The continuous feedback model: Enabling student contribution to curriculum evaluation and development
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v23i1.501Keywords:
curriculum, feedback, physiotherapyAbstract
Introduction: Evaluation of curriculum is essential to its development. Typically, curriculum evaluations are conducted by end-of-course questionnaires, often resulting in a lengthy delay in implementing improvements that no longer affect the students who completed the evaluation. This study investigated a continuous real-time curricula feedback model as a novel method more appropriate for simultaneous evaluation and improvement of our integrated physiotherapy courses than typical end-of-course evaluation.
Methods: A mixed methods design involving concurrent qualitative (focus group interviews, anonymous comments in a “suggestion” box, qualitative survey comments) and quantitative (survey) approaches was used to regularly collect staff (n = 20) and students’ (n = 127) perceptions of a full-year course. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative responses were collated and categorised. The analysed data were fed back to staff and students in the form of a feedback report sent out via email after each module. The report incorporated a summary of the results and the changes to be actioned within the next module.
Results: We found the new model to be helpful and liked by both staff and students. Students liked that they could see change as a result of their feedback. Staff felt it should be used in conjunction with the typical end-of-course evaluation, although they found the periodic student feedback reports helpful.
Conclusions: The continuous feedback model, although it does not eliminate the need for a formal end-of-year quantitative evaluation, did provide useful qualitative information, a safe environment for student feedback and the opportunity to correct issues in the curriculum as they arise.References
Afonso, N. M., Cardozo, L. J., Mascarenhas, O. A., Aranha, A. N., & Shah, C. (2005). Are anonymous evaluations a better assessment of faculty teaching performance? A comparative analysis of open and anonymous evaluation processes. Family Medicine, 37(1), 43–47.
Ahmad, T. (2018). Teaching evaluation and student response rate. PSU Research Review, 2(3), 206–211. https://doi.org/10.1108/PRR-03-2018-0008
Arthur, L. (2009). From performativity to professionalism: Lecturers’ responses to student feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510903050228
Borch, I., Sandvoll, R., & Risør, T. (2020). Discrepancies in purposes of student course evaluations: What does it mean to be “satisfied”? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(4), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09315-x
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Burk-Rafel, J., Jones, R. L., & Farlow, J. L. (2017). Engaging learners to advance medical education. Academic Medicine, 92(4), 437–440. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001602
Chapman, D. D., & Joines, J. A. (2017). Strategies for increasing response rates for online end-of-course evaluations. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 47–60.
Cannizzo, F. (2018). Tactical evaluations: Everyday neoliberalism in academia. Journal of Sociology, 54(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1440783318759094
Carnegie Mellon University Eberley Centre Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation. (2022). Process for working with departments on curriculum review and revision. Retrieved January 24, 2016, from https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/resources/CurriculumReviewRevision/index.html
Edgar, S., & Gibson, W. (2016). Student feedback on learning and teaching: The value of focus groups. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal, 17(2), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v17i2.139
Elzubeir, M., & Rizk, D. (2002). Evaluating the quality of teaching in medical education: Are we using the evidence for both formative and summative purposes? Medical Teacher, 24(3), 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220134169
Feinstein, E., & Levine, H. G. (1980). Impact of student ratings on basic science portion of the medical school curriculum. Journal of Medical Education, 55(6), 502–512. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198006000-00006
Fraser, S. P., & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 269–284, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680521
Freeman, R., & Dobbins, K. (2013). Are we serious about enhancing courses? Using the principles of assessment for learning to enhance course evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(2), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.611589
Goldfarb, S., & Morrison, G. (2014). Continuous curricular feedback: A formative evaluation approach to curricular improvement. Academic Medicine, 89(2), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000103
Golding, C., & Adam, L. (2014). Evaluate to improve: Useful approaches to student evaluation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.976810
Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Academy.
Hounsell, D. (2009). Evaluating courses and teaching. In H. Fry, S. Kettridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (3rd ed., pp.40–57). Routledge.
Keesing-Styles, L., Nash, S., & Ayres, R. (2013). Managing curriculum change and “ontological uncertainty” in tertiary education. Higher Education Research and Development, 33(3), 496–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841655
Luo, M. N. (2020). Student response rate and its impact on quantitative evaluation of faculty teaching. The Advocate, 25(2), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.4148/2637-4552.1137
Marra, M., & McCullagh, C. (2018). Feeling able to say it like it is: A case for using focus groups in programme evaluation with international cohorts. International Journal of Management Education, 16(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.12.006
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, L. S., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119
Murray, H., & Smith, P. (2013). Closing the loop: Are universities doing enough to act on student feedback from course evaluation surveys? Electric Paper.
O’Donoghue, G., Doody, C., & Cusack, T. (2011). Using student centred evaluation for curriculum enhancement: An examination of undergraduate physiotherapy education in relation to physical activity and exercise prescription. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(2–3), 170–176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.04.004
Pereira, J. V.-B., Vassil, J. C., & Thompson, R. E. (2020). Students as partners in an Australian medical program: Impact on student partners and teachers. International Journal for Students as Partners, 4(2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v4i2.4175
Rowan, S., Newness, E. J., Tetradis, S., Prasad, J. L., Ko, C. C., & Sanchez, A. (2017). Should student evaluation of teaching play a significant role in the formal assessment of dental faculty? Two viewpoints: Viewpoint 1: Formal faculty assessment should include student evaluation of teaching and Viewpoint 2: Student evaluation of teaching should not be part of formal faculty assessment. Journal of Dental Education, 81(11), 1362–1372. https://doi.org/10.21815/JDE.017.093
Shah, M., Cheng, M., & Fitzgerald, R. (2017). Closing the loop on student feedback: The case of Australian and Scottish universities. Higher Education, 74(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0032-x
Stein, S. J., Spiller, D., Terry, S., Harris, T., Deaker, L., & Kennedy, J. (2013). Tertiary teachers and student evaluations: Never the twain shall meet? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(7), 892–904. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.767876
Steyn, C., Davies, C., & Sambo, A. (2019). Eliciting student feedback for course development: The application of a qualitative course evaluation tool among business research students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1466266
Tucker, B., Jones, S., & Straker, L. (2008). Online student evaluation improves course experience questionnaire results in a physiotherapy program. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(3), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360802259067
Watson, S. (2003). Closing the feedback loop: Ensuring effective action from student feedback. Tertiary Education and Management, 9(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023586004922
Wilkes, M., & Bligh, J. (1999). Evaluating educational interventions. British Medical Journal, 318(7193), 1269–1272. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1269
Woloschuk, W., Coderre, S., Wright, B., & McLaughlin, K. (2011). What factors affect students' overall ratings of a course? Academic Medicine, 86(5), 640–643. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318212c1b6
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
On acceptance for publication in FoHPE the copyright of the manuscript is signed over to ANZAHPE, the publisher of FoHPE.
