because it’s a better book or because I’m both an author and the course instructor? To this point, a few students made comments like this: “I really liked that you were the author of the textbook, it helped connect the course to the reading.” This kind of comment makes me wonder if my colleagues’ data show this shift as well. (I need a control series design rather than just an interrupted time series!)

Psyc 217 contribution of textbook

The CozbyRawn textbook is the core text for this course, but I’ve always supplemented the nuts-and-bolts style book with secondary readings. Up until last year, all secondary readings were from the Stanovich text, but they had repeatedly been received poorly by students (see last year’s reflection). This year, I replaced most Stanovich readings with a few articles highlighting major issues being hotly discussed in our field (e.g., replication). Student feedback about this change was quite positive. Some students noted how the new topics/readings helped them understand current issues in the field, whereas others appreciated fewer readings overall and fewer Stanovich ones. I also experienced the change as a productive and helpful one that improved the course. Thanks to past years’ student feedback for triggering that change!

When I step back and look at the overall set of comments, there are some topics mentioned repeatedly. The one criticism that emerged was the midterms: a number of people found them too long and/or difficult. Because the class averages are in the range required by our department, the exam difficulty seems commensurate with student learning in my course. There were also some requests for a study guide, which is interesting because one does exist. I can’t vouch for the quality of it, but it’s available: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0071056734/student_view0/index.html I’ll make a note to advertise its existence in the syllabus. On the positive side, students found my enthusiasm and approach helpful, including sharing my past mistakes and communicating clear goals/learning objectives. Here’s a comment that sums up some of these themes:

“Who knew research methods could be so interesting? Lectures were consistently energetic and engaging and always promoted critical thinking. I really love that you incorporated contemporary issues in the psychology field into the course content – it has been very useful in interpreting content outside of this class. Continue to do that! Thanks for a great class!”

For next year, I’d like to strive to lecture less and have more in-class activities where people are using the material. I use active learning techniques frequently, but there are some topics that could benefit from revision (quasi-experiments comes to mind). I also intend to revisit the supplementary readings, see if I can replace the few remaining Stanovich chapters with articles available online, and update the “current” readings with ones published since last year (e.g., drawing from an even more recent Perspectives on Psychological Science issue). I’m also working on some bigger things that would span all sections, like adding a big data collection evening, and publishing all the abstracts in some form for next year’s students to be able to refer to.

2013/2014 Student Evaluations Response Part 2: Psyc 208

Thank you to each of my students who took the time to complete a student evaluation of teaching this year. I value hearing from each of you, and every year your feedback helps me to become a better teacher. As I explained here, I’m writing reflections on the qualitative and quantitative feedback I received from each of my courses.


This was another year of relatively major changes in this course. I have revised and revised this course over the years. This year, I needed to replace the readings anyway, so I used it as an opportunity to do a thorough course evaluation. Last summer I carefully considered this course with respect to Dee Fink’s model of course design. In brief, Fink’s model prompts an analysis of the degree to which the learning objectives/course goals, learning assessments, and teaching techniques are integrated with each other. I presented the results of this analysis at a conference (follow this link for the conference presentation support materials). In brief, I learned from this analysis is that my class-by-class learning objectives (and therefore my exams) were really only addressing two of my broader course goals.

Major changes in 2013/2014

  • Revised most readings. Created a new custom set of readings from only one publisher, omitting most of the sport psychology chapters that many students had had trouble connecting with in previous iterations.
  • Revised topic sequence, in-class topics, and exams to align with new content. This meant re-arranging some topics, reframing others, cutting a few entirely, and creating a few new lessons on new topics.
  • Instead of using the Team Based Learning style team tests for two units (one of which was now gone entirely), I created a “Learning Blitz” to serve the same sort of readiness assurance process. In brief, students came with readings prepared, then worked on questions that guided what they were to take from the readings (e.g., keywords, key studies, take-home message). My intent was to help students learn to extract the most important information from readings, while working together.
  • As I said I would in response to last year’s feedback, I created an exam study guide that I distributed to students the week before each exam. It collected all learning objectives, keywords, key studies, etc., together in one place as a sort of “here’s what to know” from class and the readings.
  • The TA who had helped me develop the course over four years graduated. Two new TAs were assigned to my course. They were keen to help support the course, but we did hit some snags.

