Feedback from GRDSCH 630 Students, Winter 2002

At the end of the quarter we asked students for their feedback on the course. Students provided numerical student ratings and also responded to open-ended feedback questions.

• Numerical Ratings
• Open-ended Feedback Questions
• Who takes this class?
• Feedback from Other Quarters

Numerical Student Ratings

We asked students to rate, on a scale of zero (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree), whether the course helped them in five specific areas. We also asked them to rate the value of the course as a whole. Here are students' ratings of the course in those areas:

How to more effectively help students learn

How to respond to the diverse backgrounds, interests, and abilities of students

Relevant resources for improving teaching and learning

What to do next to continue developing as a teacher

How to represent my teaching as a form of scholarly work

We were glad to see these ratings, and found them consistent with our general impression that students in the course found it valuable. Based on these results, we want continue developing what we do with the two topic areas which we see as foundational for the rest of the course: dealing with student learning and working with diverse groups of students.

Open-ended Feedback

We also asked students a series of open-ended feedback questions. Here are examples of students' answers, and our responses to their feedback:

Question 1: What parts of the class should we keep?

Response to feedback from Question 1

 

Question 2: What parts of the class should we change?

Response to feedback from Question 2

 

Question 3: Other comments

Response to students' other comments

Question 1: What parts of the class should we keep?

I really enjoyed it all. McKeachie is very useful as are the CIDR resources.

Definitely the writing of the philosophy statement and the beginnings of the teaching portfolio. Going over them in small groups was very useful. Teaching project was good also.

McKeachie, one-on-one with instructors; philosophy a good exercise, perhaps bring more good models vs. problematic.

Add some examples of teaching portfolios on the web/class web site.

The text is a great help, I'm sure I'll use it more in the future, too; I have also found the text concerning writing a syllabus helpful; I liked the lecture portions of the course. Both of you did a great job leading discussions.

I can't think of anything to omit.

I liked reading materials on teaching on-line, and would encourage more reading for the class as a whole (as others have already suggested in the online forum).

Focus on student learning; focus on teaching as a scholarly activity.

Focus on teaching portfolio and philosophy; teaching project; reflective writing (minute papers).

I wish I had the syllabus in front of me for this. Hmmm. I enjoyed the group work and on-line discussions; loved the textbook; found the portfolio idea mystifying at first, but it was really valuable.

The practical teaching project was particularly useful. I was impressed with the way the course was very efficient at encouraging learning without requiring excessive effort, and this project did this particularly well.

Small group discussion -- I like to talk with the instructors outside class; Guest speaker -- helping students to find out the expert to talk with and get some ideas about teaching; giving assignments via email.

1) Reflective writing at end of class; 2) Team-teaching; 3) Readings; 4) Pacing and level of assignments -- good but not overly-stressful

Teaching philosophy/portfolio; teaching project.

Response to feedback from Question 1:

This feedback confirms for us that it is good to retain the overall approach to the course and the three projects around which the course is developed. However, we will make other changes in format and uses of class time, based on other feedback we have received.

Question 2: What parts of the class should we change?

Possibly more whole group discussion and slightly less small group work—it's great to hear from the entire, diverse group.

The exercise that didn't work as well was when we presented chapters from the book.

-Add more relevant readings; -mix up the large group/small group/sharing structure—observations of good instructors? -more opportunities to co-lead classes? More guests?

Discuss the draft teaching philosophy statement individually; discuss the draft teaching portfolio individually before the end of the quarter.

I felt that the first time we were assigned to write a teaching philosophy, I didn't have enough structure or guidelines. Thus, I felt what I handed in was very much in flux, and perhaps too primitive to have you make comments on.

I felt the online forum was a good idea, but it somewhat fizzled out by the end of the quarter. It would be nice to continue the forum, ?but? to encourage more use of it from everyone on a weekly basis.

Perhaps more variety in in-class activities. Small group discussions have their drawbacks—we stray from the topic, individuals dominate, etc.

Reflective writing at beginning of class sometimes. (At end, I had a hard time focusing sometimes.) it would be nice to have a little more space to facilitate small group discussions.

I found the preponderance of small group activities a bit problematic. I already spend a lot of time talking with peers about different aspects of teaching. It's very useful. However, in a course, I'm looking for something else… I was interested in the thoughts and experiences of people who are experts -- who have spent large parts of their career studying these issues. As a result, I found myself learning mostly from the books.

More time on evaluation and grading; have journaling at beginning (or as homework) instead of at end. Keep the on-line discussion going! Be more explicit about assignments. Early on we were told, "Bring an example of an activity you've used," and I never knew whether it was stuff to be turned in or what.

