Department(s) / colleagues involved

Liberal Arts / School for Cross-faculty Studies

Our aim was to …

Knowing that lots of module feedback tends to be reactive and emotional (“I thought this class was boring”), our aim was to create a feedback process in which students gave us thoughtful and useful feedback we could work with, and they were supported to think critically and reflectively about their experiences. This engagement was felt to be especially important for marginalized students who did not respond as readily as other students. We also wanted to find ways to minimize the gender bias in module feedback as much as possible.

What we did …

This was a discrete project taken on by the Director of Student Experience, who conducted desk research around aspects of student feedback and engagement (especially focusing on questionnaires like the Student Barometer and National Student Survey). This initial work was followed by a range of interviews and focus groups with staff and students at liberal education institutions in the U.S., Germany, and the Netherlands (supported by an IATL Strategic Project and a J. J. Kidd Fellowship from the European Colleges of Liberal Arts and Sciences). One key outcome was that interdisciplinary/liberal education students often struggle with a discrepancy between their initial expectations of modules/programmes and the learning outcomes/delivery methods put forward by instructors. The gap between expectations and reality was, in some cases, exacerbated by a lack of meaningful feedback mechanisms: when students did not feel able to participate in helping shape their course, they tended to report higher levels of dissatisfaction and disengagement (and, anecdotally, often spoke about their educational experiences from the perspective of an aggrieved customer). By contrast, highly involved students tended to address problems with thoughtfulness and understanding, and were more likely to speak about their experiences as collaborative and rewarding.

Following these interviews, we developed a trial module feedback form on Moodle that used only qualitative response questions. We wanted to provoke genuine reflection and detailed responses, rather than the flatter responses given using the Likert scale. Questions were written to prompt reflection and avoid single-word responses. Students were given time in class to complete the feedback form, but were allowed access out of class as well. The initial trial in AY2016-17 was promising, so we revised the questionnaire in staff meetings and with the Student-Staff Liaison Committee. The questionnaire was then rolled out to all departmental modules (though tutors could make individual changes). Students were then given a longer period of time to fill in the questionnaires following reflective classroom sessions.

The outcome has been …

Feedback received following implementation was more detailed, action-oriented, and significantly less focused on perceived shortcomings by the department. Feedback was often written in the style of a reflective assessment, with students working through ideas or problems they had rather than demanding solutions. Our response rates also rose across the department.

The benefit/impact has been …

Students reported feeling that their feedback was taken seriously, with specific changes highlighted by the Student-Staff Liaison Committee. Staff reported that student feedback was more productive, in that it provided reflective comments instead of opinions. Our SSLC sessions have become less transactional (“You said, we did”) and more collaborative.

This supports the Education Strategy by …

The Education Strategy is about making sure students face minimal barriers to an equally rich, supportive, and developmental experience. We want to ensure that our students are able to participate fully in determining the direction of their studies (‘reciprocal engagement’).

The response of students / staff has been …

The response has been almost entirely positive: in the Student-Staff Liaison Committee, students consistently reported that they felt their feedback was taken seriously, and it was reported that the feedback mechanisms helped them to think in a more productive way about their classroom experiences. Staff also reported they felt that they could engage in a more collaborative discussion about feedback with students without feeling defensive or combative. The main drawbacks have been that student response rates are still relatively low, and that large cohort analysis would be difficult. Students also are increasingly vocal about ‘feedback fatigue’.

Our next steps will be …

Our next step is to create a matching questionnaire to help us better understand student expectations prior to arrival, so that we can provide more useful inductions/scaffolding for modules. We are also working on how best to change the format (and setting) so that students feel a direct and immediate benefit from the feedback process, both to improve response rates and to fight feedback fatigue. We also will have NSS data in 2019 from our first graduating cohort, which we will use to compare against in-programme feedback.

To find out more, you can contact …

Dr Gavin Schwartz-Leeper, Deputy Head/Director of Student Experience, Liberal Arts - g dot e dot schwartz-leeper at warwick dot ac dot uk

Related work was supported by the Erasmus+ funded BLASTER project (Best Liberal Arts and Sciences Teaching Expanded and Reinforced), overseen by Prof. Cathia Jenainati (Cross-faculty Studies), Prof. Nick Monk (IATL), and Dr Becky Fisher (IATL). Contributors to the case study included Prof. Jenainati, Dr Bryan Brazeau, Dr Tim Burnett, Dr Kirsten Harris, and Ms Susanna Pinkney.