100 likes | 249 Views
Midterm Evaluations of Teaching Pilot Project. Kiran Mahal & Dr. Simon Bates. About Dr. Bates. Academic Director of CTLT and Senior Advisor for Teaching and Learning at UBC Faculty member in Department of Physics
E N D
Midterm Evaluations of Teaching Pilot Project Kiran Mahal & Dr. Simon Bates
About Dr. Bates Academic Director of CTLT and Senior Advisor for Teaching and Learning at UBC Faculty member in Department of Physics Dean of Teaching and Learning in the College of Science and Engineering at University of Edinburgh
Midterm (Concurrent) Evaluations of Teaching • Distinct from final evaluations (SEoT) • No effect on tenure or promotion • Designed and administered by faculty member • Not a new concept • Extensive research about benefits • Sauder has mandated for undergraduate courses
Benefits of MEoT • On average, instructors who conduct midterm course evaluations perform better on end of term evaluations1,2,3 • Students are more likely to take teaching evaluations more seriously if they see that their input matters3 • Midterm course evaluations improve student perceptions of both the instructor’s commitment to teaching and their concern for students’ performance3 • Sustained administration of formative evaluations leads to a continuation of positive changes to teaching scores over time4 1 Prince, A.R. and Goldman, M., “Improving part-time faculty instruction,” Teaching of Psychology, 8, no. 3 (1981): 160-162. 2 Overall, J. U., and March, H.W., “Midterm feedback from students: its relationship to instructional improvement and students: Cognitive and affective outcomes,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1979): 856-865. 3 Brown, M. J., “Student Perceptions of Teaching Evaluations,” Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, no. 2 (2008): 177-181. 4 Wilson, R.C., “Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants,” Journal of Higher Education, 57, no. 2 (1986): 196-211.
Pilot Project • Led by AMS and CTLT • SEoT Implementation Committee supported pilot • VP Academics of SUS, AUS, KUS and EUS • Steering Committee of VP Academics and Associate Deans • 22 faculty members, 35 courses, 3400+ students
Pilot Project • Deliberately non-prescriptive, examples provided • Faculty members encouraged to “close the loop” • Resources guide compiled by AMS/CTLT provided to participants • Most instructors opted for paper based
Follow Up Survey Students – response rate 18% Faculty – response rate 72%
Results - Students High level of engagement from student (~80-90% of class) Discussion about results took place (71%) Student indicated that understanding of the course changed ½ of students reported positive change in classroom Students appreciated opportunity to provide feedback Need for a name change
Results - Faculty 2 felt process was not beneficial Other 14 felt beneficial and student provided good constructive feedback ½ indicated weren’t surprised by results, had chance to provide “response” to feedback Would support wider implementation, feel should not be mandated
Next Steps Debrief of results with Steering Committee and Deans Continuing pilot in term 2 Final comprehensive report with recommendations AMS Education Committee revising student evaluation of teaching policy