Background: High-quality teaching is fundamental to higher education. Over time, the understanding of what constitutes quality teaching has evolved, and the concept of student feedback literacy has recently gained significant attention. Purpose: This descriptive cross-sectional study investigated the efficacy of a real-time feedback survey for classroom lectures. Methods: Forty-eight second-year nursing students enrolled in a compulsory surgical nursing course completed a survey tool assessing understanding, engagement, clarity, pace, visual aids, real-life examples, and interactive activities, at the end of each topic, and adjustments were immediately made by the lecturer in response to student feedback. Results: Teaching quality improved, with students reporting better understanding and fewer misunderstandings. They felt less overwhelmed and requested fewer interactive activities, visual aids, and real-life examples. However, some showed reduced interest and engagement, and felt the lectures were too fast. Conclusion: Real-time feedback enhanced teaching quality by allowing immediate instructional adjustments. However, finding the right balance in repetition and pacing remains essential to sustain student interest and engagement.
AjibadeB.HayesC. (2024). An interpretive phenomenological analysis of nursing student perceptions of summative assessment feedback using LEGO® serious play®. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 14(2), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-09-2022-0188
2.
AmanoT.Rios RojasC.Boum IIY.CalvoM.MisraB. B. (2021). Ten tips for overcoming language barriers in science. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(9), 1119–1122. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01137-1
3.
BakonyiV.IllésZ.SzabóT. (2022). Real-time interaction tools in virtual classroom systems. In Recent innovations in computing: Proceedings of ICRIC 2021, Volume 2 (pp. 625–636). Springer.
4.
BarkleyE. F.MajorC. H. (2020). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
5.
BlömekeS.JentschA.RossN.KaiserG.KönigJ. (2022). Opening up the black box: Teacher competence, instructional quality, and students’ learning progress. Learning and Instruction, 79, 101600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101600
6.
BorchI.SandvollR.RisørT. (2020). Discrepancies in purposes of student course evaluations: What does it mean to be “satisfied”?Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09315-x
7.
BrunsH. C.Long LingoE. (2024). Tedious work: Developing novel outcomes with digitization in the arts and sciences. Administrative Science Quarterly, 69(1), 39–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392231208190
EgelandsdalK.LudvigsenK.NessI. J. (2023). Clicker interventions in large lectures in higher education. In Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 1237–1258). Springer.
HamiltonB. (2022). Integrating technology in the classroom: Tools to meet the needs of every student. International Society for Technology in Education.
12.
HanY.XuY. (2020). The development of student feedback literacy: The influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(5), 680–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1689545
13.
HarrisonR.MeyerL.RawstorneP.RazeeH.ChitkaraU.MearsS.BalasooriyaC. (2022). Evaluating and enhancing quality in higher education teaching practice: A meta-review. Studies in Higher Education, 47(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1730315
14.
HeilpornG.LakhalS.BélisleM. (2021). An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00260-3
15.
IsmailS. M.RahulD.PatraI.RezvaniE. (2022). Formative vs. Summative assessment: Impacts on academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00191-4
16.
JaapA.DewarA.DuncanC.FairhurstK.HopeD.KluthD. (2021). Effect of remote online exam delivery on student experience and performance in applied knowledge tests. BMC Medical Education, 21, Article 86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02521-1
17.
KreitzerR. J.Sweet-CushmanJ. (2021). Evaluating student evaluations of teaching: A review of measurement and equity bias in SETs and recommendations for ethical reform. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09400-w
18.
LakemanR.CouttsR.HutchinsonM.MasseyD.NasrawiD.FieldenJ.LeeM. (2022). Stress, distress, disorder and coping: The impact of anonymous student evaluation of teaching on the health of higher education teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1489–1500. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2060936
19.
LiL.ZhangJ. (2021). Successful online learning experience: Perceptions of Chinese undergraduate students. Journal of Education and Learning, 10(1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v10n1p74
20.
LiutaO. V.LieonovS. V.ArtiukhovA. Y.Sushko-BezdenezhnykhM. H.DluhopolskyiO. (2021). Student survey as a tool for quality assurance in higher education: The case of Ukrainian university. https://doi.org/10.33271/nvngu/20214/158
21.
MacklemG. L. (2015). Boredom in the classroom: Addressing student motivation, self-regulation, and engagement in learning (Vol. 1). Springer.
22.
MahendruN.NeoM. (2022). Enhancing student learning of multimedia design concepts using augmented reality. 2nd International Conference on Creative Multimedia 2022 (ICCM 2022). https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-57-2_20
23.
MorkliM. (2022). Causes of poor performance in English language and solutions among SHS students at Kibi senior high technical school. University of Education Winneba. http://41.74.91.244:8080/handle/123456789/3071
24.
PratamaE. Y.LustyantieN.MurtadhoF. (2024). Brain-based project learning: Developing a formative assessment model in English-speaking instruction. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(6), 3041–3048. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i6.5959
25.
PrinceM.FelderR.BrentR. (2020). Active student engagement in online STEM classes: Approaches and recommendations. Advances in Engineering Education, 8(4), 1–25. https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/fac_journ/1745/
26.
ProcelG. J. O.MedinaM. L. F.SotomayorD. J.SanchezM. (2024). Using technology in English teaching. Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 9. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v12i1.3673
27.
ScarparoloG.MacKinnonS. (2024). Student voice as part of differentiated instruction: Students’ perspectives. Educational Review, 76(4), 774–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2047617
SöötA.ViskusE. (2015). Reflection on teaching: A way to learn from practice. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1941–1946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.591
30.
WangJ.TigelaarD. E.LuoJ.AdmiraalW. (2022). Teacher beliefs, classroom process quality, and student engagement in the smart classroom learning environment: A multilevel analysis. Computers & Education, 183, 104501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104501
31.
WillinghamD. T. (2021). Why don't students like school?: A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
