This survey was designed for use as a supplement to, or replacement of, institutional student classroom evaluations. The format of this instrument is intended to elicit students' estimates of how much they gained from the class, and to relate their gains to particular aspects of the class pedagogy. It aims to take the focus off the teacher, per se, and avoids critiques of pedagogy that are not directly related to student estimations of what they gained.
The instrument was written as part of a wider attempt to meet the need for improved classroom assessment tools. Its particular focus (on what students gained from the class) arises from a strong finding from our student interviews on ten campuses. We found that asking students what they "liked" or "valued" about their classes, or how they evaluated their teachers was far less productive than asking them what they had specifically gained. It is our hypothesis that students can meaningfully answer questions about their own gains, whereas what they "like," and how they judge faculty in their role as teachers is much less reliable. This proposition is supported by faculty interview data in which faculty express mistrust of the numeric data (if not the written comments) provided by many institutional classroom evaluations.
The 1997 report to our consortia participants which includes
the findings from student interviews in eight institutions of
different types on which this instrument were based is also available
on this web-site.
Faculty should add specific questions pertaining to their
courses for which they seek feedback, but we advise framing additional
questions so that they ask what students felt that they gained
(by virtue of participating in specific course activities, or
in the course as a whole)
e.g., what they gained in: understanding; skills; attitudes;
approach to learning or to the discipline.
I have marked (*) the places in the format where you might want to ask about specific items. You may also want to delete line items that do not apply, or in order to shorten the instrument overall. You could also use some/all of the questions for feedback at mid-term.
Faculty may wish to approximate the structure of their "official"
institutional evaluation if data are to be used as part of their
transcript record.
If users substitute questions that are more relevant to their discipline, learning objectives, or classroom activities, than those in the sample instrument, it is VERY important to frame those questions in exactly the same manner as the sample questions provided-i.e., in terms of how much they GAINED from PARTICULAR ASPECTS OF THE CLASS.
This instrument was developed solely for the use of the participants
in the two chemistry consortia, or use by other interested faculty,
not as part of the formal evaluation process for the consortia.
It is not, therefore, being formally tested. However, feedback
from known users is being solicited in order to improve on the
design.
Users at Colorado College and Grinnell College report that they find the instrument easy to use, and that it gives them better feedback from students on how well they have achieved their learning objectives than do their official institutional classroom assessment instruments. They intend to go on using and refining it.
The instrument was developed by Elaine Seymour in her role as co-Evaluator (with Joshua Gutwill, Berkeley) of ChemLinks and ModularChem Consortia for Undergraduate Chemistry Reform, NSF funding (5 years)
