Student Learning Issues on Campus

November 1997 Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 2
Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Bowling Green State University

Hello, my name is Michael Leschinsky. I am a senior at the university as well as president of a group called Students for Quality Education (SQE). You may have heard of us. Regardless of your familiarity With our organization, I hope you will read on. Why? Because, like me, perhaps you've been confused about some of the recent attempts to improve education at BGSU. My goal with this brief article is to lay out an overview of the different reform groups functioning on campus. I will also show how Students for Quality Education fits into the picture, and hopefully, convince you that our services are well worth your time.

Since 1996, several organizations have been created in an attempt to improve educational quality at the university. One of these is the Student Achievement Assessment Committee (SAAC). This group is working with programs to create a list of things students should know (learning outcomes) by the time they graduate from their respective programs. Once this is accomplished, programs will assess students' achievement of these goals and use the information for continuous program improvement.

A second group that was created to help individual instructors is The Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology. The members of this group primarily want to help faculty become more familiar with technology. They offer workshops in these skills so that teachers might learn to better incorporate technology that enhances learning. The group also offers seminars about teaching.

Students for Quality Education stands alongside these groups, and yet apart from them. We agree with SAAC that it is worthwhile to formulate learning goals, and our focus on faculty seems closely related to the approach taken by The Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology. Yet, what we wish to share with instructors is quite different.

Students for Quality Education focuses heavily on critical thinking and other cognitive skills. In other words, we want to help students to develop reasoning skills, as well as integrate and analyze information. The main way we do this is by giving teachers feedback based on an evaluation technique that we have developed.

In late October, SQE distributed 1,000 fliers to various departments that provided a brief introduction to our group, an explanation of our conception of critical thinking, and a copy of our evaluation with an invitation for you, the faculty, to invite us into your classrooms. We hoped to visit you and provide feedback based on the ideas we feel are important to effective teaching. The response was a bit disheartening. However, it may be the case that you simply missed our newsletter or were confused by its contents. Based on that assumption, I want to extend our invitation once more and tell you about the advantages.

We offer a unique service that few other groups can provide. If contacted, two members of our organization will observe your teaching and share ideas with you based on a clearly presented set of criteria. This practice is unlike a seminar. We come to you, and afterwards we will discuss our results with you and you alone. Ideally, we will all learn something about education.

Another advantage to our process is that you don't have to worry about the discomfort that might result from being evaluated by one of your colleagues. Finally, wouldn't you like to hear some feedback from concerned students who are interested in education? Admittedly, we are not experts. But we believe our comments to be more helpful than the end of-the-year evaluations that students often complete hastily and unthinkingly.

Before concluding, I would also like to make a request of the various department heads. We could really use your support, provided that you see our goals as important. I know that if I were a faculty member, I might be uncertain about the legitimacy or worth of a group like SQE. As leaders, you can help to reassure teachers. Contact me. And if you think that we can help you, please recommend us to your instructors.

A copy of our evaluation form can be obtained by contacting Virginia Morrison at mvirgin@bgnet.bgsu.edu. Or give me a call. My number is 372-5777, and my E-mail is michael@bgnet.bgsu.edu. Perhaps we can take the first step toward better thinking and learning together.

The November 1994 of The Teaching Professor contained an article by Michael Garner and Rebecca Emery of Salisbury State University entitled, "A 'Better Mousetrap' in the Quest to Evaluate Instruction," which proposed a technique called Start-Stop-Continue (SSC) as a vehicle whereby students could quickly provide feedback on their classroom experiences. It works like this:

* students make three columns on a piece of paper and label them Start, Stop, and Continue;
* in the Start column, they list any instructional policies, practices, or behaviors they'd like the teacher to start using;
* in the Stop column, they list any instructional policies, practices, or behaviors they'd like stopped; and
* in the Continue column those which they'd like to see continued.

"In all three cases," the original article noted, "we tell students to define 'things' as articles, books, assignments, procedures, policies, cases, presentations, discussion formats, class activities, and teaching techniques, among others."

Given the significance of the classroom experience to student learning, it is important that teachers create such a classroom environment, which contributes to a positive experience for students. And I agree that creating such opportunities for students to shape the classroom experience via the SSC model is one effective way to create that positive experience.

Since first using the SSC model, I have added a five point scale as a means of refining the feedback. I also ask things like:

* the extent to which student learning needs are met,
* the clarity of the presentations, and
* their assessment of the correlation between classroom activities and course objectives.

This gives me a preview of what to expect on the end-of course evaluations and allows me to introduce a variety of research and evaluation concepts particularly relevant to the course I teach.

Like Garner and Emery, I've found that students are reflective and positive in their responses:

* "Start including practicum experiences in the discussion."
* "Stop reviewing the overheads so fast."
* "Continue experiential exercises."

I have also found that as I implement more student suggestions their responses to the Stop and Start items decrease, while Continue comments increase. When I've responded adequately to student feedback, a typical response in the Start Column might challenge me to "take heed to the evaluation results." In response, I review the results, generate categories of responses and develop frequency distributions for the closed items, which I discuss during the next class session.

Although this model does take some class time, it gives the instructor an opportunity to explain how and/or why suggestions are not implemented.

Students also have a chance to see the extent to which their personal suggestions may be consistent with those of their classmates.

How often should one use the SSC technique? I administer the evaluation form every-other-class session, although this may be too often, as the suggestions and ratings do stabilize over time. Such frequency may also wear away the "newness" of the activity over time, which may result in less student enthusiasm.

Whatever its limitations, I credit the SSC technique with creating an effective learning partnership between me and my students.

Note: Article written by Jane Strobino of Pennsylvania's Marywood College. Reprinted from The Teaching Professor (January 1997) by permission from Magna Publications (800) 433-0499.

Articles and excerpts published in The Student Learner in Focus are occasionally reproduced from The Teaching Professor by permission from Magna Publications. A copy of The Teaching Professor is available in each academic unit for use by all faculty, graduate students, staff, and administrators. The Teaching Professor is published monthly, except July and August by Magna Publications, Inc., 2718 Dryden Dr., Madison, WI 53704-3086.

The Student Learner in Focus is a newsletter published by the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The newsletter serves to inform the academic community at Bowling Green State University of new and innovative learning strategies at the programmatic and classroom levels. The Student Learner in Focus also summarizes ongoing assessment programs on campus. Comments, suggestions, and questions are welcome and may be directed to Dr. Steven Russell, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, College of Education and Human Development at 372-7401

Editor : Steven C. Russell
Associate Editor : Leigh M. Hayes

Return to other issues of The Student Learner in Focus

Return to BGSU Assessment Central Homepage