As you can see, this was a big year in the life of this 208 section. Personally, I felt challenged by the sheer amount of revision needed. When I consider my course design intentions, I think I inched toward integrated assessment and teaching techniques (still lots of room to grow there), and better aligned my course goals and learning objectives with assessments. I also realized just how much work my former TA did to ensure feedback and support was given in a timely way to each group, and to ensure consistency of grading with her fellow TA (which changed most years). I need to be better prepared with a process for communicating more effectively and regularly with TAs, and helping them work together to ensure coordination throughout the grading process.


Quantitative student feedback was on par with previous years (see the graph above, click to enlarge), but qualitative comments tended to hit a different tone. Many students commented positively about how motivated they were to come to class, how much they enjoyed my teaching style and the activities that we did to encourage them to apply the material to their lives. Some students mentioned that I created a “positive learning environment” and was “engaging” and “inspiring.” These comments were consistent with previous years, and I’m glad that many students are finding value in this course and my approach to it.

The suggestions for improvement seemed related to the changes I made, and fell largely into two categories: grading and content. Commonly, students commented that the midterm exam and assignment grading was difficult. There was frustration with the required means – I was frustrated by that too. These means were more salient perhaps than in previous years because of how I handled a couple of things: instead of asking my TAs to revise their grades on an assignment to better align with each other, I scaled them quite explicitly (i.e., one half the class had a +3 boost, the other had a -5 reduction; on the midterm, I scaled +7 for everyone). The midterm difficulty was an overshoot because of the revisions with the new material (not an unusual occurrence). What I wish I had done with the assignment was ask the TAs to take a couple of extra days and revise their grades to come to a common acceptable mean. It would have had the same effect on the grades, but the process would have reduced the salience of the scaling problem. As it stood, half the class seemed to feel like they were punished – when in fact they were simply over-graded initially. Process is crucial. Lesson: Carefully ensure TAs are communicating regularly and are aligned throughout the grading process for the assignment.

The handful of comments on the content surprised me a little. One student mentioned high overlap in the content between this course and some others (although also noted that the applied take on it was new). A few students mentioned that they desired more depth of theory/research and less application. One person phrased it like this, “I know that Dr. Rawn really enjoys research, so I am confident that she teaches us things that has research to support it…. I wish the course focused more on helping [us] understand definitions, and different approaches so I could make connections between material and life myself.” This feedback surprised me. I feel like I am constantly describing studies, but the fact that a few students made similar comments means that maybe this course is starting to come across as preachy (this is how to live a good life and how I apply it and you should too), and, perhaps consequently, less rigorous. I’m not sure what to do with this feedback, but it’s certainly something to think about further.

Other useful suggestions for next year:

  • Clarify and simplify the group project handout. It has been updated each year for a few years, so it reads a bit patchy. Give the rubrics ahead of time. Like last year, I’m nervous about grading – but perhaps use the rubrics as a base to structure the handout.
  • Offer half a lab day about a week before the presentation (maybe cut Lab 3 into two half days?)
  • Have some sort of control over the chaos that is the presentation. Maybe have a bell every 15 minutes – could I bring someone in to do that? I’m busy grading.
  • Shorten the learning blitz requirements: they’re too long for meaningful discussions and some groups are reporting splitting the workload rather than discussing each item together.
  • Consider having pairs of groups – or encouraging even number teams to match with an odd number team — something that helps people meet new people other than their teammates every once in a while.

Thank you to everyone who provided feedback. This course, more than any other I teach, goes through growing pains regularly, and this year felt like a big growing pains year. I have a lot to think about revising as I move forward, and also a lot of success to celebrate. This deliberately unconventional course – although not everyone’s cup of tea – does seem to be reaching a subset of students in a very positive way.

2013/2014 Student Evaluations Response Part 1/4: Intro Psych

Thank you to each of my students who took the time to complete a student evaluation of teaching this year. I value hearing from each of you, and every year your feedback helps me to become a better teacher. As I explained here, I’m writing reflections on the qualitative and quantitative feedback I received from each of my courses.


