Soliciting Feedback on Instruction¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 3 studies (2 quant-synthesis, 1 review), q2–q3 · 2 of 3 report an effect size

Description¶

Soliciting feedback on instruction means deliberately creating channels — mid-semester surveys, anonymous forms, focus groups, quick check-ins — through which learners can tell instructors what is and is not working. The strategy treats teaching as a practice to be improved through evidence rather than assumption: feedback is gathered early and often, interpreted critically, and acted on visibly so learners see that their input changes the course.

Design Implications¶

Feedback to instructors functions like assessment-for-learning at the course level: it closes the loop between what the instructor intends and what learners actually experience Assessment for learning improves achievement. [+M]. Mid-course feedback is more useful than end-of-term evaluations because it arrives while changes can still affect the current cohort [~M]. However, student ratings are noisy measures — they correlate only modestly with learning gains and are biased by factors unrelated to teaching quality (course level, expected grade, instructor demographics) [~M] — so feedback should be triangulated with learning evidence rather than treated as a verdict.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Low-stakes, ideally anonymous channels (mid-semester surveys, one-minute papers, focus groups)
• Specific prompts ("What is helping your learning? What should change?") rather than global ratings
• Visible follow-through: instructors report back on what they heard and what they will change — this sustains future participation and builds trust
• Willingness to hear criticism without defensiveness, and a commitment to iterate

Constraints¶

• End-of-term evaluations arrive too late to help current learners and mostly predict future enrollment behavior, not learning [-M]
• Ratings are vulnerable to bias and can penalize instructors of rigorous or inclusive courses [-M] — over-reliance distorts teaching toward popularity
• Soliciting feedback without acting on it erodes trust and depresses response rates [-W]
• Very young learners and novices may lack the perspective to diagnose instructional problems; prompts must be concrete and experience-based [~W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Mid-semester small-group analysis (SGID): a facilitator interviews the class in groups and reports themes to the instructor
• One-minute papers / exit tickets: anonymous weekly prompts tied to a specific class session
• Start–stop–continue: learners list what the instructor should start doing, stop doing, and continue
• Peer observation: a colleague gathers and interprets feedback, buffering the emotional load

Target Learners¶

• All learners benefit indirectly, but mid-course feedback most helps cohorts in long or high-stakes courses where adjustment is still possible
• Learners in unfamiliar or demanding instructional formats (flipped, project-based) benefit from an explicit channel to flag friction early [~W]
• Instructors themselves are the primary "learners" of this strategy; it is most valuable for early-career faculty and anyone teaching a course for the first time

Target Learning Goals¶

• Instructional improvement: aligning teaching practice with learner needs
• Metacognitive modeling: demonstrating that expertise is revisable and that feedback drives improvement
• Community and trust: signaling that learners' perspectives matter, which supports engagement and belonging

Instructions¶

1. Choose a low-stakes moment early in the term (week 3–5) and a channel — anonymous survey, check-in, or facilitated small-group discussion.
2. Ask specific, learning-focused questions: "What activity most helps you learn? Where do you get stuck? What should we change?"
3. Collect responses anonymously to reduce social-desirability pressure.
4. Summarize themes, decide on 1–3 concrete changes, and tell the class what you heard and what you will do — and what you will not change, and why.
5. Repeat at least once more mid-term; compare themes over time to see whether changes took hold.
6. Triangulate with learning evidence (performance data, misconceptions observed in class discussion) before drawing conclusions about teaching quality.

Related Strategies¶

• Formative assessment of learners — the student-facing counterpart; the same closed-loop logic applied to learning rather than teaching

Examples¶

• Mid-semester SGID programs — Many university centers for teaching (e.g., the University of Washington's Center for Teaching and Learning) run facilitated mid-quarter student interviews; instructors receive a themed report while the course can still be adjusted.
• Start–stop–continue on an anonymous form — A statistics instructor collects weekly anonymous responses, reports "we'll slow down on hypothesis testing" the next session, and response rates stay high because students see action.
• One-minute papers — After a lecture, learners answer "What was the muddiest point?" on index cards; the instructor opens the next session by addressing the top two confusions.

Key Sources¶

• Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 281–309.
• Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187–1197. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.11.1187
• Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P. B. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. ScienceOpen Research.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
• Stark, P. B., & Freishtat, R. (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations. ScienceOpen Research.