Tag Archives: student evaluations of teaching

Responding to Student Evaluations of Teaching 2013/2014

Thank you to each of my students who took the time to complete a student evaluation of teaching this year. Since the 2009/2010, my overall response rates across courses have been 54%, 55%, 49%, 62%. This 2013/2014 year, the response rate dropped to 47%, and I’m not sure why. I value hearing from each of you, and every year your feedback helps me to become a better teacher.

When I receive my evaluations, I take my time exploring and interpreting both the qualitative and quantitative feedback. I have created graphs depicting results from the University Module Items, which are 6 questions that are asked about every instructor across campus. I have posted those graphs (and the precise wording of each question) here for your consideration. With respect to the open-ended responses, I appreciate and consider every thoughtful comment. The ones I write about are typically those that reflect common themes echoed by numerous students.

 

I have posted a series of written reflections on the feedback I received from each of my courses. Links to these individual blog posts are collected here:

Reflections from 2013/2014: Psyc 101 and 102 introPsyc 208 special topics, Psyc 217 research methods, and Psyc 218 stats

 

If you wish to refer backwards in time, here are links to previous years’ posts:

Reflections from 2012/2013: Psyc 100 intro, Psyc 208 special topics, and Psyc 217 research methods

Reflections from 2011/2012: Psyc 100 intro, Psyc 208 special topics, Psyc 217 research methods, and Psyc 218 stats

Student Evaluations of Teaching 2012/2013: Part 3 Special Topics 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.

Psych 208: Special Topics

Overall, I thought this course was pretty smooth. Over the past four years I’ve developed a clearer vision for what this course is (see the syllabus), and I think that’s reflected in greater coherence, greater integration across in-class teaching methods, content, and learning objectives. Learning appraisals are in decent shape (although could probably use some refreshment in the coming year). As I have matured, I have matured this course.

After such self-assessment, I was pleased to note that students rated this course more positively than any previous iteration, right on par with my other more traditional courses (check out the quantitative data here). Reading the qualitative evaluations was almost overwhelming. Student after student noted how useful this course was, how much they applied these concepts to their everyday life, how they built skills they’d take with them into future courses and their careers. I am absolutely blown away by what people said about this course. When I first envisioned this course, I wanted it to be useful. So much of psychology (particularly social psychology) can improve our lives, and that’s exactly what I dreamed this course would help people do: apply our amazing research to improve their lives. To that end, numerous students wrote things like,

I found myself always referencing the course subject matter to my friends and applying it within my own life”, “this has been one of the most beneficial classes of my university career,” and “this will be one of those courses that I look back on knowing that it was a good use of my time” – even if they noted they were about to graduate.

All of this positivity was despite (or because of?) the extent to which this course challenged students in various ways (e.g., “not an easy A”) yet was perceived as valuable (e.g., “the course project on group work is such a valuable skill that students need”).  The usefulness of our course material got through to these students, and I’m absolutely thrilled!

Given these positive comments, I think it’s worthwhile to note that as I’ve matured (with) this course, there’s one key tweak I made in 2012 that I emphasized even more in 2013. During the first week, I am very explicit about the collaborative, applied, interactive nature of this course. I invite people to explore with me some ways of learning that are, for some people, uncomfortable and new. I also invite people who aren’t up for such exploration at this time to choose a different section or course, with no hard feelings. Along with better development of the curriculum and assessments, I think this tweak goes a long way toward student-course-instructor fit.

One area for growth that was noted a few times in the qualitative data was lack of clarity about learning assessment requirements. In my view, the handouts and LOs I give to students pretty clearly map on to my rubrics and exams. But there’s obviously a disconnect: a small yet larger proportion of students than in any of my other courses report lack of clarity for what to expect from grading. Moreover, my “fairness of evaluations” rating was the only UMI across all my 2012/2013 courses to fall below 4 out of 5. To remedy this disconnect, I have a couple of ideas: First, I will consider giving—up front—my rubrics for all components to the assignment. A couple of students suggested this, and I think it will help. Second, I will consider ways to give more advice for the exams, especially the midterm. One option would be to give a list of the short answer questions, a subset of which will appear on the exam (will this increase learning? If so, great! Will this increase the mean and/or reduce variance? If so, stress!).

