Midterm Evaluations of
Teaching Pilot Project
Kiran Mahal & Dr. Simon Bates
About Dr. Bates
• Academic Director of CTLT and
Senior Advisor for Teaching and
Learning at UBC
• Faculty member in Department of
Physics
• Dean of Teaching and Learning in the
College of Science and Engineering
at University of Edinburgh
Midterm (Concurrent)
Evaluations of Teaching
• Distinct from final evaluations (SEoT)
– No effect on tenure or promotion
– Designed and administered by faculty
member
• Not a new concept
– Extensive research about benefits
– Sauder has mandated for undergraduate
courses
Benefits of MEoT
• On average, instructors who conduct midterm course
evaluations perform better on end of term evaluations1,2,3
• Students are more likely to take teaching evaluations
more seriously if they see that their input matters3
• Midterm course evaluations improve student perceptions
of both the instructor’s commitment to teaching and their
concern for students’ performance3
• Sustained administration of formative evaluations leads
to a continuation of positive changes to teaching scores
over time4
1 Prince, A.R. and Goldman, M., “Improving part-time faculty instruction,” Teaching of Psychology, 8, no. 3 (1981): 160-162.
2 Overall, J. U., and March, H.W., “Midterm feedback from students: its relationship to instructional improvement and students: Cognitive and
affective outcomes,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1979): 856-865.
3 Brown, M. J., “Student Perceptions of Teaching Evaluations,” Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, no. 2 (2008): 177-181.
4 Wilson, R.C., “Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants,” Journal of Higher Education, 57, no. 2 (1986):
196-211.
Pilot Project
• Led by AMS and CTLT
• SEoT Implementation Committee
supported pilot
• VP Academics of SUS, AUS, KUS and
EUS
• Steering Committee of VP Academics and
Associate Deans
• 22 faculty members, 35 courses, 3400+
students
Pilot Project
• Deliberately non-prescriptive, examples
provided
• Faculty members encouraged to “close the
loop”
• Resources guide compiled by AMS/CTLT
provided to participants
• Most instructors opted for paper based
Follow Up Survey
• Students – response rate 18%
1. Did you participate in providing feedback in the midterm evaluation of
teaching for this course? If not, why not?
2. Was the mid-term evaluation feedback discussed with students in class?
3. Were there aspects of the course that were changed as a result of the
midterm evaluation, and / or did aspects of your understanding of the
rationale for the way the course is structured and delivered change?
4. Identify aspects of this midterm evaluation that you think were particularly
positive or negative.
5. Any other comments you would like to make?
• Faculty – response rate 72%
1. Do you believe that incorporating a midterm evaluation into your course was
beneficial or not? (please explain briefly)
2. How engaged in the midterm were students, e.g. in terms of participation
rates, quality / thoughtfulness of comments etc.?
3. Were you surprised by any of the feedback you received and, if so, how?
4. Identify aspects of this midterm evaluation that you think were particularly
positive or negative
5. Would you advocate for midterm evaluations to be more widely adopted in
your discipline?
Results - Students
• High level of engagement from student
(~80-90% of class)
• Discussion about results took place (71%)
• Student indicated that understanding of
the course changed
• ½ of students reported positive change in
classroom
• Students appreciated opportunity to
provide feedback
• Need for a name change
Results - Faculty
• 2 felt process was not beneficial
• Other 14 felt beneficial and student
provided good constructive feedback
• ½ indicated weren’t surprised by results,
had chance to provide “response” to
feedback
• Would support wider implementation, feel
should not be mandated
Next Steps
• Debrief of results with Steering Committee
and Deans
• Continuing pilot in term 2
• Final comprehensive report with
recommendations
• AMS Education Committee revising
student evaluation of teaching policy