Midterm Evaluations of Teaching Pilot Project Kiran Mahal & Dr. Simon Bates

About Dr. Bates Academic Director of CTLT and Senior Advisor for Teaching and Learning at UBC Faculty member in Department of Physics Dean of Teaching and Learning in the College of Science and Engineering at University of Edinburgh

Midterm (Concurrent) Evaluations of Teaching Distinct from final evaluations (SEoT) –No effect on tenure or promotion –Designed and administered by faculty member Not a new concept –Extensive research about benefits –Sauder has mandated for undergraduate courses

Benefits of MEoT On average, instructors who conduct midterm course evaluations perform better on end of term evaluations 1,2,3 Students are more likely to take teaching evaluations more seriously if they see that their input matters 3 Midterm course evaluations improve student perceptions of both the instructor’s commitment to teaching and their concern for students’ performance 3 Sustained administration of formative evaluations leads to a continuation of positive changes to teaching scores over time 4 1 Prince, A.R. and Goldman, M., “Improving part-time faculty instruction,” Teaching of Psychology, 8, no. 3 (1981): Overall, J. U., and March, H.W., “Midterm feedback from students: its relationship to instructional improvement and students: Cognitive and affective outcomes,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1979): Brown, M. J., “Student Perceptions of Teaching Evaluations,” Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, no. 2 (2008): Wilson, R.C., “Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants,” Journal of Higher Education, 57, no. 2 (1986):

Pilot Project Led by AMS and CTLT SEoT Implementation Committee supported pilot VP Academics of SUS, AUS, KUS and EUS Steering Committee of VP Academics and Associate Deans 22 faculty members, 35 courses, students

Pilot Project Deliberately non-prescriptive, examples provided Faculty members encouraged to “close the loop” Resources guide compiled by AMS/CTLT provided to participants Most instructors opted for paper based

Follow Up Survey Students – response rate 18% Faculty – response rate 72% 1.Did you participate in providing feedback in the midterm evaluation of teaching for this course? If not, why not? 2.Was the mid-term evaluation feedback discussed with students in class? 3.Were there aspects of the course that were changed as a result of the midterm evaluation, and / or did aspects of your understanding of the rationale for the way the course is structured and delivered change? 4.Identify aspects of this midterm evaluation that you think were particularly positive or negative. 5.Any other comments you would like to make? 1. Do you believe that incorporating a midterm evaluation into your course was beneficial or not? (please explain briefly) 2. How engaged in the midterm were students, e.g. in terms of participation rates, quality / thoughtfulness of comments etc.? 3. Were you surprised by any of the feedback you received and, if so, how? 4. Identify aspects of this midterm evaluation that you think were particularly positive or negative 5. Would you advocate for midterm evaluations to be more widely adopted in your discipline?

Results - Students High level of engagement from student (~80-90% of class) Discussion about results took place (71%) Student indicated that understanding of the course changed ½ of students reported positive change in classroom Students appreciated opportunity to provide feedback Need for a name change

Results - Faculty 2 felt process was not beneficial Other 14 felt beneficial and student provided good constructive feedback ½ indicated weren’t surprised by results, had chance to provide “response” to feedback Would support wider implementation, feel should not be mandated

Next Steps Debrief of results with Steering Committee and Deans Continuing pilot in term 2 Final comprehensive report with recommendations AMS Education Committee revising student evaluation of teaching policy