Hi Alex,
It's a feature of new technology that it raises ethical issues of which we were not previously aware. I'm co-authoring a guide at the moment on ethics and new technologies so your point is interesting to me.

One of the advantages of inviting students (and staff) to co-construct questions from their reflective dialogue is that it empowers the learner to own the sessions and their learning. We have also done this for other staff and also trained other students (and suppport staff) and mentors to facilitate sessions free of tutor's.

We might equally  raise ethical concerns about taking conventional survey data away and constructing our own narrative as part of our research. Who owns the data is a profound issue in any research. It empowers some and exploits others.

I would argue that having participants co-author questions could be seen as *more* ethical in that regard. It allows them to see the raw data. It organises them as action learners. Our empirical data tells us that this is evaluation for them. We also brief them on ethics and that they are under no obligation to participate etc.

New technology does de-familiarise us and helps us reflect upon teaching with and without innovation. I beloeve that ethics is one such example.

Nick

------------------------------------
Sent while on the move

Nicholas Bowskill,
Faculty of Education,
University of Glasgow 
Scotland.

Shared Thinking - Collectivist Pedagogy

http://www.sharedthinking.info



On 26 Mar 2012, at 11:07, Alex Buckley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> That is an interesting article, thanks. I have seen worries raised about whether getting in-class feedback on teaching is appropriate: both from an ethical point of view (as students may feel pressured to give feedback) and in terms of accuracy (as students may feel obliged to be more positive if their lecturer is in the same room). I'm not sure those worries are relevant here though, as students were giving feedback on the system they were using at that time, which needed to be done in-class.
> 
> For anyone interested in issues around student evaluations of teaching, we are just about to advertise an HEA conference on the use of student surveys for quality enhancement (17th May, Nottingham). Watch this space......
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> Dr Alex Buckley
> Academic Development Officer
> 
> T +44 (0)1904 717500    [log in to unmask]                  twitter.com/hea_pg
> Mobile 07725257550
> 
> The Higher Education Academy, Innovation Way, York Science Park, Heslington, York, YO10 5BR
> www.heacademy.ac.uk
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Bowskill
> Sent: 26 March 2012 10:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Student evaluations of teaching: differences between voluntary and compulsory systems
> 
> Hi Bridget,
> How timely and interesting. My approach uses the same technology and has the students co-authoring the questions from reflective dialogue (rather than having them respond to pre-set issues). We use it for staff and student evaluations. It's also the default approach to student induction in one faculty at Glasgow now.
> 
> I call it Shared Thinking but a similar philosophy of grounded and collective reflection applies in your example too. Thanks for sharing that.
> 
> Nick
> 
> ------------------------------------
> Sent while on the move
> 
> Nicholas Bowskill,
> Faculty of Education,
> University of Glasgow
> Scotland.
> 
> Shared Thinking - Collectivist Pedagogy
> 
> http://www.sharedthinking.info
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 Mar 2012, at 10:35, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Good morning, SEDA colleagues
>> 
>> In response to Helen Thomas & Nicholas Bowskills interesting discussion re gathering student feedback, you might like to check out  Lymn and Mostyn’s 2010 research from Nottingham Uni on using a very straightforward technique to elicit a fast response to classroom issues, see it at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6920-10-73.pdf
>> 
>> It's an interesting way of dealing with non-responders (those who never bother to complete a module evaluation...) with the use of an in-class audience response system (Lymn & Mostyn, 2010). Lymn and Mostyn introduced audience response technology in pharmacology lectures order to find out which parts of each session students found particularly problematic, so that lecturers could adjust their teaching style if needed, or offer a more understandable explanation of a new concept or model:
>> 
>> Students benefit by identifying areas of weakness ...thereby reducing stress and anxiety later in the course which could impact upon exam success. Indeed, reduction in anxiety, use as a revision tool and preparation for examination were themes which were highly cited by the students The use of the (audience response system) not only acted to engage students in the pharmacology teaching thus promoting enthusiasm and understanding, but also acted to develop student confidence in their own ability and capability thus acting as an empowering exercise.... critical for our group of students, many of whom do not have a traditional educational background and lack confidence in their biological science knowledge (Lymn & Mostyn, 2010:8).
>> 
>> It's well worth a read! Has anyone else tried such a system for student evaluation of teaching?
>> 
>> best wishes
>> 
>> Bridget
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Bridget Middlemas
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Senior Lecturer in Learning & Teaching in Higher Education / Special & Inclusive Education
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Learning & Teaching Enhancement Unit
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Room 144, Grove House, Froebel  College, Roehampton University, London SW15 5PJ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> (t) 0208 392 3000 x 3499
