Evaluating the Value of Student Feedback

Introduction

Feedback is not merely the process by which instructors receive information, but also a function of what kind of information they receive. For feedback to be effective, it must inform on what requires correction and provide comments and suggestions that would facilitate improvement in the recipients. Useful feedback could consequently be defined as feedback in which info about past performance serves as a basis for the promotion of positive and desirable development. To truly achieve operative feedback, health professionals should encourage the reflection of the recipient, and in so doing build on self-monitoring that is based on external feedback. Archer (2010) recognizes the value of all forms of feedback used in healthcare.

 Perhaps cognizant of this fact, a large number of institutions of higher learning rely on student feedback to rate instructors. Seldin (1998) cites the fact that students watch their instructors from proximity on a daily basis as the reason for this preference. Students interact with their instructors both in and out of the classroom and are, therefore, able to develop opinions over a reasonable amount of time about the quality of instruction they receive. Owing to the standing of student feedback as a means of evaluating instructor performance, it is essential to examine what feedback is, and how effective it is as an evaluation tool.

Defining Student Feedback

Seldin (1989) described student feedback as a process through which data is collected from students about the proficiency and ethics of instructors while in class, the instructor’s relations with students, and course content including how much interest they were able to generate in the students on the subject. Harvey (2003) in turn identifies student feedback as the expresses opinions by students about the quality of service they receive as students, including their perceptions of the learning experience, the learning support facilities, and the learning environment.

Evaluation of Student Feedback

Archer (2010) identified specific feedback as being beneficial to initial performance change. He, however, noted that it had the capability of discouraging recipients from further exploration and, therefore, undermine subsequent and independent performance in the longer term. This presents the need to evaluate student feedback so as to identify the effectiveness of rating performance. Brinko (1993) argued for both student feedback and instructor self-assessment, making note that both are valid and reliable ways to measure instructor’s performance. On the other hand, Seldin (1989) argued against the inclusion of student feedback on course content, stating that students are not in a position to critique the appropriateness or relevance of course content since they are learning new content. As a result, they lack the relevant knowledge on the subject matter to make informed judgements or critique the relevance of the subject matter of the instructor’s presentation.

Self-Assessment

Self-assessment has been shown to be inadequate as a means of obtaining feedback for evaluation. Further, self-appraisal has been found to have no theoretical basis, necessitating an examination of the role of self-perception and external evaluation in learning and development (Epstein et al., 2004). Since physicians receive little external feedback about performance, they tend to make judgements that are in line with their self-perception. For example, an experienced clinician is likely to make assumptions about the efficiency of a communication method subject to their self-image and the reactions of others. This explains why we are often surprised by our speech, posture, and gestures when viewing ourselves on video. Some researcher hypothesizes that sustained involvement of recipients in comparative self-assessment forces them to improve their effectiveness. However, there is no indication of the efficacy of self-assessment as a means of obtaining feedback (Epstein, Siegel & Silberman, 2008). Social psychologists view self-assessment as flawed because our behavior and performance are informed by our unconscious minds (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). The unconscious self is focused on self-preservation and would for example cause one to blame external and reject personal responsibility when faced with negative feedback.

Timing

The timing of feedback may independently influence its effectiveness (Shute, 2008). Delayed feedback has been proven to be better for supporting the transferal of knowledge to the recipient. Immediate feedback has instead been found to be better and more real in the short-term, and for supporting the development of procedural skills (Schroth, 1992). Immediate feedback has the distinct disadvantage that it may include answers before the recipient has had time to think and self-assess.

Empirical Evidence

As previously stated, the provision of feedback does not automatically translate into a positive change in performance (Violato, Lockyer & Fidler, 2008). Getting negative feedback may lead a recipient to believe the feedback to be either useless, burdensome, controlling or too critical. Sargeant (2006) discovered that those who were exposed to negative feedback responded negatively and even claimed to have found it paralyzing. Feedback must be seen as a set of co-dependent processes and not as a separate single one.

Conclusion

To conclude, student feedback is imperative for instructors as it improves performance. So as to prove even more useful, student feedback should be coupled with self-assessment thus presenting the recipient of the feedback with better insights into their performance. Student feedback is predominantly important because, by virtue of their proximity to the teachers, the students can offer meaningful insights into their performance. However, care ought to be taken in an effort to ensure that any such insights as are drawn from the feedback do not include info on the handling of course content as the students are handling new material and are not able to handle this aspect.

References

Bargh, J., & Chartrand, T. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.54.7.462

Brinko, K. (1993). The Practice of Giving Feedback to Improve Teaching: What Is Effective?. The Journal Of Higher Education, 64(5), 574. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2959994

Epstein, R., Dannefer, E., Nofziger, A., Hansen, J., Schultz, S., & Jospe, N. et al. (2004). Comprehensive Assessment of Professional Competence: The Rochester Experiment. Teaching And Learning In Medicine, 16(2), 186-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1602_12

Epstein, R., Siegel, D., & Silberman, J. (2008). Self-monitoring in clinical practice: A challenge for medical educators. Journal Of Continuing Education In The Health Professions, 28(1), 5-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/chp.149

Gormally, C., Evans, M., & Brickman, P. (2014). Feedback about Teaching in Higher Ed: Neglected Opportunities to Promote Change. Cell Biology Education, 13(2), 187-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0235

Harvey, L. (2003). Student Feedback [1]. Quality In Higher Education, 9(1), 3-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320308164

Schroth, M. (1992). The effects of delay of feedback on a delayed concept formation transfer task. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17(1), 78-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-476x(92)90048-4

Seldin, P. (1989). Using student feedback to improve teaching. New Directions For Teaching And Learning, 1989(37), 89-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219893711

Shute, V. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback. Review Of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795

Violato, C., Lockyer, J., & Fidler, H. (2008). Changes in performance: a 5-year longitudinal study of participants in a multi-source feedback programme. Medical Education, 42(10), 1007-1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03127.x