Learner Feedback Forms

Learner Feedback Forms

Computing@Aberdeen: This feedback form is so brief it barely merits the term feedback in relation to BE learners at the lower A1 to B1 scale in large classes and would be difficult to process all of the comments. Thankfully the comment box is quite small and limited to a few sentences for informational processing time. However the identity of the student appears known perhaps to moderate their comments and while there are only two classes the sample size could be small. There is only one multiple choice selection which does not provide any critical aspects of liking or disliking the courses so the lecturer must be assessing what proportion of the course should be one of the three choices: lectures, tutorials or practicals and perhaps these are meted out differently from semester to semester based on these results?

University of Liverpool: This feedback form appears to orient to a singular or one-off training event in a routine schedule of perhaps special events training programs. Specific courses and dates are aligned from a managerial perspective perhaps to direct the feedback to various contracted facilitators. It is interesting to note that ancillary services such as accommodations and venue are of interest rather than the learning itself. While I can attest that a comfortable night sleep can make all the difference to learning the next day as well as a suitably sized room it seems to be of extraneous detail. The two questions, “Was it useful/What could be improved?” are dissimilar in the nature of response. The first might more properly be addressed as a yes/no question while the second could be more thoroughly explored in a Likert scale approach with drill down to various learning topics that match can/do abilities or goals of the learning. The space left blank for writing comments is excessively large and could lead with large groups to be unmanageable and take much time to process.

University of St Andrews: This feedback form possesses more diverse use of questions and is the first in our list to respect the anonymity of the feedback in question. It appears the seminars offered have variation in timing and flexibility adding an adult oriented learning approach to the survey itself. Here one sees a first example of Likert scale in usage with five course design goals assessed by the learner. These topics include: appropriate length, interest and relevancy, clear/informative presentations, opportunities to ask questions, usefulness of handouts. But yet again the space given for short answer questions regarding most useful, least useful and suggested improvements or additional comments appear far too long. Overly verbose feedback could take far too long to assess as a tool to evaluate the quality of the course. Self-identification is also a multiple choice selection which is practical and the designated school is optionally included. Depending on the size of the group this might allow the instructor or management team to trace the comments made back to the apparently anonymous source which defeats the purpose of freedom of expression in terms of anonymity. It is not necessarily important to know who said what but whether or not points made are valid, useful and impact upon future quality improvements. I like to think of some of the courses I teach to be much like tinkering with an eighties style engine in which the compartment is large enough to get in there and make adjustments to the scale points of interest.

University of Leicester: Eight courses across three academic years are being assessed through feedback with one form. This is quite a large number of cadres and it would be interesting to note how all of these comments are being collated, reviewed or read. The first four questions seem to avoid Likert scale approaches to drill down of course goals or can/do abilities statements substituting instead what appear to be nearly limitless answer boxes much too long to afford a quick glance at results. The first question might be better assessed with a rank order of key course topic highlights to allow future adjustments. The second question would be better as a self-assessment tool for the instructor if his/her perceived strengths were listed and mixed with other adjectives to give a view of students’ perception. The third question might better be addressed with a selection of weaknesses which the instructor if self-aware already knows he/she possesses. The question about developing the course should include a few selections of possible adjustments that the instructor has already considered or intends to implement. The fifth question is a little underwhelming and appears to be an imperfect Likert scale as the range is insufficiently extensive to provide a reasonable response. For example is good the penultimate form of reference of quality? Good versus average versus needs improvement? It appears inappropriate. The open ended question on suggestions for improvement again indicates an overwhelming review of these materials might be necessary. Question six on the face of it appears sound in a Likert scale approach however again the range does not satisfy this reviewer. Why not include “excellent” at the top of the list rather than “very good” and if you “don’t know” (or didn’t experience) the instructor’s teaching in terms of: performance, expertise, interaction then why would be commenting on it? The further two Likert selections contents (of a teaching style?) and course material would be better served in another course goal question rather than mixed in with assessment of teaching. The open-ended question comments continue and round out in a strange way regarding equality and diversity without a self-declared identification of status of the student in these regards. I would not want to have to review such a possibly extensive list of endless comments boxes.

BusinessBalls: While I liked the first six questions I felt the remainders (all short answer) would take a long time to check?

My Own Sample Feedback Form

I decided to access the Teacher and Class Evaluation Questionnaires at The Internet TESOL Journal to design my own learner feedback form based upon some of their questions and mostly from those listed by Aichi Institute of Technology. Surprisingly I have always avoided filling out "Survey Monkey" questionnaires however they appear incredibly easy to design and adapt as well as edit. However one sticking point, when will size limited short answer text boxes be invented? I would see these text boxes limited to two or three lines if I had my choice.