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Bowskill [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 10:04 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Student evaluations of teaching: differences between voluntary and compulsory systems
>> 
>> Hi,
>> I was really struck by the concept of student-centred evaluation in theory as well as in practice.
>> 
>> One way of doing it could be to have students vote for a good tutor. Implicit in that is the potential to have an academic x-factor that might lead to benchmarking and managerialism.
>> 
>> We could also conceptualise student evaluation of teaching as the facilitation of a reflective conversation amongst students. Such a dialogue would seek to help students define the criteria that might constitute good teaching based on their views at that moment in time. That would be 'evaluation for them' rather than evaluation for staff. This has been my approach to defining and working with student evaluation of teaching. It always begs the question as to who is to be the immediate beneficiary of such evaluation.
>> 
>> At the same time, tutors would be able to understand the co-constructed views of quality from a grounded perspective that would be supportive and developmental for all concerned. I think otherwise we might make tutors into winners and losers in a gaming culture's view of quality and a narrow construction overall. Quality is always subjective and always context-sensitive (situated theory etc).
>> 
>> So, my wider point is shether we might usefully re-think theiry and practice of Student Evaluation of Teaching' as something for students by students. Just some thoughts on a Minday morning.
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> ------------------------------------
>> Sent while on the move
>> 
>> Nicholas Bowskill,
>> Faculty of Education,
>> University of Glasgow
>> Scotland.
>> 
>> Shared Thinking - Collectivist Pedagogy
>> 
>> http://www.sharedthinking.info
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 23 Mar 2012, at 13:11, Helen Thomas <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Wonder if the insights coming from the Student led teaching awards that are run in many HEIs across the UK fruitful for this work too? We are working with NUS and will be collecting the data from the nominations, gaining insight into how students see excellent teaching/good teachers.
>> Helen
>> 
>> Helen Thomas
>> Head of Teacher Excellence
>> 
>> T +44 (0)1904 717590            M +44 (0)7917 348242              [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> <image002.png>
>> The Higher Education Academy, Innovation Way, York Science Park, Heslington, York, YO10 5BR
>> www.heacademy.ac.uk<http://www.heacademy.ac.uk> – Twitter@HEAcademy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sarah.Moore
>> Sent: 23 March 2012 12:06
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Student evaluations of teaching: differences between voluntary and compulsory systems
>> 
>> Greetings colleagues
>> I would be very grateful for insights from the SEDA community of successful SET systems (student evaluations of teaching) and in particular, the differences you have found between voluntary SET systems, initiated only on request by faculty members, and compulsory ones, routinely conducted by institutions. Happy to compile and summarise responses for all.
>> 
>> Many thanks
>> 
>> Sarah
>> 
>> Professor Sarah Moore
>> 
>> Associate Vice President, Academic
>> 
>> Plassey House
>> 
>> University of Limerick
>> 
>> Limerick, Ireland
>> 
>> [T] +353-61-202 153
>> 
>> [F] +353-61-338 044
>> 
>> [E] [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> 
>> [W] www.ul.ie/ctl<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\sarah.moore\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Signatures\www.ul.ie\ctl>
>> 
>> This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please accept our apologies. Please do not disclose, copy, or distribute information in this email nor take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Please note that views expressed in this email are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Higher Education Academy. Please note that this e-mail has been created in the knowledge that Internet e-mail is not a secure communications medium. We advise that you understand and observe this lack of security when e-mailing us. Although we have taken steps to ensure this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. The Higher Education Academy Registered No 4930131
>> 
>> Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or its attachments.
>> 
>> Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. University of Roehampton does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses.
>> 
>> Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that does not relate to the business of University of Roehampton is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by University of Roehampton.
>> 
>> University of Roehampton is the trading name of Roehampton University, a company limited by guarantee incorporated in England under number 5161359. Registered Office: Grove House, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PJ. An exempt charity.
> This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please accept our apologies. Please do not disclose, copy, or distribute information in this email nor take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Please note that views expressed in this email are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Higher Education Academy. Please note that this e-mail has been created in the knowledge that Internet e-mail is not a secure communications medium. We advise that you understand and observe this lack of security when e-mailing us. Although we have taken steps to ensure this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. The Higher Education Academy Registered No 4930131