Interviewing Students about Their Learning Experience to Show Evidence of Teaching Performance How can I produce evidence of teaching quality for a review? Focus: Ask students what transpired in and around the class that was helpful in learning, and what transpired in and around the class that was not. Objective of using technique: To determine what specific teaching activities students thought were effective in helping them learn, and to document those activities for presentation to an outside group (not the instructor being reviewed). Outcome: A summary memo, for distribution to a chair, divisional committee, peer review committee, or post-tenure review committee. Summary of the Technique: This technique involves interviewing small groups of students (5-7) after the semester is over (a modification would be to conduct these interviews during the semester). Colleagues of the instructor, who may or may not be knowledgeable in the subject matter, but who are likely to be knowledgeable about how students learn, conduct the interviews. Before the interviews, the interviewers review the instructor's reflective memo so the interviewers understand what the instructor was attempting in the course. These colleagues also discuss with the instructor what might be appropriate areas of discussion with the student groups. The student interviews take place in small groups (5-7); for large classes, it may not be possible to interview everyone, so "random" or "representative" samples of students might be used. The interviewers take notes regarding the tenor and substance of the discussions with students, while attempting to ensure all students are heard and all opinions are equally weighted. The interviewers generate a summary memo from their interviews, and meet with the instructor again to discuss the results of the interviews. A written summary of the interviewers' review is provided to the instructor, and the instructor responds in writing to the review. The summary and response are together the record of the review, and are transmitted to the appropriate party for inclusion with other evidence of teaching for review. Time Involved: For interviews, 1 hour interviews by 2 peers interviewing 5-7 students at a time; typically all students are interviewed in a 25 student class, so 4-5 hours of interviews; the interviewers review the interview material along with the instructor's reflective memo. The reviewers write a summary memo based on interviews. Who does it? Colleagues within or outside of a discipline do interviews; colleagues create summary. Interviewers may be from outside of unit or institution, which would allow for a different perspective on observations. For this review to be taken as a relatively objective one, it may be useful to have one or more reviewers from outside of the instructor's department, or institution. To whom is it done? Instructors in need of documentary evidence of teaching quality, for assessment. Format of instruction: Probably best for small lab/lecture, so most students will have had considerable contact with the instructor, but could be modified for any size course. Unit of observation: Entire semester; interviews done 2-3 weeks after end of term. Scope: Limited to areas students can comment on and in which student opinion is an appropriate gauge of instructor's teaching activities. Documentation: As presented, the result of the review is a summary memo with attached instructor's response to the summary. After review and comment by the reviewed instructor, the memo is transmitted to the appropriate site where it becomes a part of the instructor's dossier. Audience: Interested parties: department chairs, merit review committees, deans, divisional committees. Comments: This is intended as a summative assessment of a instructor, with a focus on the learning process that occurs in the instructor's class. Pros and Cons: This type of method, interviewing students, can be very informative in terms of issues students can comment on. Particularly for process issues, student observations and insights into how well the process worked for them can be quite useful. Student comments on some other related topics, such as the material contained in the course, may be less useful because of the limited experience of students in these areas. Users of this method should define the information sought from the method prior to implementation, to see if students are the best source of the information sought. The method requires a significant amount of time from students, faculty, and interviewer, but seems to be the most direct way of finding out what students think about the learning process they experienced. This kind of information should not be considered a complete set of information relating to a instructor's teaching, but it may constitute an important element of a complete review. Specific Directions:  When  instructor Interviewers  Students Early in semester Write reflective memo on objectives and means to achieve objectives of class     Early in semester Distribute reflective memo to interviewers, invite them to come to class if they like Read reflective memo   During semester Teach class   Learn important stuff Before end of semester Organize groups of students, meeting times, places Talk with instructor areas to discuss with students   After end of semester Discuss with interviewers: reflective memo, areas of discussion with students Talk with instructor areas to discuss with students   At student meetings   Discuss with students agreed upon elements of course and instructor's activity Show up for meetings, discuss with interviewers After student meetings   Generate summary memo from student discussions, deliver to instructor only   After student meetings Meet with interviewers to review summary memo Meet with instructor of discuss summary memo   After student meetings Generate response or comments on review summary to be included with the review memo Provide appropriate parties copy of interviewer summary and instructor response as a package   Reference: Innovative Higher Education 20 pp. 271-276, by Sherri Sheppard, Larry Leifer, and J. Edward Carryer (Stanford)