ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú

• In contrast to end-of-course evaluations, feedback can be used to make changes during current courses.
• Students report feeling empowered to help craft their educational experience.
• Questions can be tailored to highlight the specific characteristics of the course, rather than global measures of teaching effectiveness from the end-of-course evaluation.
• Instructors can solicit formative feedback that does not have to be shared with the university administration.
• Midterm feedback can provide insights about course characteristics most pertinent to instructors.

The midcourse evaluation process can be beneficial for both the instructor and the students. Students who have the opportunity to participate in midcourse evaluations, rather than just end-of-course evaluations, tend to have a more positive outlook on the course. Instructors are more likely to receive a higher end-of-course rating than if they did not use this teaching improvement tool (McGowen & Osgathorpe, 2011). Additional positive outcomes documented in the literature include an increase in instructor confidence and motivation, better communication with the students in the classroom, and a broader knowledge of teaching resources (Diamond, 2004).

Midcourse evaluations can be a successful and meaningful process if they follow a structured procedure (Hampton & Reiser, 2004). First, it is important that students understand why these evaluations are important for the teacher (Schwier, 1982). Explaining to the students that they have a voice in their education and how it helps the instructor improve can inspire the students to take them seriously (Kite, Subedi, & Bryant-Lees, 2015; Veeck, O'Reilly, & MacMillan, 2015). Part of this explanation should outline the characteristics of a good teacher (Harris & Stevens, 2013) or the statement of Good Teaching Practices from the ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University Policy and Information Manual. Second, once the midcourse feedback is processed, the instructor can alter the course when possible (Friedlander, 1978). Thirdly, it is important to eliminate bias in the evaluations by providing prompts that ask for specific suggestions for improvement focused on student learning while minimizing responses not productive for course improvement (i.e., "she's nice"; Berk, 2006; Bartlett, 2005). Finally, the midcourse evaluations should include some form of student reflection about their effort in learning and in co-creating the knowledge in the classroom (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2013).

Midcourse evaluations can be structured for every class and instructor schedule due to the large variety of resources available for implementation. For example, midcourse evaluations can take the form of a simple survey (either online or on paper), delivered in and/or out of class. Bullock (2003) advocates for online midcourse evaluations because they are easily analyzed, saving the instructor time. Beyond a structured form, midcourse evaluations can be a Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) or colleague review (Sipple & Lightner, 2013; Veeck, O'Reilly, & MacMillan, 2015). An instructor could also have the class name an ombudsman to collect anonymous class feedback and report this to the teacher (McCann, Johannessen, & Spangler, 2010). Furthermore, if the instructor prefers putting a larger amount of this process in the hands of the students, they could implement an Instructional Development and Effectiveness Assessment. In this process, students rate themselves and their own learning development against the learning outcomes for the class (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2013).

Midcourse evaluations can be intimidating for instructors because of the potential of "bad" evaluations and how they may influence their career (Pulich, 1984). Removing the intimidating features of these evaluations is critical for large numbers of instructors to adopt them. Instructors need feedback to improve instruction, and instructors and all levels/ranks can benefit from midcourse evaluations.

There are five main advantages of midcourse feedback: (1) in contrast to end-of-course evaluations, the feedback can be used to make changes during the current course; (2) the students report feeling empowered to help craft their educational experience; (3) questions can be tailored to highlight the specific characteristics of the course, rather than global measures of teaching effectiveness from the end-of-course evaluation; (4) the instructor can solicit formative feedback that does not have to be shared with the university administration; and (5) the midterm feedback can go directly to the instructor about characteristics of the course most pertinent to the instructor (Keutzer, 1993).

Cohen's meta-analysis of studies about the impact of midcourse evaluations on end-of-term evaluations concludes, "Instructors receiving mid-semester feedback averaged 0.16 of a rating point higher on end-of-semester overall ratings than did instructors receiving no mid-semester feedback" (Cohen, 1980, p. 337). In a more recent study, the impact of midcourse feedback on end-of-term feedback depends on what instructors do with the midcourse feedback. For example, "Student ratings showed improvement in proportion to the extent to which the instructor engaged with the midcourse evaluation. Faculty who read the student feedback and did not discuss it with their students saw a 2 percent improvement in their online student rating scores. Faculty who read the feedback, discussed it with students, and did not make changes saw a 5 percent improvement. Finally, instructors who conducted the midcourse evaluation, read the feedback, discussed it with their students, and made changes saw a 9 percent improvement" (McGowan & Osguthorpe, 2011, p. 169).

Course Content Focus

• What aspects of the course do you want feedback on?
• Will the midcourse feedback be on the whole course or part of the course (e.g., the syllabus, an assignment, an exam)?

Format of Evaluation

• Will the midcourse feedback be student feedback or colleague feedback?
• How does the size of your class impact the midcourse feedback process?
• What types of questions do you want to use (open-ended v closed-ended questions; mix of questions)?
• Do you want the same questions that are provided on the end of course evaluations?
• Should the responses be anonymous or do you want to follow up with specific students based on responses?

