Intention is defined as “what one intends to bring about.” In higher education, there is a feedback system meant to shape our classroom plans and intentions: student evaluations of teaching (SETs). But when it comes to SETs, what are we actually bringing about? An equally challenging question is whether or not faculty genuinely consider student feedback from the perspective of actionable intent.
In his book, Ego is the Enemy, Ryan Holiday describes “self-centered ambition” as an unhealthy characteristic of ego. Based on this, one can argue that self-centered ambition (conscious or unconscious) plays a hand in drawing the figurative line in the sand between good and poor SETs and how we, as instructors, react to them.
Many individuals have written on the inability of SETs to effectively measure teaching quality, at least in isolation. While that may be true, SETs certainly provide insight to the student course experience, which is important to the success of all higher education institutions.
Our Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) program at Loma Linda University comprises one of the most diverse DPT student populations in California. There’s also considerable diversity across our numerous core and associated faculty, including gender, ethnicity, age, religion, and educational background.
Our SETs encompass eight standard questions with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” that are used by all schools at our institution. The questions also include comment sections for students to write specific responses. Having reviewed every program SET since 2017 as part of an accreditation requirement on program assessment, I have found that the overwhelming student complaint about courses with poor SETs has been the student perception of faculty disorganization.
This point brings us back to that line in the sand and self-centered ambition. Collectively, this constructive feedback can serve as a potential problem or solution. It can be problematic when faculty don’t read student feedback with the intention of looking for adjustment opportunities. The opposite approach, however, can offer impactful solutions.
SETs provide actionable feedback on perceived disorganization in several areas, including course objectives, course materials, content delivery, and/or various modes of communication. Poor SETs in our program have not suggested instructor bias; rather, they have plainly and consistently highlighted perceived disorganization. Subsequent SETs have markedly improved when faculty have been willing to consider student feedback, hold themselves accountable, and make organizational adjustments aimed at improving the student learning experience.
One of my favorite quotes reads “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” We can seamlessly replace “river” with “classroom” to highlight the importance of faculty adjusting with an ever-changing student body. Philippians 2:4 tells us, “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.”
Faculty are pulled in many academic directions, but universities exist primarily to educate students and guide them toward making positive differences in the world. When student feedback concerning perceived disorganization is ignored, or not acted upon, the learning environment suffers. Perhaps a lack of faculty accountability is the most important issue poor SETs are bringing about, and that’s something worth addressing.
Author
Eric Johnson
Eric G. Johnson, DSc, PT, MS-HPEd, NCS, is a Professor in the Department of Physical Therapy at Loma Linda University School of Allied Health Professions, USA. He was the 2014 recipient of the Loma Linda University Kinzer-Rice Award for Excellence in University Teaching.