The continuous feedback model: Enabling student contribution to curriculum evaluation and development

Authors

  • Leigh Hale University of Otago
  • Divya Bharatkumar Adhia University of Otago

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v23i1.501

Keywords:

curriculum, feedback, physiotherapy

Abstract

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.

Author Biographies

Leigh Hale, University of Otago

School of Physiotherapy.

Divya Bharatkumar Adhia, University of Otago

School of Physiotherapy.

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

2022-03-31

Issue

Section

Articles