September 26, 2005

Early Feedback Working Group

Charge and Operation

The Early Feedback Working Group was formed in response to the change in drop deadlines for all classes, and especially the very early deadlines for impacted classes. Vice Chancellor and Provost Paul Gray asked Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Christina Maslach to convene a group to discuss ways to provide better feedback to faculty early in the course about how their students are doing, and to provide students with earlier feedback about how they are doing in a course. The Office of Educational Development spent several months gathering best practices from around the country, which were distributed to the Working Group in advance of their meeting. Besides vetting the material, the primary task of the Working Group was to discuss ways that faculty can be encouraged to use early feedback techniques.

Report

Students clearly want early feedback about how they are doing in a course. The Early Feedback Working Group focused primarily on ways faculty can provide students with early feedback, but also touched on how students can provide feedback to faculty. There was general agreement that, with some modifications (now made), the “Suggestions for Early Feedback” should be disseminated to all faculty. The following are other points of discussion:

I.    Very early feedback

  1. Students on the group were asked what kinds of early assessment/feedback have been done in their classes. Responses:

Math: A mini quiz for assessment on the very first day. Some students did drop as a result.
Physics: A questionnaire on the first day.
English 45A: A one-page paper every week for the GSI, including the first week.
Anthropology 2: Same survey at both the beginning and the end of the course.
Introduction to Near Eastern Studies: A questionnaire about previous knowledge and what will be covered in the course.
Rhetoric: A quiz at the end of the first week in which students were asked to explicate a passage. This was for 5% of the grade.

  1. Students were then asked whether they were made nervous by these, e.g., “Do I really belong in this class?” The general response was that such early quizzes and questionnaires did not bother them.

  2. However, there was some feeling that personal experience questionnaires at the beginning can be of limited help, because they may not say much about how a student will do in this particular class. That is, a student lacking particular knowledge or experiences may also be eager, diligent, and intelligent enough to do well.

  3. One student commented that instructors shouldn’t discourage students from taking a course just because they may not do well. The grade is not always indicative of what a student has learned from the class.

i.    If students do poorly on the diagnostic or early quiz, perhaps the instructor can suggest that they take the class pass/not pass.

  1. There was general agreement that early assessment needs to be coupled with a reminder or information about where students can get help.

  2. Ungraded assessment assignments need to be done in class; other things will get in the way if they are assigned to be done at home.

  3. Students emphasized the need for written, detailed feedback, not just a grade. That is, they want specific areas that need improvement and ways to do that.

  4. If early assignments/assessments are not graded, then instructors should consider some other kind of acknowledgment, such as extra credit.

  5. One faculty member reported that she gives weekly quizzes, as well as a series of mini-essays, as a way of encouraging students to keep up with the reading and come to class, and to provide them with continuous feedback about how they are doing.

II. Purpose and importance of midsemester and end-of-semester evaluations

  1. Instructors need to emphasize to students that the mid-semester evaluation is just for the instructor and the class and is not seen by anyone else. This might produce more honest answers.
  2. It is clear that students don’t really know how important end of semester evaluations are, and don’t know what they are used for. There was strong agreement that instructors need to explain how the evaluations are used. 1

III. Use of learning objectives

  1. Many students said they have learning objectives on their syllabi, but don’t pay any attention to them unless the faculty member talks about them. Following are suggestions from the students’ standpoint about how these might be used more effectively:

    1. It might be helpful to have objectives for sections of the course, in addition to or in place of overall objectives.
    2. Learning objectives on syllabi are often too broad (“You will learn about the Cold War”). The objectives need to be more specific (“You will know why communist states have not survived”), in addition to dealing with the overarching theme of the course.
    3. The fundamental knowledge needed for the course needs to be highlighted. Students also suspected that too much emphasis on the objectives throughout the semester might seem irritating and grade-schoolish.
    4. Include the learning objectives early, for instance in the course description, so students can see them before they sign up for a course.

IV. Providing guideposts during individual lectures and throughout the semester

  1. Students reported that many courses seem like one large block of information instead of sections. (As one put it, “One long run-together sentence from the first to the last day.”)

  2. Students reported that in large introductory courses they are often in the dark about how well they are doing until the midterm.

  3. Students say faculty rarely signal varying levels of difficulty, e.g., “Tonight’s reading is pretty dense” or “This next section of the lecture should be pretty easy.”

V. Availability of information about a course and the instructor’s expectations

  1. Students often sense a lack of consistency in courses, especially in translating grades from quizzes to final grades. That is, quizzes and end-of-semester exams may not be testing the same kinds of knowledge. Students can’t really tell how they’re doing, because what they’re being examined on varies.

  2. Students do use CourseWeb, but too often there is no information about a course.

  3. Students would like to be able to access the course website from the previous semester, including old exams and sample student papers, so they can get a sense of the course.

  4. For written assignments, students want instructors to spell out in details expectations and how the assignments will be graded.

  5. Students often feel that GSIs and faculty members are not “on the same page” concerning both grades and content.

  6. At least one student goes to ratemyprofessor.com to check out courses.

VI. Other

  1. There was agreement among the faculty present that assessment should be used not just to identify problems or weaknesses, but as a way to engage students with the material and to motivate them.

  2. The group felt that if drop deadlines are earlier, “cinch notices” (midsemester reports to students) should come out earlier, too. It does little good to have the cinch notices after the drop deadline.

  3. Students said that students should be encouraging their instructors to provide them with some early feedback.

 

1. According to Carnegie Mellon University, “Several studies have shown that the best way to encourage your students to respond is to share with them why their feedback is important to you and what you do with the information. Most students don't believe faculty even read the evaluations and report that they would be more likely to complete [end of term evaluations] if they believed they were read and used for improving teaching and education on campus.”

Suggested wording for handing out end-of-semester course evaluations:

"I just want to take a few moments before handing out the evaluation forms to let you know how valuable your input is as a means of gauging the instructor's and this course's effectiveness. The evaluations that you are about to fill out are not only important sources of information for the future improvement of courses and teaching, but are also taken into account in determining employment, promotion and pay for instructors. Because the information provided on these forms is so important, I encourage you to take the time to fill out all three sections of the form, each of which covers significant areas of evaluation. You will have fifteen minutes in which to fill out these forms."*

(*Source: UC Irvine Faculty Manual)

 

Members of the Early Feedback Working Group

Faculty:
Ronald Gronsky, Materials Science and Engineering
Bob Jacobsen, Physics
Ingrid Seyer-Ochi, Education
Katherine Snyder, English

Students:
Roberta Davenport
Alissa Elegant-McCoy
Gorden Lam
Gina Quiney
Patrick Tam
Ariel Toft
Christopher Yap
Timothy Yiu
Jason Dixson, Academic Affairs Vice President, ASUC

Staff:
Steve Tollefson, Director, Office of Educational Development
Linda Von Hoene, Director, Graduate Student Instructor Teaching and Resource Center