Midterm Evaluation of Teaching Provides Helpful Feedback to Instructors

Abstract

Subjects recalled cmly an average of 42.5% of the nonreferent words compared tn 56.D1% of the self-referent terms. A 2 X 2 (Sex X Type of Adjective [self-referent vs. nonreferent]) mixed analysis of variance yielded only a main effect for type of adjective. F ( I , 56) = 13.82. p < .DOI. DiscussionThe procedures used in this demonstration, although rudimentary, me sufficiently sensitive to document the selfreference effect: Subjects' memory for self-referent items was superit~r to their memory for items that were ntit selfreferent. T h e procedure is also a practical one. Recause it does not require individual testing sessions or reaction time assessment, it can he used during class with a large proup of students.The demonstration also 6aciilitates the analysis of several methodological and theoretical issues concerning schematic processing of infnrmation. Initially, students maintained that their incidental recall scores were shaped primarily hy the vividness of the trnir terms. Atrenti<~n-gettina trait terms, they contended, were hetrer reniemhered than Inore pallid terms. The exercise, however, convincingly demonstrated to them the impact of their self-schemas hecause more memorable words were als~l morc self-descriptive words. The discussion also proved usefill in illusrratina remarch design and data analysis. Some students, for example, failed to correct fbr initial frequencies of self-descriptive terms when they first explored the effect. Students uften recalled more self-referent words than nonreferent words, hut rhis difference cannot he interpreted until scores are adjusted to reflect the numher of items initially selected as self-referent.The demonstration also facilitated the analysis ofdepth-(rf-processing and schema-hased memory models of social cognition (Klein. Loftus, & Burton, 1989). First, depth-ofprocessing theory maintains that self-referent ininrmation is processed at a deeper level than nonreferenr infcirmation. If, fnr example, the students were asked "Ihes the word have more than two syllahles?." they could respond without processing the word very deeply. Such shallow processing would not lead to particularly durahle memories. In contmst, selfreferent encoding requires much deeper processing (Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986). Second, schema theories suggest that the more elahorate the schema that will hold the inconling infimnation, the hetter our ability to recall that inh~rmntion. Self-schemas may he the most complex and intricate associative networks in our memory system, so selferefrrent information is particularly rnemorahle. k r t h of these theories could hedemonstrated in theclassroom by varying the initial question posed to si~hjects. Although some students could answer the question "Does the word descrihe yc~u?," orhers could he asked "Does the wordhave more than twosyllahles" or "Lhes the word descrihe your psychology reacher?" (Rellezra, 1984).Depending on interest, the exercise could also he used to exnlore rhe coenitive cnnseauences of eender identirv. Re-

Evolving Impressions: Undergraduate Perceptions of Graduate Teaching Assistants and Faculty Members over a Semester

“…Institutions can support this self-reflection by providing GTAs with the opportunity to video-record class sessions, enabling GTAs to observe their instructional behaviors more objectively. Given that student ratings can change over the course of the semester, we also recommend that GTAs encourage students to provide them with regular feedback so GTAs can make strategic modifications to their behaviors throughout the semester (Keutzer, 1993). …”

From traditional accountability to shared responsibility: the benefits and challenges of student consultants gathering midcourse feedback in college classrooms

“…Gathering student feedback at the midpoint can help faculty members gain access to the student perspective and, if they choose to share student feedback with the class, it can promote "two-way communication with learners" and facilitate "open discussions about course goals and the teaching-learning process" (Diamond, 2004, p. 226) in which students feel "empowered to help design their own educational process" (Keutzer, 1993, p. 239). Furthermore, gathering and discussing student feedback allows for the possibility that concerns might be addressed and changes made within the same term (Caulfield, 2007;Clark & Redmond, 1982;Diamond, 2004;Hofman & Kremer, 1983;Keutzer, 1993) as well as for future classes.…”

“…This student notes several important aspects of sharing feedback identified by Keutzer (1993), including presenting all the data gathered and not being defensive. As the student comment highlights, however, presenting the data isn't necessarily enough; although it is a start, it doesn't necessarily lead to dialogue.…”

Profil des interactions enseignant-élève : traduction, adaptation et validation d’un instrument

“…Le feed-back que constituent les profils fournis par les élèves (et par le maître d'accueil) peuvent aider le futur enseignant en stage, lui donner des repères sur sa manière d'interagir et peut constituer un moyen très efficace pour initier des changements (Tuckman & Oliver, 1968 ;Keutzer, 1993).…”