Presented at the CONUL Conference, July 2015, Athlone, Ireland by Michelle Dalton, University College Dublin. Abstract "Student evaluation of teaching (SET) is one of Brookfield’s (2002) Four Lenses of Critical Reflection (2002). When combined with peer observation, relevant theoretical literature and self-reflection, it can provide a useful channel for gathering feedback on the value and effectiveness of teaching. This paper discusses the design and development of a feedback collection tool for information literacy sessions at UCD Library, whilst raising some of the key questions involved in the process including: Why do we need student feedback and what can we learn from it? Qualitative or quantitative data – which is more valuable? What about student self-reporting and self-rating? Satisfaction ratings as a proxy for evaluating the quality of teaching – what do they really tell us? How can format - paper-based or online – influence the quantity and quality of responses? Informed by this underlying theoretical context, the paper also discusses the use of the tool in practice. The feedback form has now been implemented by the UCD College Liaison Librarian team over a full academic year, yielding useful data and insight that have helped to inform future practice. The paper concludes by highlighting some of the emerging themes from this data, outlining how it might potentially be used to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning in information literacy. " Biography Michelle Dalton is the Liaison Librarian for the College of Human Sciences in UCD Library, and also has experience working in corporate, medical and special libraries. She has published a number of articles in peer-reviewed journals including the Journal of Academic Librarianship, the Journal of Information Literacy and Library & Information Research, and is editor and co-founder of the Irish library blog Libfocus.com. Follow her on twitter @mishdalton.

1. Seeing
Michelle Dalton / UCD Library
@mishdalton
Through
Learners’
Eyes

2. Why Student
Feedback?

3. Self-
reflection
Scholarship
Students
Peers
(Brookfield, 2002)

4. v a r
i a
t i o
n

5. c o n s i
s t e n c
y

6. Best Practice?

7. “the less time
it takes for a
student to
complete a
survey, the
more likely it is
they will do so”
(Nulty, 2008, p.305)

8. Quantitative?
Collected & analysed more quickly
“if all the items require a simple
numerical rating then there will
probably be less engagement”
(Nulty, 2008, p. 305)

9. Qualitative?
“the range of
responses and
ideas expressed
are not limited to
those designed by
the lecturer”
(Surgenor, 2010, [p. 3])

10. Student Satisfaction?
“…is influenced by a wide variety
of contextual factors that are
not intrinsically related to the
quality of teaching”
:-(
:-/
:-)
:-|
:-))
(Wiers-Jenssen et al., in Richardson, 2005, p. 403)

11. Self Rating?
“undue modesty” of top performers
poor performers often
“think they are doing just fine”
(Ehrlinger et al., 2008, p. 118)

12. “participants completing the
web-based version left
comments that were more than
50% longer”
(Heath et al., 2007 p. 260)

13. “good practice to make
feedback questionnaires
available in a variety of
formats for use by students
with disabilities”
(Richardson, 2005, p. 406)
feedback

14. In Practice?

15. as short as possible
open-ended & qualitative
online (google forms)
print (h-form layout)
linked with descriptive class data

16. Positives Overall
Rating
Suggestions
for
Improvement
Additional
Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

18. Identify & feed back student needs at:
Module level
Programme level
University level
not enough
time
earlier/later in
semester
more advanced
sessions
additional
topics

19. T E A C H I N G

20. L E A R N I N G

21. thank
you
@mishdalton
michelle.dalton@ucd.ie

22. References
Brookfield, S. D. (2002). Using the Lenses of Critically Reflective Teaching in the
Community College Classroom. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2002(118), 31.
Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the unskilled are
unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 98–121.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002
Heath, N. M., Lawyer, S. R., & Rasmussen, E. B. (2007). Web-Based versus Paper-and-Pencil
Course Evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 259–261.
doi:10.1080/00986280701700433
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what
can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.
doi:10.1080/02602930701293231
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the
literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387–415.
doi:10.1080/02602930500099193
Surgenor, P. (2010). UCD Teaching & Learning Toolkit, Gathering Feedback 3. Accessed
3rd April 2014 from http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/UCDTLT0014.pdf.