Are we serious about enhancing courses? Using the principles of assessment for learning to enhance course evaluation

Discrepancies in purposes of student course evaluations: what does it mean to be “satisfied”?

“…Dialogue-based evaluation methods, however, have been suggested as a viable alternative to quantitative evaluation methods-an alternative with more potential to facilitate reflection and dialogue between students and educators about their learning. These dialogues can provide deeper and more context-specific feedback from the students and can be useful in course development (Cathcart et al 2014;Darwin 2017;Freeman and Dobbins 2013;Steyn et al 2019). There is significantly less research on qualitative evaluation methods compared with quantitative methods (Steyn et al 2019).…”

Eliciting student feedback for course development: the application of a qualitative course evaluation tool among business research students

“…Quantitative evaluations of teaching and learning have, however, come under criticism from various sectors of the higher education community. The criticisms levelled against quantitative evaluations include their limited capability to contribute to course improvements (Huxham et al 2008;Scott, Grebennikov, and Shah 2008;Shah and Nair 2009;Freeman and Dobbins 2013), questionable reliability and validity (Spooren, Brockx, and Mortelmans 2013) and low response rates (Dommeyer et al 2002).…”

“…Because many quantitative course evaluations are designed with promotion and tenure decisions in mind they tend to be largely teacher-centric, comprising pre-defined response categories in a survey format. These techniques are significantly more judgemental rather than developmental in nature (Penny 2003), and do not capture the detail required to make meaningful course amendments that would benefit the student (Huxham et al 2008;Smith 2008;Zhao and Gallant 2012;Freeman and Dobbins 2013;Blair and Valdez Noel 2014). The dimensions measured in quantitative course evaluation surveys also do not always reflect the student learning experience adequately (Chapple and Murphy 1996;Scott, Grebennikov, and Shah 2008).…”

Narrative Frames as a Course Evaluation Instrument

“…学生による授業評価アンケートは教育改善のために必要な手段として 長年定着しているが、 それらに関する研究、 またそれに取って代わる手段 の議論は不十分である。本論では、質的研究手法の1つで、 書き手の文章 作成を助長するとされているナラティブフレーム (物語枠組み) を授業評 価の手段として用い、 その評価を行った。 データは英語科教育法を受講し た26人の大学生から収集した。結果、 ナラティブフレームは授業評価手 段としての機能を十分に果たし、 学生の授業への印象や彼らが授業から 受けた影響の詳細を明らかにできることが分かった。 また、 これらの結果 内容は担当教員が授業を批判的に精査し、振り返り活動を行うことに役 立った。本論では最後に、 ナラティブフレームの使用、 研究に関する提言 を行う。 T he practice of obtaining student feedback at the end of the semester on classes for assessing teaching quality is now well established and carried out in higher education throughout the world, including in Japan (Freeman & Dobbins, 2013;Mori & Tanabe, 2011). Millions of university students are asked to rate their level of satisfaction regarding their teachers and courses by completing questionnaires, often consisting of Likert-scales and open-ended questions.…”