[One of the challenges that I face (that’s not exactly popular with students, in my experience) is that attempts to change anything to do with grading run this risk of inflating the mean and/or changing the distribution of grades. Like all faculty in my department, I am bound by departmental requirements to have a mean around 65% and a standard deviation around 14% in all 100 and 200 level courses. Therefore, interventions that increase the mean or shrink the SD present real concerns that force me to confront this reality: any improvement in clarity might simultaneously require an increase in difficulty.]

Quite a few students mentioned enjoying the readings from one book, but finding the book that drew from a sport psychology perspective a bit less helpful and/or easily applied to academic life. Many of the readings will change in 2013/2014, largely because many of the chapters I currently rely on are out-of-date and must be changed anyway. Therefore, it’s a great opportunity to re-think the whole set of readings. I will be making every effort to get the custom course-pack down to one publisher, ideally with less of an emphasis on sport. Given the current offerings I’ve seen, I think that’s possible. I’ll also be thoughtfully considering the length of readings, as a (small) group of students mentioned feeling like there was too much to read.

Overall, in my view and the students’, this offering was the most successful iteration of Psyc 208 to date!

Student Evaluations of Teaching 2012/2013: Part 2 Research Methods

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.

Psyc 217: Research Methods

I went into this year especially excited about research methods, as I got to use a textbook with my own name on it! Wow, what a thrill! Perhaps reflecting this extra-potent boost of enthusiasm, my quantitative results were overwhelmingly positive this year. Interestingly, I seem to have connected especially effectively with my 10am section. Ratings from my 9am section were positive too (see the mint green bars on the graph linked above)… and on par with years past. But scores from my 10am section were the highest I’ve ever received (see the light purple bars on the graph)! Because I taught the two sections pretty much the same way, I’m not sure what can account for the difference. Suffice it to say, in my mind it was an especially awesome year… and many of my students seem to have felt that way too.

When I teach research methods, it’s often at 9 and 10 in the morning, and I do my very best every day to bring the energy. For many people, this material isn’t exactly inherently exciting. As one student wrote, “Based on what I’ve heard from friends and acquaintances at UBC, research methods is one of the most disliked courses offered at the university due to its sheer boringness.” Thankfully, this student continued, “that said, this instructor did a phenomenal job of teaching the course in a way that students found the material relevant and exciting (to the extent that this material can be exciting).” Such an assessment is the most common comment coming from my student evaluations in this course: Students expect this material to be dull, but I bring it alive. That’s exactly what I strive to do every single day. I’m satisfied that my well-caffeinated efforts are effective for my students.

A few other topics were noted by small subsets of students. Two topics drew ambivalent assessments: groupwork and in-class activities. People seem to have a love-hate relationship with groupwork. First, only a handful of people mentioned it at all, leading me to suspect that mostly people feel neutrally about it (perhaps recognizing its inherent challenges and strengths). The people who noted liking the team project still found it a lot of work, but recognized the value in it. The people who didn’t seem to work as well with teammates report viewing it as a frustrating waste of time. Each year I hear this dichotomous assessment. One thing I tried out last year in response to one particularly struggling group was a mediation meeting, during which I acted as mediator. It seemed to work well to get that group through effectively to the end of the course. To broaden this service and reach the struggling groups I don’t hear about, I am creating a form-based mediation request process for this year. That may sound like a cold approach, but I’ve given it much thought. After years of imploring people to come to me face-to-face to help solve their group challenges, I note that very few groups—or individuals struggling within groups—ever come to me. By formalizing this process, I hope to remove some of the emotion around “tattling,” and treat it as just another issue that needs to be dealt with, just like a grade change request. Hopefully this new process will help reach those extra few groups who are struggling on their own so they can move forward and perform well in group tasks.

