Midterm Chats

The following policies guide Midterm Chats at the Center:

1. Voluntary
   Only instructors can request that Midterm Chats be conducted with their classes.
   
   
2. Formative
   Center facilitators are not in the business of evaluating teaching. Facilitators are only in the business of gathering candid feedback from students.
   Once we have provided that information to the instructor, only the instructor decides how it will be used.
   
   
3. Confidential
   Generally, information we gather as a result of the Midterm Chat process will not be shared with anyone else, at the university or beyond, without the instructor’s express consent. However, members of the Center staff may discuss an instructor's situation for professional development purposes, such as how to handle certain types of feedback or what recommendations can be made to support the instructor's teaching goals.
   
   We will provide a follow-up letter summarizing the results of our conversation with each class, and instructors are welcome to use those letters in any way they deem appropriate (as an addition to their teaching portfolio, as part of their annual ASPT report, etc.).
   
   We would be happy to send a copy of the letter to a dean, chair, mentor, or DFSC, but only at the written request of the instructor.
   
   
4. Timely
   Midterm Chats are conducted between weeks 5-10 of the semester. By this time in the semester, students and instructors have generally settled into the routine of the class and some assignments have been completed and evaluated. On the other hand, it is still early enough in the semester for an instructor to make significant changes to the class when s/he feels that doing so will improve learning.

Small-Group Instructional Diagnosis

The Small-Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) is a well-researched technique that has been used to gather midterm feedback since its original development in the 1980s—it is essentially a type of focus group. During this activity, with the instructor out of the room, students consider four questions about a course on their own, then come to a consensus in small groups on what they wish to report to the entire class, and then a facilitator guides the class towards consensus in a final report. The facilitator then debriefs the report with the instructor (Clark & Redmond, 1982).

Process

1. Pre-Chat Consultation
   A consultation between the facilitator and the instructor(s) to discuss the goals of the course and any ongoing points of difficulty or curiosity that the instructor wishes to learn more about.
   
   
2. Classroom Visit
   At an agreed-upon class meeting, the instructor introduces the facilitator and then leaves the facilitator to conduct the SGID, which normally takes the majority of a 50-minute period or half of a 75-minute period. The facilitator guides the students in creating feedback on the course, first individually, then in small groups, and then as a whole class, with the goal of coming to consensus on these questions:
   • What do you appreciate most about this course? What is helping your learning?
   • What do you least appreciate about this course? What isn’t helping your learning?
   • What specific suggestions do you have to improve the course?
   • What can you as students do to improve the learning environment of the course?
     
     
3. Data Analysis
   Following the classroom visit, the facilitator reviews the notes they created and compiles them into a letter summarizing each question and making notes about any other contextual factors (e.g., low attendance impacting the consensus, a warm classroom causing drowsiness, etc.).
   
   
4. Post-Chat Consultation
   The facilitator and the instructor(s) meet for a de-brief, where the contents of the letter are discussed, and the facilitator assists the instructor(s) in determining how to respond to the feedback they received, whether with their current group of students or in future offerings of the course.
   
   
5. De-Brief with Students
   The instructor de-briefs with their students, acknowledging and appreciating the feedback given, and being clear about what changes (if any) they may be able to make for the remainder of the semester, while also acknowledging suggestions that won’t be implementable (e.g., a change in grading policy or attendance policy after the term has begun) with transparency about why those changes wouldn’t be appropriate.

Group Instructional Feedback Technique

The Group Instructional Feedback Technique (GIFT) is very similar to the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) described in the previous tab. It combines a survey administered in class with a focus group-like activity. This is a consensus-based process where a facilitator visits an instructor’s class without them present to agree on feedback for the instructor. The facilitator then debriefs both the survey and the results of the in-class discussion with the instructor (Barbeau & Cornejo Happell, 2023, pp. 128–140).

Process

1. Pre-Chat Consultation
   A consultation between the facilitator and the instructor(s) to discuss the goals of the course and any ongoing points of difficulty or curiosity that the instructor wishes to learn more about.
   
   
2. Classroom Visit (Survey Phase)
   At an agreed-upon class meeting, the instructor introduces the facilitator and then leaves the facilitator to conduct the GIFT, which normally takes the majority of a 50-minute period or half of a 75-minute period. The facilitator gives the students access to a digital or print survey that asks two narrative questions, along with a Likert scale response to other questions about teaching and learning (examples of which are in the resources section):
   • What do you appreciate most about this course? What is helping your learning?
   • What do you least appreciate about this course? What isn’t helping your learning?
     
     
3. Classroom Visit (Consensus Phase)
   Following the survey, the facilitator guides the students in creating feedback on the course, first individually, then in small groups, and then as a whole class, with the goal of coming to consensus on these questions:
   • What do you appreciate most about this course? What is helping your learning?
   • What do you least appreciate about this course? What isn’t helping your learning?
   • What specific suggestions do you have to improve the course?
   • What can you, as students, do to improve the learning environment of the course?
     
     
4. Data Analysis
   Following the classroom visit, the facilitator reviews the notes they created and compiles them into a letter summarizing each question and making notes about any other contextual factors (e.g., low attendance impacting the consensus, a warm classroom causing drowsiness, etc.). The report matches the data from the survey with the data from the in-class conversation.
   
   
5. Post-Chat Consultation
   The facilitator and the instructor(s) meet for a debrief, during which the contents of the letter are discussed. The facilitator assists the instructor(s) in determining how to respond to the feedback they received, whether with their current group of students or in future offerings of the course.
   
   
6. Debrief with Students
   The instructor debriefs with their students, acknowledging and appreciating the feedback given and being clear about what changes (if any) they may be able to make for the remainder of the semester. They also acknowledge suggestions that won’t be implementable (e.g., a change in grading policy or attendance policy after the term has begun) with transparency about why those changes wouldn’t be appropriate.