I agree; far too late after the course if one aim is to show students
that their views are valued and acted on. And how useful it would be if
end of course evaluations then provided the opportunity for students to
comment on whether things improved or not as a result of the in-course
comments.
As long as the emphasis is on compulsion to complete questionnaires
rather than on engaging students in a meaningful dialogue about the ways
in which they learn, not just how they are taught, the usefulness of
evaluations is limited.
Regards,
Jackie
--
Jackie Gresham
Director, Learning and Teaching Services
Academic Services
The University of Sheffield
5 Favell Road
Sheffield
S3 7QX
Tel ++ 44 (0)114 222 1781
Fax ++ 44 (0)114 222 4069
email [log in to unmask]
> *I just love Ed Nuhfer's comment '**Just what part of the sky will fall
> if we don't do this?'*
> **
> *In my view, tick-box questionnaires like the NSS and CEQ etc are the
> most dangerous, least useful and most tedious ways of going about the
> useful task of finding out what our students think about what we do. The
> questions are clumsily designed, often bi-polar or worse (i.e. the
> response depends upon which particular word of several the respondent is
> thinking about).*
> **
> *Open-ended questions are a lot better, along the lines of enquiring
> about what we should stop, start, and continue doing.*
> **
> *And much better still is to get our students talking about these things
> - not necessarily to us (in case they fear their assessment could be
> compromised), but for example to student liaison officers who know the
> students well, and with whom students can be open. Talking has tone of
> voice, body language, and all sorts of things that paper-based (or
> online) questionnaires miss out entirely.*
>
> *And for goodness sake, why do we keep meddling with these things after
> students have finished a course/module/degree? Far better ask for
> feedback during these, so we can make the next bit better as a result of
> their feedback, and so students feel it's worth their while letting us
> know exactly what is working, and what isn't. *
> **
> *Thanks Michael for starting this topic off here.*
> **
> *all best wishes,*
> *Phil*
> **
> *______________________________________________*
> *Professor Phil Race*
> BSc PhD PGCE FCIPD SFHEA NTF
> *Emeritus Professor*
> *Leeds Metropolitan University*
> **
> *normally best contact me by email - I'm rarely at a phone!*
> **
> *Website: **www.phil-race.co.uk <http://www.phil-race.co.uk/>*
> **
> *______________________________________________*
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development
> Association on behalf of BLAND TOMKINSON
> *Sent:* Thu 19/11/2009 11:04
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Compulsory student evaluation of teaching
>
> There has also been some discussion related to this on the POD list eg >>>
>
> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:43:59 -0800
> From: "Ed.Nuhfer" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Use of Incentives for on-line student evaluations of
>
> Listening to this discussion, it reminds me a bit about arguments for class
> attendance and people who argue that the attendance declines because the
> students see no reason to attend.
>
> On this pressure to get all the students to complete their evaluation, do
> they see a good reason to? If not, what is it they should see? Just for
> whom are we really doing this exercise?
>
> I always think that it is good to reflect on things that are compulsory from
> time to time and ask: Just what part of the sky will fall if we don't do
> this?
>
> Best,
> Ed
>
> Ed Nuhfer
> Director of Faculty Development and Professor of Geoscience
> Borough of Faculty Development, 1116 Bell Tower
> California State University Channel Islands
> One University Drive
> Camarillo, CA 93012-8599
> 805/437-8826, FAX 805/437-8554
> [log in to unmask]
> Personal cell 208 241 5029
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 19/11/09, Michael Prosser /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Michael Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Compulsory student evaluation of teaching
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thursday, 19 November, 2009, 3:54
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> I have been asked to comment on the idea of students being made
> compulsorily to complete course level student evaluation
> questionnaires. For example, they cannot get their exam timetables,
> or they cannot get their exam marks until they complete the
> questionnaires.
>
> I am trying to identify any examples of such practices. I anyone
> knows of any example I would bet very grateful to hear of them.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>
> Michael Prosser
>
> Professor and Executive Director
>
> Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning
>
> The University of Hong Kong
>
> Pokfulam Road
>
> Hong Kong SAR
>
> Tel: +852 2857 8529
>
> Fax: +852 2540 9941
>
> URL: http://www.cetl.hku.hk/
>
>
>
> To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
> http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
>
>
--
Jackie Gresham
Director, Learning and Teaching Services
Academic Services
The University of Sheffield
5 Favell Road
Sheffield
S3 7QX
Tel ++ 44 (0)114 222 1781
Fax ++ 44 (0)114 222 4069
email [log in to unmask]
|