In-class activities make material memorable, illustrate difficult concepts, up the energy and attention levels, and make learning fun. Every year, dozens of students report appreciating them. However, there is a small minority of students who don’t appreciate the time spent on these active learning adventures (yes, that’s the subtitle of my blog… see where I’m headed). I’m committed to student learning, and one of the hallmarks of my teaching philosophy is to get out of the way. And data supports my commitment to using active learning techniques (Armbruster, Patel, Johnson, & Weiss, 2009; Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman, 2011; Hake, 1998; Prince, 2004; Ruhl, Hughes, & Schloss, 1987; Yoder & Hochevar, 2005). I encourage people who are considering taking research methods or statistics with me (or any of my courses, really), to be ready to engage actively during class. If you’re not up for having fun while learning, my section might not be for you.

The last topic I’ll touch on is the textbooks. A few students noted how much they found my textbook worthwhile (yay!), with one student going so far as to say “I loved her book she wrote, very clear, informative, concise, probably the best textbook I ever used and read due to how clear it is to understand, with all the learning objectives.” I can’t take full credit for that readability (thanks to Cozby for laying such a strong foundation in his 10 prior editions!), yet I’m glad this text is being perceived as helpful. Unfortunately, the Stanovich text once again was voted unhelpful. The messages are useful, but even I find many examples dated and the chapters too lengthy for the points they make. Two years ago I wrote learning objectives and emphasized “get in, find what you need to know, and get out approach” in an attempt to make Stanovich’s text more accessible. Since then, there have been fewer complaints about Stanovich’s text, but a small, consistent group remain. I’ve been back-and-forth on this text for quite a while now, and I’m strongly considering replacing it with a few key peer reviewed articles/commentaries. I have some deep thinking to do in the coming weeks!

Many thanks to all my Psyc 217 students in 2012/2013 students who completed this evaluation. The response rate this year was 67% across both sections, which is my highest rate ever. And thanks to everyone for a really fun year of learning about research methods!

References

Armbruster, P., Patel, M. Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centred pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8, 203-213.

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862-864.

Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231.

Ruhl, K., Hughes, C., & Schloss, P. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14-18.

Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 91-95.

Student Evaluations of Teaching 2012/2013: Part 1 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.

Introduction to Psychology

Overall, I was very pleased with my introductory psychology students’ assessments of my teaching this year. Quantitative data were all highly positive (see the orange bars here).  In the qualitative responses, many students highlighted my enthusiasm, organization, strong communication skills, and care for getting to know them as individuals. Because these themes emerge regularly, particularly from my introductory students, I have learned to embrace them and lean into them – a strategy that seems to be working! Specific features of our course/my teaching that many students noted as particularly effective include i>clickers as a way to engage attention and reinforce learning, invitational office hour as a way to connect personally with students, videos and demonstrations in class to make points memorable, and having three midterms (rather than two, as we did in 2nd term) as helpful for keeping on top of readings. For next year, I’ll switch term 2 (which will be a separate course, Psyc 102) to a three-midterm format.

Mid-way through the year, I was discussing the use of Learning Objectives with students at an IOH. During that discussion, someone suggested I keep the Learning Objectives posted somewhere throughout the class, to serve as a reminder of what students need to especially focus on understanding and doing. In response, I committed to posting the LOs before each class period on our Vista course website. That way, students can consult them throughout the class (provided they have a device to do so… which many do). Many students noted that they found this cumulative list of LOs helpful during class as well as later as an exam study tool. There are many reasons why I can’t post my slides before class, but I can commit to posting LOs. Because this simple thing seemed to be so helpful for at least a subset of students, I will continue doing this in the fall (and perhaps extend to all my courses).

Exams and papers were two discussion points that were noted in various ways in quite a few posts. Regarding exams, many students noted they were challenging (which I embrace), yet a few added that they felt unprepared for this level of difficulty. One of the things I will consider doing next year is holding an optional review session outside of class time before at least the first midterm. I’m not willing to simply re-teach material (as if coming to the review session would be enough studying, or would substitute for coming to class thrice weekly), so I’ll have to think more about how to approach them (see Regan Gurung’s Observer article). Logistically this could be tricky, especially if there are many students who attend. I’ll have to give this possibility some more thought.