Time Investment

• How much time do you want to devote before the course to format the evaluation?
• How much class time do you have to deliver the midterm evaluation?
• How much time outside of the class do you want to devote to processing the evaluation?

Delivery of Evaluation

• Do you want the midcourse evaluation delivered online, on paper, verbally, or through another method?
• Should the students see one another's responses on the midcourse evaluation?
• Should the students work in groups to produce the midcourse feedback?
• Is the midcourse feedback process accessible and inclusive to all learners in your course?

Results and Reporting

• Who do you want to have access to the results of the evaluation? (e.g., chair, administration)
• In what format will you communicate the results (e.g., annual report or dossier) if you are sharing them?
• What is your end goal or purpose in collecting these feedback results? (e.g., tenure, class improvement, teaching development)

Impact of Results and Validity

• Do you want a person other than yourself to deliver the midcourse evaluation?
• If someone else, what are the qualifications of the people conducting the midcourse evaluation?
• How much of the course are you willing to change?
• What are your plans for sharing the results with the students?

Below are key points that should be considered in administering midcourse evaluations to ensure credibility, integrity, and instructional improvement, according to best practices gleaned from literature reviews:

1. Course evaluations are encouraged to be administered near the midpoint of the term (e.g., seventh week for a full semester class) but can be distributed multiple times throughout the semester for more frequent feedback. It is helpful to match the timing of the evaluation with the purpose for giving the evaluation.
2. Each evaluation process has advantages and shortcomings. The selection of a method should match the instructors' teaching approach, classroom, and who they would prefer have access to the data and summary.
3. It is recommended that instructors should not administer their own evaluations; however, there are tools available if the instructor prefers to administer their own.
4. Evaluation results should be discussed with the class and improvements in the course made if necessary. The principle purpose of the method is short cycle for continuous improvement.
5. Independent studies, research, field experience courses and courses with low enrollment can also have midcourse feedback processes that are sensitive to the enrollment and experiential nature of the course.
6. In team-taught courses, the same method of evaluation should be administered uniformly in each subsection of a course as taught by secondary instructors, to ensure uniform effectiveness in course delivery.

A midcourse evaluation is good in and of itself–it gives you feedback and reminds the students that you are interested in what and how they are learning. However, you will also want to report back to your students on the evaluation itself. It lets students know that you have considered what they have said; it helps students to see that not everyone in the course may feel the same way they do; and it reinforces for students that filling out evaluation forms thoughtfully is appreciated and valued. Here are some tips on responding to students' feedback.

Respond quickly to students' feedback. Ideally, you will want to respond to your students' comments as soon as feasible. So schedule midcourse evaluations at a time during the term when you will have the opportunity to immediately review the class's comments and respond to them. It is common to discuss the results and changes the following class session.

Consider carefully what students say. First, look over the positive things your students have said about the course. This is important because it is easy to be swayed by negative comments.
Then, read the suggestions for improvement and group them into three categories:

• Those you can change this semester (for example, the turnaround time on homework assignments)
• Those that must wait until the next time the course is offered (for example, the textbook)
• Those that you either cannot or, for pedagogical reasons, will not change (for example. the number of quizzes or tests, or the fact that you teach the full hour the course is slotted for)

You may want to ask a colleague or a faculty developer from the Center for Teaching Excellence to help you identify options for making changes. Be open minded about creating space for change, but remember that you still have the final say on what remains the same and what is changed.

Let students know what, if anything, will change as a result of their feedback. Thank your students for their comments and invite their ongoing participation in helping you improve the course. Students appreciate knowing that an instructor has carefully considered what they have said. Clarify any confusions or misunderstandings about your goals and their expectations. Then give a brief account of which of their suggestions you will act upon this term, which must wait until the course is next offered, and which you will not act upon and why. Let students know what they can do as well. For example, if students report that they are often confused, invite them to ask questions more often. Keep your tone and attitude neutral; avoid being defensive, indignant, or unduly apologetic.

Select a method for responding to student feedback that works for you. Most instructors simply discuss the results with the class as a whole during a scheduled class session. Some instructors provide a handout of salient responses to questions, deleting those that are clearly idiosyncratic (e.g., if there is just one comment that says "this classroom is too hot.") Other instructors do a short PowerPoint presentation, complete with graphs and charts of responses. Additionally, other instructors post summary responses on the whiteboard so students can see what others have written. Whichever method you select, the most important factor in responding is to do so thoughtfully, and in a timely fashion.

(Adapted by Barbara Davis and Steve Tollefson from Tools for Teaching, Jossey-Bass, 2001) Source : UC Berkeley Office of Educational Development 

Midcourse evaluation is a powerful tool that can be used to improve instruction and student learning. Midcourse evaluation strengthens communication between students and instructors to enhance teaching excellence at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University.

We, the Center for Teaching Excellence Senate Committee, submit this White Paper to offer a detailed proposal on midcourse evaluations at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University. We have come to the conclusion that midcourse evaluations are valuable processes that should be encouraged as long as instructors retain control of the process and products.

Our committee members spent significant time discussing and debating midcourse feedback, and its implementation processes. Considerable time was allocated to analyzing literature on midcourse evaluations, and soliciting input from colleagues who offered a wide range of perspectives.

