OPINION

Published Monday, April 26, 2004
Offer the Option of Private Feedback
An Opinion on Course Evaluations
By Nancy Laurie

For some of us who are educators ourselves or were educators before coming to HGSE, our training has taught us that the vehicles for offering feedback -- particularly constructive criticism -- need to be carefully chosen with sensitivity to the person receiving the feedback, so that the points will be heard. We are mindful of the concept that professors, too, as they are educators or teachers, are also learners (all teachers are).

Much care should be put into course feedback strategies at HGSE, in general, so that students training to be teachers -- or professors seeking to hone their teaching skills -- can bear the benefits of a pedagogy that reflects tested theories. As members of the community of a school of education, we hope to engage in practices that are well researched and proven to benefit the community and learner (in this case, professors). It would be difficult for researchers to do an "objective study" on the impact of public course evaluations, on "trust" in the community that is so crucial to teaching; the impact of the feedback vehicle for improvement is difficult to capture in experimental design. However, the social impact of such decisions on learning communities is crucial.

It would be nice if those uncomfortable with the current process of public evaluations could also have the option of participating in a manner that is comfortable by indicating the desire for private feedback on the evaluation itself. When it comes to feedback involving "constructive criticism," there should also be an option for private, nonpublished feedback, for those students who would like to offer feedback that is well honed, based on research into adult learning strategies, and offered to the professor and administrators in a manner which we feel to be constructive. That is, the questions on the evaluation forms should be expanded to include such issues as effectiveness of homework, clarity of explanations, etc. We wish to treat our professors as we hope all individuals in an excellent learning community will be treated -- whether those individuals are students, teachers, or even administrators -- with understanding, respect, and concern for effective strategy. While open public dialogue about issues in our community that impact us all can benefit the community as a whole, feedback geared toward the individual should come with the option of being offered via a non-public vehicle, for those students (though perhaps small in number) who would choose this. Adding such an option would simply involve formalizing an already existing option.

I met on April 7th with Karren Wood, who was quite willing to talk about the issue in order to pass information along to Daphne Layton, Associate Dean for Curriculum and Faculty Appointments. Two of the suggestions which we discussed (more specifically, that I had presented) were (a) the hope that the school would add a clear and easy vehicle for those of us who choose to submit feedback to professors and appropriate administrators only and (b) that the specific questions to which students respond on course evaluations be reviewed and enhanced on a regular basis to reflect the most current research about how adults best learn, so that questions related to these points could be added to those that are open-ended . Generally speaking, I believe that this kind of clear feedback is useful to the goal-setting process, as it gives individuals something specific for which to aim and enables more pointed, constructive feedback. Well-honed questions on the evaluations could contribute to the clarity of the feedback offered: this might ultimately impact teaching strategy decisions and therefore, learning. In addition, it could be a learning opportunity for students, as they themselves participate in effective evaluations honed to put theory to practice, as they enter the field and seek ways to teach their own classes effectively.

Interestingly, Dean Layton contacted me within days, describing the process by which such changes need to be made, and this process specifically involves consideration by the Committee for Curriculum and Instruction (CCI). She explained that the CCI had already discussed improving the course evaluations and would continue this discussion this semester. Due to the nature of the task, changes related to specific questions on the evaluations would take much time to consider and would not be considered until next year. I was impressed by the administration's welcoming of student input, and it was made clear that the decision making was in the hands of the CCI.

The number of students participating in course evaluations has steadily declined since the forms went online in 2001. That number has fallen from 80 to 100% for written forms prior to 2001 to approximately 75% in spring 2002. Last fall, the number was 43%. As the system is currently being reexamined, this would be an ideal time to consider the option on non-public feedback.

Decisions such as those related to the nature of the evaluation process and the questions on the evaluations need to reflect the research into best teaching practices, just as the pedagogy exhibited by professors, themselves, should also reflect well researched ideas about which strategies best reach adult students in the classroom. There needs to be trust at the heart of any community, and I believe that a shared concern which all of us at HGSE have is in finding ways to create learning communities that flourish.

Nancy Laurie is a masters student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.