Closing the Feedback Loop:
Engaging Students by Acting on Mid-term Feedback
Dr. Anke Görzig
University of West London
Introduction
Results & Closing the Loop Actions
It has become common practice to seek students’ views and satisfaction to
inform improvement in higher education institutions.
Response rates
•
Mid-term: ~59% for the lecture and 24% for the module (n = 41).
•
End-term: 9% (n =17)
Descriptive statistics: The module was rated as M = 7.04 (SD = 1.50)
(scale: 1- very bad to 10-very good). This was fed back to students during
the lecture in more detail by using a histogram.
Word Cloud
The current project
The option of “closing the loop” with regards to students’ feedback at midterm for one particular module is explored pursuing the following aims:
• Open a dialogue with students with regards to their feedback and how it
is translated into actions
• Implement those actions during the same term and with the students
that were involved in giving the feedback to ensure that action points
would be timely and applicable
It was further explored whether action points derived from mid-term
feedback would be reflected in end of module evaluations.
Method
Participants
End-term: N = 170 second year undergraduate psychology students
enrolled in a Psychology module at a post-92 University in the UK.
Mid-term: N ~ 70 students who attended the lecture in week 6.
Procedure
• Completion of mid-term feedback forms after the lecture (week 6).
• Feeding back of results and discussing action points (week 7).
• Module evaluation via Blackboard (week 13 ff.).
Materials
Mid-term – paper questionnaires
•
•
•
•
What do you like most about this module and/or the teaching of it?
What do you like least about the module and/or the teaching of it?
What suggestions can you offer that would make this course a better learning
experience?
How would you rate the module overall? (scale: 1- very bad to 10-very good)
A word cloud resulting
from mid-term feedback,
displaying words in
different sizes
corresponding to their
frequency, was
presented to students in
the lecture.
Frequencies of words in
a positive (green) or
negative (red) context
were displayed (see
Figure 1).
Thematic analysis and Mid-to-end-term change
• Four core themes were derived via a thematic analysis of free text from
student feedback. Themes were fed back to students in the lecture
including a discussion of derived action points (see Table 1).
• Figure 2 shows the derived themes and the proportion of positive and
negative quotes associated with each at mid- and end-term evaluation.
End-term – electronic questionnaires (institution wide)
•
•
What were the most positive aspects of this module? (list up to 3 below)
What improvements would you make to this module? (list up to 3 below)
Contact: anke.goerzig@uwl.ac.uk
Action points
The following action points were discussed with students (see Table1).
Table 1: Mid-term feedback themes and associated action points .
Theme
Teaching Style
& Staff rapport
Students comments
• Should be more interactive,
engaging
• Slower pace
• Noise levels of others too high
• Teaching is good, tutors are
approachable
Structure &
Content
• Too much information on slides
and in one lecture
• Content is interesting
• Lectures are well structured
Discussion / Action points
• Introducing more interactive
elements
• Lecturer’s and students’
engagement is required
• Effort to speak slower
• Called upon students to be
more considerate in terms of
noise levels
• Team will review / not put too
much information into one
single lecture
• More self-study required
Supportive
actions and
Materials
• More support for assignments
needed
• Material on Blackboard is very
good
• Pointed students to sources for
guidance
• Availability for appointments
• Upcoming support in seminars
Seminars
• More interaction and
assignment focus needed
• Well matched to the lecture
• Most seminars include
exercises especially tailored
towards the assignment
Figure 1: Word Cloud showing word frequencies of mid-term feedback
% positive and negative quotes
“Closing the loop”
• The feedback of views and action points resulting from student
feedback to students is referred to as “closing the loop” (Powney & Hall
1998) and regarded as an important element of practice (Harvey 2001).
• These practices often occur at the course or institutional level at the
end of term or after course completion.
• Collecting student views at the end of the term is making resulting
actions for the student cohort involved impossible (Cook-Sather 2009).
• Awareness of their feedback’s impact can increase student participation
in feedback surveys and course satisfaction (Watson 2003).
Results & Closing the Loop Actions
Themes derived from mid- and end-term feedback
Figure 2: Percentages of positive and negative quotes by theme and time of evaluation
Discussion
Conclusions
• Most elements improved from mid- to end-term.
• The exception was the increase in negative feedback for Supportive actions
& Materials due to students asking for more support with their assessments
– as action was taken this most likely points towards a difficult assessment.
Implications
• Engaging students by acting on mid-term feedback on a module level can
improve teaching and learning.
• Opening a dialogue with students improves student engagement and is an
important issue in terms of total quality management (Leckey & Neill 2001).
Limitations and Future Directions
• The low response rates question validity and representativeness of results.
• It is unknown whether the same or different students have completed midand end-term feedback forms; hence, a change in rating is possibly due to a
change in respondents.
• Encourage more students to participate by stressing the impact of feedback.
• Standardise and compare ratings across other modules.
References
Cook-Sather, A., 2009. From traditional accountability to shared responsibility: The benefits and challenges of student consultants
gathering midcourse feedback in college classrooms. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), pp.231–241.
Harvey, L., 2001. Student feedback: a report to the higher education funding council for England., Centre for Research into Quality: The
University of Central England in Birmingham.
Leckey, J. & Neill, N., 2001. Quantifying quality: the importance of student feedback. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), pp.19–32.
Powney, J. & Hall, S., 1998. Closing the loop: the impact of student feedback on students’ subsequent learning., Edinburgh: Scottish
Council for Research in Education.
Watson, S. (2003). Closing the feedback loop: Ensuring effective action from student feedback. Tertiary Education and Management, 9(2),
145–157. doi:10.1080/13583883.2003.9967099