As such, we have compiled a list of recommendations for midcourse evaluation processes at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University:

• Self-selection: Instructors choose whether to participate.
• Implementation: Instructors select the evaluation tool.
• Results: Instructors maintain control of data.

Class structure, student composition, and teaching approaches should inform the delivery method and content of the midcourse evaluation. Attached to this document, we have provided examples of midcourse evaluations, key selection considerations, and suggestions for their implementation.

We encourage all instructors to consider the benefits of using midcourse evaluations to strengthen communication with your students and enhance your teaching effectiveness by practicing a short cycle course improvement.

Committee Members

• Ellen Yezierski, Chair
• Rose Marie Ward, Director of Center for Teaching Excellence
• Janice Kinghorn, Senate Liaison
• Faculty Members:
  • Annie-Laurie Blair
  • Dennis Cheatham
  • Darrel Davis
  • Cynthia Govreau
  • Lynette Hudiburgh
  • Steven Keller
  • Janice Kinghorn
• Graduate Member: Bethany MacMillan
• Undergraduate Members:
  • Brianna Minshall
  • Nicholas Spurgus

• Bartlett, A. (2005). "She seems nice": Teaching evaluations and gender trouble. Feminist Teacher, 15(3), 195-202.
• Berk, R. A. (2006). Thirteen strategies to measure college teaching: A consumer's guide to rating scale construction, assessment, and decision making for faculty, administrators, and clinicians. Stylus.
• Bullock, C. D. (2003). Online collection of midterm student feedback. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 96,95-102.
• Buskist, C. & Hogan, J. (2010). She needs a haircut and a new pair of shoes: Handling those pesky course evaluations. Journal of Effective Teaching, 10 (1), 51-56.
• Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: A metaanalysis of findings. Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 321-341.
• Diamond, M. R. (2004). The usefulness of structured mid-term feedback as a catalyst for change in higher education classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(3), 217-231.
• Friedlander, J. (1978). Student perceptions on the effectiveness of midterm feedback to modify college instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 71(3), 140-143.
• Hampton, S. E., & Reiser, R. A. (2004). Effects of a theory-based feedback and consultation process on instruction and learning in college classrooms. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 497-527.
• Harris, G. L. A., & Stevens, D. D. (2013). The value of midterm student feedback in cross-disciplinary graduate programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(3), 537-558.
• Keutzer, C. (1993). Midterm evaluation of teaching provides helpful feedback to instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 20(4), 238-240.
• Kite, M. E., Subedi, P. C., & Bryant-Lees, K. B. (2015). Students' perceptions of the teaching evaluation process. Teaching of Psychology, 42(4), 307-314.
• Ladson-ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉúings, G. (1996). Silences as weapons: Challenges of a Black professor teaching White students. Theory into Practice, 35(2), 79-85.
• Lewis, K. (2001). Using midsemester student feedback and responding to it. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 87, 33-44.
• Marsh, H. W. (1982). SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students' evaluations of university teaching. Educational Psychology, 52(1), 77-95.
• McCann, T. M., Johannessen, L. R., & Spangler, S. (2010). Mentoring matters: Mentoring by modeling informal self-evaluation methods. The English Journal, 99(5), 100-102.
• McGowen, W. R., & Osgathorpe, R. T. (2011). Student and faculty perceptions of effects of midcourse evaluation. To Improve the Academy, 29, 160-172.
• McKeachie, W., & Svinicki, M. (2013). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Cengage Learning.
• Murray, H. G. (2007). Low-inference teaching behaviors and college teaching effectiveness: Recent developments and controversies. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 145-200). Springer.
• Pulich, M. A. (1984). Better use of student evaluations for teaching effectiveness. Improving College and University Teaching, 32(2), 91-94.
• Ransom McGowen, W., & Osgathorpe, R. (2011). Student and faculty perceptions of effects of midcourse evaluation. To Improve the Academy, 29, 160-172.
• Schwier, R. A. (1982). Design and use of student evaluation instruments in instructional development. Journal of Instructional Development, 5(4), 28-34.
• Simonson, S., Earl, B., & Frary, M. (2021, May). Establishing a framework for assessing teaching effectiveness. College Teaching, 70(2), 164-180.
• Sipple, S., & Lightner, R. (Eds.). (2013). Developing faculty learning communities at two-year colleges: Collaborative models to improve teaching and learning. Stylus.
• Supiano, B. (2018, June 29). A university overhauled its course evaluation to get better feedback. Here’s what changed. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
• Veeck, A., O'Reilly, K., MacMillan, A., & Yu, H. (2015). The use of collaborative midterm student evaluations to provide actionable results. Journal of Marketing Education, 1-13.
• Wieman, C. (2015). A better way to evaluate undergraduate teaching. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(1), 6-15.
• Wiggins, G., Eddy, S. L., Wener-Fligner, L., Freisem, K., Grunspan, D. Z., Theobald, E. J., Timbrook, J., & Crowe, A. J. (2016). ASPECT: A survey to assess student perspective of engagement in an active-learning classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), 1-13.