In the present article, we describe a course exercise in which students were administered four course evaluation forms throughout the semester, on which they provided their overall impressions of the class as well as their desire to change certain aspects of the course. Critically, during the semester, a total of three changes were made to the structure of the course as voted on by the students. Compared to the previous semester where students completed only end-of-semester evaluations, improvements in exam performance as well as instructor ratings were observed. Furthermore, students indicated that the changes made throughout the semester improved the course, and they hoped that other classes would adopt a similar classroom developmental strategy. This supports a growing body of evidence, suggesting that midsemester feedback is crucial for optimizing the learning environment for the student, particularly when concrete changes are made after the administration of course feedback.
AbbottR. D.WulffD. H.NyquistJ. D.RoppV. A.HessC. W. (1990). Satisfaction with processes of collecting student opinions about instruction: The student perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 201–206. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.201
2.
AdelmanH. S. (1978). The concept of intrinsic motivation: Implications for practice and research with the learning disabled. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 43–54. doi:10.2307/1510306
3.
AhmadiM.HelmsM.RaiszadehF. (2001). Business students’ perceptions of faculty evaluations. International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 12–22. doi:10.1108/09513540110366097
4.
AmabileT. M.GitomerJ. (1984). Children’s artistic creativity: Effects of choice in task materials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 209–215. doi:10.1177/0146167284102006
5.
BentonS. L.CashinW. E. (2014). Student ratings of instruction in college and university courses. In PaulsenM. B. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 279–326). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8005-6_7
6.
BessJ. L. (1977). The motivation to teach. Journal of Higher Education, 48, 243–258. doi:10.2307/1978679
7.
BiggsJ. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18, 57–75. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.642839
8.
BraskampL. A.OryJ. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9.
BrehmJ. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384–389. doi:10.1037/h0041006
BrownN. J.ReedD.SummersB. (2003). The lure of choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 297–308. doi:10.1002/bdm.447
12.
CohenP. A. (1980). Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: A meta-analysis of findings. Research in Higher Education, 13, 321–341. doi:10.1007/bf00976252
13.
CohenP. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51, 281–309. doi:10.3102/00346543051003281
14.
CordovaD. I.LepperM. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715–730. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715
15.
DuneganK. J.HrivnakM. W. (2003). Characteristics of mindless teaching evaluations and the moderating effects of image compatibility. Journal of Management Education, 27, 280–303. doi:10.1177/1052562903027003002
16.
FeldmanK. A. (1978). Course characteristics and college students’ ratings of their teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Research in Higher Education, 9, 199–242. doi:10.1007/bf00976997
17.
GrayM.BergmannB. R. (2003). Student teaching evaluations. Academe, 89, 44–46. doi:10.2307/40253388
18.
GottfriedA. E. (1983). Intrinsic motivation in young children. Young Children, 39, 64–73. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.525
19.
GottfriedA. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631–645. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.77.6.631
20.
HigginsR.HartleyP.SkeltonA. (2001). Getting the message across: The problem of communicating assessment feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 269–274. doi:10.1080/13562510120045230
21.
HuntN. (2003). Does mid-semester feedback make a difference?The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3, 13–20.
22.
KemberD.LeungD. Y. P.KwanK. P. (2002). Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching?Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 411–425. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009294
23.
KetteridgeS.MarshallS.FryH. (2002). The effective academic: A handbook for enhanced academic practice. London, England: Kogan Page.
24.
KeutzerC. S. (1992). Midterm evaluation of teaching provides helpful feedback to instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 20, 238–240. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2004_12
25.
KoonJ.MurrayH. G. (1995). Using multiple outcomes to validate student ratings of overall teacher effectiveness. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 61–81. doi:10.2307/2943951
26.
LangbeinL. (2005). Management by results: Student evaluation of faculty teaching and the mismeasurement of performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Public Choice, New Orleans, LA.
27.
LangerE. J.RodinJ. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191–198. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.2.191
28.
MarshH. W.HocevarD. (1991). Students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: The stability of mean ratings of the same teachers over a 13-year period. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 303–314. doi:10.1016/0742-051x(91)90001-6
29.
MarshH. W.RocheL. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52, 1187–1197. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.52.11.1187
30.
MooreP. (2009). Why we should measure student learning: A glossary of collegiate corruption. In FlinnR. E.CrumblyD. L. (Eds.), Measure learning rather than satisfaction in higher education (pp. 17–28). Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
31.
NewportF. J. (1996). Rating teaching in the USA: Probing the qualifications of student raters and novice teachers. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 17–21. doi:10.1080/0260293960210102
32.
OverallJ. U.MarshH. W. (1979). Midterm feedback from students: Its relationship to instructional improvement and students’ cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 321–325. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.71.6.856
33.
PerlmuterL. C.MontyR. A. (1977). The importance of perceived control: Fact or fantasy?American Scientist, 65, 759–765.
34.
PhilippR. A.ThanheiserE. (2010). Showing your students you care: Seeing the individual trees in the classroom forest. New England Mathematical Journal, 42, 8–17.
35.
RoedigerH. L.IIIKarpickeJ. D. (2006). Test enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
36.
SpencerP. A.FlyrM. L. (1992). The formal evaluation as an impetus to classroom change: Myth or reality?Riverside, CA: University of California Press.
37.
SpencerK. J.SchmelkinL. P. (2002). Student perspectives on teaching and its evaluation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 397–409. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009285
38.
SpoorenP.BrockxB.MortelmansD. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83, 598–642. doi:10.3102/0034654313496870
39.
WachtelH. K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23, 191–211. doi:10.1080/0260293980230207
