Tag: improving teaching

When students’ evaluations are viewed by instructors as a type of formative assessment to be used as a tool for instructional improvement, mid-semester feedback surveys allow instructors to immediately respond to their students’ needs (Chapman & Joines, 2017; Diamond, 2004). Further, when these changes happen in real-time, students see that their feedback is valued and better understand how it is used (Sojka et al., 2002; Spencer & Schmelkin, 2002). Sojka et al. (2002) noted that “under the current system, if a professor does change a course based on student evaluations, the students who made these comments do not have the opportunity to experience the changes, and that of course reinforces the idea that faculty ignore student evaluations” (p. 47). Thus, integrating an anonymous, mid-semester feedback survey would allow student feedback to guide instructional changes before the conclusion of the semester when course evaluations are typically sent out. In this teaching tip, I provide a simple structure for crafting an open-ended series of questions that ask students to provide anonymous feedback focused on teaching effectiveness that will help instructors respond to each semesters’ students based on their present needs. The start, continue, stop survey is anonymous, delivered mid-semester, and asks students only three open-ended questions:  

1. What should I start doing?  
2. What should I continue doing?  
3. What should I stop doing? 

Context

This survey was designed to be administered mid-semester in college-level courses where small class sizes are integral to students’ individual learning needs and instructors have been given pedagogical training. This assessment activity requires access to anonymized questionnaire software (e.g., Google Forms) and can take place during face-to-face, online, and hybrid classes, or be completed outside of class with internet access and a computer/laptop, smart phone, or tablet. 

Learning Outcomes or Goals

• Instructors will gain real-time feedback from students that will inform them on their current uses of various pedagogical methods and prompt positive changes in courses 
• Students will gain autonomy in their learning experiences and will practice identifying their learning needs 

Teacher Preparation

Create an anonymous survey for students to complete mid-semester asking the following questions, and select the option for students to have enough space to reply with one to two paragraphs:  

• What should I start doing?  
• What should I continue doing?  
• What should I stop doing?  

Prepare students for completing this survey by telling them it is anonymous and that the questions refer to teaching and course material. An estimated 15 minutes should be set aside for students to complete the questionnaire. Prior to the semester, instructors should spend 10 minutes preparing the survey and ensuring anonymity, and when giving the survey, instructors should set aside 5 minutes to explain directions, and 2-3 minutes per student to review responses. 

Procedure

1. Prior to the beginning of the semester, instructors should decide on survey software that is accessible to students and can receive anonymous responses 
   • Design the survey to accept anonymous and open-ended (1-2 paragraphs) responses. 
   • Write each question so it can receive its own response. 
     • What should I start doing? 
     • What should I continue doing? 
     • What should I stop doing? 
2. Add the survey to the schedule of assignments midway through the semester as homework or for a 15-minute block during class. 
3. Prior to assigning the survey, explain that it is anonymous and how feedback will be used, state the questions, and direct students to the link. 
4. Within one week, collect and read responses, and prepare and deliver an overview for students that reviews the collective feedback and outlines planned instructional changes. 

Caveats and Alternatives

Students are aware that their post-semester feedback can only be taken into consideration for future students’ benefit, which motivates the use of this survey as a mid-semester tool. And while some research indicates that mid-semester evaluations lead to increased rates of post-semester evaluation completion (Chapman & Joines, 2017), it is recommended that no extra credit be attached to completion of the survey to avoid students’ less critical or thoughtful feedback. 

The overview prepared for students should be delivered during class time when most if not all students are present, and students should be thanked for their honesty. When reviewing students’ responses, it is important to remember that although students are critiquing teaching effectiveness, they do not fully understand pedagogical rationales. Addressing some of their responses might simply involve explaining such pedagogical rationales. 

Conclusion

For instructors working toward goals of enhancing their teaching effectiveness by relying on a student-centered pedagogy, incorporating this type of mid-semester feedback survey could provide a both manageable and successful intervention. Actively seeking feedback from students during the semester fosters a responsive learning environment that opens opportunities for students to build their self-efficacy through seeing their input being valued and implemented. Further, instructors are able to demonstrate their commitment to continuing their own improvement and to student-centered teaching and learning in tangible ways for their annual reviews and/or promotion portfolios. 

The benefits of this approach also extend beyond immediate course corrections. For students, it reinforces the notion that their voices are heard and valued, which in turn would increase their engagement, motivation, and sense of agency. It also empowers them to reflect on their learning experiences and articulate their needs, which is a valuable practice in academic growth and could easily translate into their professional careers beyond academia. For instructors, the insights gained from mid-semester feedback can lead to more effective teaching strategies, better alignment with students’ learning needs, and ultimately, improved educational outcomes. By making adjustments in real-time, instructors can address issues before they become significant problems, ultimately leading to an overall more positive course experience. 

Overall, this practice can help bridge the gap between student evaluations and course correcting. When students see that their feedback leads to tangible changes, they are more likely to take future evaluations seriously and provide more honest and thoughtful responses. This can lead to a cycle of continuous improvement and mutual respect between students and instructors. It benefits students by giving them a sense of ownership over their learning process and benefits instructors by providing timely insights that can inform their teaching practices. Implementing this tool would not only enhance the current course but also contribute to a culture of ongoing improvement and a responsive educational environment.  

---

Adele Leon, PhD, is an assistant professor of Rhetoric and Writing at Nova Southeastern University, where she founded the SoFlo Writing Project in 2023. Her research engages structural and organizational issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education, reciprocity in community-university partnerships, and liberatory pedagogies.

References 

Chapman, D. D., & Joines, J. A. (2017). Strategies for increasing response rates for online end-of-course evaluations. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 47–60. 

Diamond, M. R. (2004). The usefulness of structured mid-term feedback as a catalyst for change in higher education classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(3), 217–231. 

Sojka, J., Gupta, A. K., & Deeter-Schmelz, D. R. (2002). Student and faculty perceptions of student evaluations of teaching: A study of similarities and differences. College Teaching, 50(2), 44–49. 

Spencer, K. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2002). Student perspectives on teaching and its evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 397–409.