I really liked the course structure, so not much. I would perhaps slightly reduce the small group discussions because I found your comments to be very valuable and they were lacking when we broke up.

I like the parts of website discussion but I have no time to access to the website (but it's really good to do that) -- just talk with the future students whether they would like to do it or not.

Readings -- one week where we choose among a variety of sources* to focus on a particular interest, problem, gap we have in our own teaching (*outside of required texts). We did this some with a McKeachie assignment (choosing from a chapter range), and outside sources might allow us to go into depth in a particular teaching area or discipline of interest.

Readings were not always helpful. Maybe prepare us with a couple of questions to direct our thinking? Some readings were also jargon-y and/or dense.

Response to feedback from Question 2:

With each offering of the course, we consider which areas of content and activities work best with a large-group interdisciplinary discussion, which are best suited to independent individual work, and which might be better suited to smaller groups with related interests -- for example, academic disciplines, teaching situations (large or small class, distance learning, etc), or extent of teaching experience.

This year's course design represents our attempt to account for these considerations. We have planned four weeks for full-class sessions (which will include a variety of presentation formats and class activities), three weeks for small group meetings, online interaction, and/or individual consultations (with no full-class meetings during those weeks), and a final three weeks re-convened as a full class.

Projects and topics addressed will remain similar, but our intention is to shape the interactions around the course content so that students have the best opportunity to engage with the material in ways that are most useful for them.

Question 3: Other comments about the class

Thank you!

Very good class and helpful to a wide range of teaching backgrounds.

I was sometimes frustrated by the pace, and I apologize for not being able to flesh this out more, but there was a slowness to the course; also, norms for small groups would be helpful. Thanks!

I think this course should be made mandatory for all Ph.D. students who have to independently teach a course. Maybe for some professors too!

I really enjoyed this course and feel much more comfortable approaching my teaching responsibilities. I can't imagine teaching without asking myself the questions that were discussed in class.

The way the chairs all faced you, "the teachers," seemed to inhibit conversation between students. Although within the time frame, there really wasn't time for more conversation anyway. Thank you!

This might be too difficult to arrange given time constraints, but it might be helpful for people to distribute copies of their portfolios before the last day of class, thus giving everyone ample time to review the portfolios, to jot down some comments, and finally have a more substantial review of the work in the last day of class.

I'd like more on the developmental portfolio "side" and less on the evaluative portfolio side. I felt like few students in the class were willing to discuss their flaws, but that is what I want to talk about most because I want to improve.

There was a little confusion/miscommunication as far as expectations/mechanics of the on-line discussion. I thought the flow/continuity between sessions and throughout was excellent!

I came in with some background in adult ed, so a lot of what was taught was not new to me -- but I found the course quite valuable in helping me to articulate a teaching philosophy, reconsider lecture as a valuable teaching strategy. I also really enjoyed being in a class with students from different disciplines! The varied perspectives were interesting and instructive.

I found myself quite amazed at Debby's ability to absorb and respond to the diversity of the discussions. Also Wayne's ability to usefully structure the class on the fly was bordering on magical. Thanks!

I like this course that helps me to figure out what I have to do in the future as a teacher. I have some ideas for my teaching plan. Thank you for giving me a chance to attend this class. I hope I will distribute some things from this class to my friends in Thailand.

One of the best parts of the class was the way both of you model the concepts you are teaching and show us how to be warm, non-threatening, resourceful teachers.

Class websites (e.g. ePost) were difficult to access. A class homepage would help. This is pretty silly but: it was pretty intimidating when you knew all our names by week 2. (I still don't know everyone by name.) Were you teaching by example? Should I try this in my 45-person class? (Translation: explain that you're doing this and why you're doing this.) Thanks for a good class!

Response to students' other comments:

This class is a pleasure to teach, and there's much that we learn in the process of teaching it. It is interesting for us to see how simple things (such as how the chairs are arranged) can contribute to the tone for a discussion, or how a generally positive thing (such as knowing students names by week 2) can also be intimidating -- and at the same time present an opportunity for learning. This feedback helps us see how we can improve the design of the course and also our own ways of modeling the practices we teach about in this course.

Departments represented in the course, Winter 2002

Here is a list of departments represented in GRDSCH 630 during Winter 2002:

• Art
• Asian Languages & Literature
• Civil Engineering
• Comparative Literature
• Computer Science & Engineering
• Earth and Space Science
• Economics
• Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
• Geological Sciences
• Nursing
• Physics
• Speech & Hearing Science
• Urban Planning

206.543.6588 (phone)
206.685.1213 (fax)
email: cidr@u.washington.edu
web: http://depts.washington.edu/cidrweb/