Overview: To assist faculty to effectively gauge intermediate student feedback, we developed, implemented, and evaluated an online mid-semester student feedback survey via Qualtrics. This instrument captures key aspects of student-perceived learning experiences such as their perceived level of alignment between course activities and learning objectives.
Outcomes: The results suggested that providing faculty and students with a relevant and reliable mechanism for timely, individualized feedback, facilitated effective instructional improvement. Over 60 courses (each course with one to multiple sections) across the College of Natural Science, Broad College of Business, and the College of Arts and Letters used the instrument to collect student feedback.
Extant literature suggests that employing mid-semester student feedback is instrumental in informing faculty about their instructional strategies and practices, identifying areas for adjustment, and enhancing student learning outcomes. The Broad College of Business, the College of Natural Science, and the College of Arts & Letters at the Michigan State University have facilitated, as have many other institutions, an exponential increase in the number of courses taught in online and hybrid formats since the pandemic.
To assist faculty of these courses to effectively gauge intermediate student feedback, Jeremy led the EDLI team to develop an online mid-semester student feedback survey via Qualtrics. With an array of quantitative measures and open-ended questions, the EDLI mid-semester survey allows students to provide substantive, in-depth feedback. This instrument captures key aspects of student-perceived learning experiences such as their perceived level of alignment between course activities and learning objectives.
To assess whether the EDLI mid-semester survey instrument provides a sound basis for instructors to interpret collected data, Jun conducted statistical analyses based on the data collected from different courses across the three colleges wherein the EDLI mid-semester survey was implemented during this past academic year. Results from the analyses offered support to the quality of the instrument. Specifically, the reliability measures (Cronbach’s alpha values) ranged from .798 to .812 for the set of four questions we developed for capturing student perception of the “alignment” between course activities and learning objectives, indicating high levels of internal consistency. Results from the factor analysis also indicated that all four questions fit into one underlying construct of “alignment”. The “alignment” question set is as follows:
- The out-of-class activities (e.g. homework or readings) deepen your understanding of the course objectives and/or key concepts. (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)
- The in-class activities (e.g. lectures or discussions) deepen your understanding of the course objectives and/or key concepts. (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)
- The class activities (e.g. homework, lectures, or discussions) prepare you for the assessments (e.g. quizzes or exams). (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree)
- How well are the questions on assessments (e.g. quizzes, tests, exams) aligned with class activities (e.g. homework, lectures, discussions)? (1 = Not aligned; 5 = Tightly aligned)
As conceptualized, this set of questions on the survey would allow us to offer an overall student-perceived “alignment” measure for any specific course. Here is an example based on the analysis of mid-semester student feedback data of a course:
| N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation | |
| Alignment | 43 | 1.50 | 5.00 | 3.8372 | .95413 |
For this course, on average, the student-perceived “alignment” score was 3.8372 (out of 5), with the standard deviation of .95413.
This approach reflects and is aligned with the backward course design principle that centers around course learning objectives. With the SIRS data provided by the Broad College of Business, Jun conducted correlational analysis on the average student ratings for their instructors and courses from the EDLI mid-semester student feedback surveys and the official SIRS surveys. Here is the snapshot of the data used:
The correlation coefficient between the mid-semester average instructor rating and the SIRS average instructor rating was 0.831, a strong positive correlation. The correlation coefficient between the mid-semester average student perceived learning rating and the SIRS average course rating was 0.299, a weak positive correlation. Note that although the positive correlations were observed for the sample (sample size N = 5), there wasn’t enough evidence to suggest that the correlations existed for the population (the correlation coefficients were not statistically significant).
Jun ran a paired samples t-test to compare the means of the midterm average student perceived learning ratings and the SIRS average course ratings for this sample. The t-test revealed statistically significant differences between the midterm average student perceived learning ratings (M = 3.60, SD = 0.23) and the SIRS average course ratings (M = 3.96, SD = 0.15); t(4) = 3.375, p = 0.028 < 0.05. Based on this result, it will be meaningful to explore what adjustments each course instructor had made after receiving the mid-semester student feedback for these courses.
Following the statistical analyses on the EDLI mid-semester course student feedback survey instrument, we reached out to the faculty involved (specifically, the instructors A, B, C, D, and E) and inquired each faculty member about if they could recall what, if any, changes they made to specific courses or to their instructional practices after implementing the EDLI mid-semester student feedback survey (specifically in Fall 2020 or Spring 2021). Instructors C and D responded to our questions.
Both instructors indicated that they used the findings from the mid-semester student feedback surveys to inform their teaching. Instructor C viewed the ratings received from the survey responses as satisfactory, therefore did not introduce any changes during the remainder of the semester. Instructor D, based on the feedback received from the mid-semester survey, adjusted the due dates of assignments for international students during the remainder of the semester.
As highlighted in yellow, for instructor C, the midterm and end-of-semester SIRS average instructor ratings were close (3.96 vs. 4.02). As highlighted in green, for instructor D that implemented an adjustment after receiving the mid-semester student feedback, the end-of-semester SIRS average instructor rating (4.23) was about 6.55% higher than the midterm rating (3.97).
Based on these findings, it will be meaningful to identify the faculty and courses that may benefit from the use of the EDLI mid-semester student feedback survey, and to expand the use of the tool to assist with their teaching needs. Further, Jun developed a set of items to address the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) aspects of instruction and/or course learning environment for the EDLI mid-semester course student feedback survey. In the fall of 2021, we implemented this initial set of items in one course at the College of Natural Science and assisted the course instructor to gauge students’ perceived inclusiveness of their learning environment.
“Ha! yes! I’ve been working on aligning the pre-class quiz questions, in-class activity, in-class questions, and summative questions (post-class quiz/exam) and basically ripping apart everything and realizing why our students are SOOOO confused!”
Faculty’s comments on modifying their instruction based on the EDLI mid-semester survey results
Future plans: We developed a set of items to assess the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) aspects of instruction and/or course learning environment for the EDLI mid-semester course student feedback survey. In the fall of 2021, we implemented this initial set of items in one course at the College of Natural Science and assisted the course instructor to gauge students’ perceived inclusiveness of their learning environment.
We will continue to use EDLI Mid-semester Student Feedback Survey as an easily accessible and readily available tool for faculty to gather constructive student feedback.
Publications:
A brief video about the mid-semester evaluation process
Memo on how to interpret EDLI mid-semester student course feedback data
Author/Personnel: by Jun Fu; Jeremy Van Hof, Sarah Wellman, Stephen Thomas, Scott Schopieray, Kate Sonka