For the past four years I’ve required students write a 600 word paper each term on one of two or three topics each term. All papers have in common a requirement to do something to apply a course concept, summarize what they did or saw, and explain how that event illustrates that concept (e.g., write a study plan applying principles of memory). A handful of people gave really thoughtful feedback on the main challenge this paper poses: 600 words isn’t long enough to dive deeply into the material. I haven’t been thrilled with the quality of the papers recently… in part because I simply can’t offer a scaffolded process with meaningful feedback to 250-350 students a term. To help address this feedback issue, I turned it over to the students this year. I added a requirement to the paper that people give peer feedback to four of their peers’ papers using peerScholar software, and gave people a week to incorporate the feedback they received (if they chose to do so) before final submission. To my surprise, not a single person mentioned peerScholar in their qualitative feedback. Was it just not memorable? Not helpful? I can’t tell. I recall having called a vote using i>clickers at the end of term 1 during which people endorsed it as useful and wanted to use it again… but it didn’t show up at all in student evals! I’m really not sure what to make of that, but I presume students didn’t hate it or else I’d have heard about it. I’m considering a new approach to the papers, inspired by this ToP article I wrote about a few weeks ago, while incorporating peer ratings through peerScholar as a study tool. I think that could work to satisfy both my writing-to-learn and peer feedback goals.

Notably, the graph highlights the fact that my classes of ~250 (2010/2011, 2012/2013) seem to be rated more highly than my classes of ~350 (2011/2012). Given this pattern, I am a bit nervous heading into next year. For the past three years I have been fortunate to teach some of the last three 6-credit sections of Introductory Psychology (Psyc 100). From now on, admin has decided that all sections will split into 101 and 102. The content mostly mirrors the first half and second half of Psyc 100, respectively, but with two huge differences: it’s not (entirely) the same group of students, and because neither is a prereq for the other, 102 students might not have had 101 at all (let alone with me). Having the same group of students all year has afforded me the rich opportunity to establish relationships across eight months with the same group of students. I can invite every single student to an Invitational Office Hour over that length of time – which has led me to personally meet 70% of my intro students in each of my last three cohorts. In 2013/2014, with 350 students in Psyc 101 and potentially an entirely different crew of 250 students in Psyc 102, there is logistically no way I can invite everyone. Because IOH has been so enormously successful, I will continue it. But it will need to be by random selection (plus an open invite to keen students), and I will no longer be able to offer 1% for coming and “engaging in learning” because I can’t offer that opportunity to everyone. I’ve met such interesting students and established great relationships and community through IOH… I hope people still come!

My advice if you’re choosing intro psych for 2013/2014: sign up for Psyc 101 and 102, in that order… with me J (or someone else, but I’d love to meet you!). Then, if you’re in my sections, come to IOH so we can get to know each other!

Many thanks to all my Psyc 100 students in 2012/2013 students who completed this evaluation. The response rate this year was 62%, which is among my higher rates. And thanks to the whole class for a fun year of learning about psychology!

Coming Soon: My Responses to Student Evaluations of Teaching

Thank you to each of my students who took the time to complete a student evaluation of teaching this year. Overall, your response rate was the highest I’ve ever received! Thank you! (Since 2009/2010, response rates across all courses have been 54%, 55%, 49%, and, this 2012/2013 year, boasted the high of 62%.) I value hearing from each of you, and every year your feedback helps me to become a better teacher.

When I receive my evaluations, I take my time exploring and interpreting both the qualitative and quantitative feedback. I have already created graphs depicting results from the University Module Items, which are 6 questions that are asked about every instructor across campus. I have posted those graphs (and the precise wording of each question) here for your consideration. With respect to the open-ended responses, I appreciate and consider every thoughtful comment. The ones I write about are typically those that reflect common themes echoed by numerous students.

I am in the process of writing reflections on the feedback I received from each of my courses, and will be posting them over the coming weeks. Check out last year’s reflections on intro, research methods, stats, and Psyc 208 special topics), for comparisons.