After teaching students intro psych as a 6-credit full-year course for the past three years, in 2013/2014 I was required to transform it into 101 and 102. Broadly speaking, the Term1/Term2 division from the 6-credit course stays the same, but turning Term 2 of Psyc 100 into a semi-standalone Psyc 102 proved more challenging than converting Term 1 into 101. Because these two courses really still form one unit in my mind, and I structure the courses extremely similarly, I will discuss them in tandem.

Across both courses, quantitative feedback was similar (albeit a bit higher in 101 than 102). Students rated the textbook equally high (4.2 & 4.3/5), which makes sense because I use the same text for both, and many students have told me informally that they enjoy reading the book (some qualify this endorsement with “for a textbook”). Check out my overall UMI scores from this year and all previous years here (click to enlarge, and click here for further discussion of UMIs):



In the qualitative feedback, many of the same positive and helpful features were highlighted by students in both courses. Overall, students report enjoying and finding valuable the clickers, classroom discussions (often tied to clicker questions), films, opportunities to apply what is being learned, the 3-midterm format that helps stay on top of things even if it’s slightly annoying to be so frequently tested, music before class, the organization of class periods, my enthusiasm and energy, my effort to learn many students’ names, and the Invitational Office Hours. Capturing many of these commonly-mentioned features, one student from Psyc 102 wrote,

It was incredibly impressive how she tried to learn the name of every single student that she interacted with, despite the size of the class. The IOH were also a surprisingly fun experience. The class was very interactive, which definitely helped me learn, and even though I was unhappy about having three midterms at first I think I have to conclude it made studying for each one much easier and less stressful.”

One new element I added to both courses this year were five mini-papers which I called “Writing to Learn” (W2L) assignments (replacing a single 500 word paper I used to assign to be marked by TAs; see last year’s reflection for rationale). Students picked a topic from each of the two chapters about to be tested, wrote a paragraph explaining and applying the concept to their lives, then read 5 peers’ papers and gave feedback to them using peerScholar software. Students received feedback from their peers, and were able to choose any two topics to improve and reproduce on the final exam (no notes!). Overall, students reported finding the Writing to Learn assignments helpful for learning, and some mentioned that reading others’ work was helpful as well (both of these results are consistent with past research on similar writing assignments and peer review). My TAs have reported being able to grasp whether students knew what they were talking about from the writing section on the exams – and my test scores were higher than in previous years, so the goal of increasing learning seems to have been met! However, of the students who mentioned the W2L assignments, many noted that quality of peer feedback received was low. Dr. Peter Graf and I are just starting a project to deal with this very issue of enhancing peer feedback. It may take a couple of years to figure it out in a way that’s scalable to 300-400 students at a time, but we’re working on it.

Interestingly, a couple of students in each course noted my responses to student incivility. In one case it was failing to follow instructions to complete the bubbles during the exam time given, and another case (mentioned a few times in 102, actually), was my response to students talking in class. Side chatter is really only a problem in my first year courses – and it’s a consistent one that varies in severity year-to-year with different cohorts. Interestingly, Gillian Sandstrom and I have a paper about to come out in Teaching of Psychology showing that some chatter is a good thing: it can build a sense of community in a large class. But it can feel disrespectful and distracting to me. Perhaps I should consider building in even more opportunities for structured conversation, because clearly it’s going to happen anyway.

In 102 this year, rather than devoting a whole week to Chapter 2 Research Methods – which I do in 101 in the same place I did back when I taught the 6-credit version – I decided to split it up and cover topics as they came up throughout the term. For example, I used intelligence testing as a chance to discuss measurement and survey designs, and social psychology (specifically Milgram’s studies) as a chance to address the ethics of deception in research designs. Although I think this was a solid solution in theory, in practice there were definitely times when I felt like I was awkwardly wedging topics in to 102. Indeed, a few students mentioned this flow problem too – and it seems to be students who took both 101 and 102 with me who noticed the difference. Hopefully next year I’ll be able to smooth topics out a bit more effectively, perhaps cutting even more material to make more room for these new topics and ensuing discussions.

Although I still would prefer to teach intro psych as a unified whole with the same students over the whole year, apparently that’s not an option any longer. I have begun the process of converting this course into two halves effectively, and given the feedback above, I think I’m heading in that direction.