main hall base
Center for Teaching Excellence
Dr. Johnny W. Lott, director
32 Campus Drive
251 Corbin Hall
Phone:(406) 243-5943
Fax:(406) 243-5952

Mid-semester Feedback

As instructors think about examining their teaching, they frequently seek insights into a variety of pertinent questions. For instance, does the course organization provide for optimal student learning? Is the presentation enhancing or detracting from the content? What material is seen as relevant or irrelevant? Is the pace of the course too fast or too slow? In an effort to answer such questions, instructors frequently seek systematic ways to obtain input.

Small group instructional diagnosis (SGID) is a process designed to help instructors answer such questions. The method, commonly conducted mid-semester, uses class interviews with students to provide suggestions and to strengthen the course, increase communication between the students and the instructor, and generally improve instruction. This process identifies not only problem areas but also ways to address those areas.

SGID Process

The SGID process requires a peer (who acts as an outside "consultant") to work directly with the instructor and the students in the class. The process is initiated when the consultant and the instructor meet to discuss the course and determine how the class interview process can best be used to provide feedback for instructional improvement. Then, on the given day, the consultant meets with students in the class, in the absence of the instructor, to obtain the data. The consultant directs students in the class to form small groups, appoint a chair/recorder, and come to consensus on answers to three questions. Although the questions may take a variety of forms, they always focus on strengths in the class, areas for change/improvement, and ways of making suggested changes or improvements. The following are typical of the questions asked during the process:


  1. What helps you learn in this class?
  2. What changes could be made to assist you in learning?
  3. How would you recommend that these suggested changes be made?

Following 20-25 minutes of discussion, the consultant asks the chair of each group to report to the entire class. The consultant asks for someone from the class to record the feedback provided from each group. What is important is to collect and summarize the group feedback and to clarify until group members are satisfied that the consultant clearly understands the information being reported. The instructor and the consultant then meet to discuss the data (and develop a teaching improvement process, if desired).
After the instructor and consultant meet to discuss the data, the instructor informs the class about the changes that can be made, and the changes that can't be made. What typically follows is a discussion with the class about how the changes can be made, and why certain changes can't occur.

Benefits to Students and Instructors

Student and instructor response to the method has been outstanding. Students appreciate the mid-semester timing, which provides opportunity for changes to affect them, along with the heightened teacher awareness of student concerns. Instructors appreciate the personal interaction and supportive interpretation by a peer consultant, as well as the content of the data in a form which facilitates its use by the instructor in making changes.

References

Clark, D. J., & Bekey, J. (1979). Use of small groups in instructional evaluation. POD Quarterly: Journal of Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, 1, 87-95.

Wulff, D. H., Staton-Spicer, A. Q., Hess, Cl., & Nyqyist, J. D. (1985). The student perspective on evaluating teaching effectiveness. ACA Bulletin, 53, 39-49.