1. Initial meeting
Opportunity for you to tell us about the course, your students, and your teaching.
2. Classroom Visit
The chat may take anywhere from 20 - 45 minutes, depending on how long it takes to reach consensus among your students. During our meeting with your class, students will be asked to respond to the following questions:
What aspects of this course help you to learn?
What aspects of this course inhibit your learning?
What suggestions can you offer that would enhance your learning in this course?
What can you, as students, do to improve your learning in this course?
Students will consider these questions individually, in groups, and finally, as the whole class, to reach consensus. By achieving consensus, you can feel more confident that feedback represents more than just the view of the outliers.
3. Feedback Phase
No later than one week following your class, we will meet to review the results of the chat, collaborate on strategies for change, and answer your questions. You will be provided with a written summary of the conversation with your class for your records. We will also, of course, be happy to help you reflect on the feedback and plan an appropriate action phase.
4. Action Phase
For the best results, you will want to have a follow-up meeting with your students to discuss the feedback with your class and address any concerns
Research demonstrates that this meeting is crucial in improving student engagement, motivation, and learning in the class.
Only instructors may request that Mid-Semester Chats be conducted with their classes.
Mid-Semester Chats are not evaluative but are solely for gathering candid feedback from students. The instructor, will decide how the feedback will be used.
Information we gather as a result of the Mid-Semester Chat process will not be shared with anyone else, at the university or beyond, without the instructor’s express consent. However, members of EET may discuss an instructor's situation for professional development purposes, such as how to handle certain types of feedback or what recommendations can be made to support the instructor's teaching goals.
Instructors will be provided with a follow-up letter summarizing the results of the conversation with each class, and they are welcome to use those letters in any way they deem appropriate.
Midterm Chats are conducted between weeks 5-9 of the semester. By this time in the semester, students and instructors have generally settled into the routine of the class and some assignments have been completed and evaluated. On the other hand, it is still early enough in the semester for an instructor to make significant changes to the class when s/he feels that doing so will improve learning.
Adapted from Illinois State University Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology
Supporting literature for SGID’s:
In her book, Student Ratings of Instruction: Recognizing Effective Teaching (2013), Nira Hativa reports the following:
“Cohen (1980) performed a meta-analysis of 17 studies that examined effects of midterm evaluation on improving teaching. He found that receiving feedback from student ratings administered during the first half of the term was positively related to improving teaching as measured by student ratings at the end of term. Similarly, Murray (2007) showed (on the basis of Murray & Smith, 1989) that midterm feedback with ratings of specific behaviors led to significant improvement of classroom teaching, as indicated by significantly higher ratings of Overall Teaching at the end of term. Murray concluded that under the right conditions, midterm feedback on specific teaching behaviors could significantly improve teaching.”
Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of Student-Rating Feedback for Improving College Instruction: A Meta-Analysis of Findings. Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 321-341.
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). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Murray, H.G., and Smith, T.A. (1989). Effects of Midterm Behavioral Feedback on End of-term Ratings of Instructor Effectiveness. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco.
"The Impact of a Learner-Centered, Mid-Semester Course Evaluation on Students" by Carol A Hurney, Nancy L. Harris, Samantha C. Bates Prines, & S.E. Kruck "Use of Small Groups in Instructional Evaluation" by Joseph Clark and Jean Bekey "Small Group Instructional Diagnosis: A Method for Enhancing Writing Instruction" by Darsie Bowden "Student Ratings: Myths vs. Research Evidence" by Michael Theall "Using SGID: A Way to Achieve More Effective Course Evaluations" by Greg Munro