REFLECTIVE COURSE EVALUATION AS A COMPLEMENT TO TRADITIONAL COURSE EVALUATIONS

A complete review of the course evaluation literature extends beyond the scope of the present study. Although many merits of traditional course evaluations exist, their limitations and competing purposes lend support to the impetus to identify a complementary process to help recenter a teaching and learning focus in the course evaluation process.

Many factors contribute to the rationale for conducting student evaluations of teaching, which often depend on the perspective of the stakeholder in this multifaceted practice. Key stakeholders in the process include students, administrators, and instructors. Assurance of course quality dominates as the reason administrators want student evaluations included in the course evaluation process (Borch et al., 2020; Darwin, 2012). The process of quality assurance in higher education provides a systemwide assessment of the educational process to ensure achievement of established standards (Canvar Kahveci et al., 2012). Despite the worldwide use of course evaluations, there are variations in its primary use and purpose, with the United States placing more importance on a management perspective than other countries (Pineda & Steinhardt, 2023).

Second, universities often incorporate the evidence gathered from the evaluation process into the promotion and tenure procedure (Barth, 2008; Edström, 2008; Golding & Adam, 2016; Steyn et al., 2019; Youssef, 2012). Teaching enhancement comprises a third purpose of the teaching evaluation process (Kember 2002). Consideration of these varied purposes necessitates the important question of whether, even with satisfactory response rates, traditional course evaluations adequately fulfill aspirations that they serve all purposes for all constituent groups: administrators, faculty, and students.

These competing purposes of course evaluation potentially detract from a focus on the teaching and learning process and contribute to the ritualization of traditional course evaluations. Kember (2002) points to the ritualized nature of course evaluations by stating that institutions require evaluations or consider them, “an implicit obligation” (p. 412). Potential pressure to design the evaluation to minimize issues within a course in a quest to gather evidence that supports the instructor’s professional advancement exists when the focus of traditional course evaluations centers around the use of evaluation data as supporting evi–dence for advancement in the tenure and promotion process (Barth, 2008; Edström, 2008; Golding & Adam, 2016, Steyn et al. 2019; Youssef, 2012). If course evaluation serves to evaluate the instructor, the temptation exists for instructors to minimize problems (Edström, 2008). If the course evaluation serves to support the teaching and learning process, motivated instructors eagerly address identified problems (Golding & Adam, 2016). This tension between course evaluation purposes fosters competing outcomes: instructors who focus on students and improvements to the teaching and learning process and instructors who focus on themselves and facilitation of their path toward promotion and tenure, with instructors who focus on students and the teaching and learning process facilitating deeper student learning (Åkerlind, 2007).

Edström (2008) points out that sometimes evaluation results lead to changing a course in negative ways such as providing detailed course outlines, making it unnecessary for the student to read the book. Students view this strategy favorably, and in turn, respond by enhancing traditional course evaluation outcomes, but the practice doesn’t necessarily help student learning. Olivares (2003) concludes that widespread use of traditional course evaluations results in lowered academic standards, which increases grade point averages and instructor popularity. Some instructors even willingly engage in behaviors they consider unethical to improve course ratings. Instructors perceive that in some ways, higher education focuses too much on consumer (student) satisfaction (Darwin, 2017).

Concern exists that information gathered from traditional course evaluations fails to impact change in teaching and learning practices. The teacher–centered as opposed to student–centered focus of traditional course evaluations leaves the process lacking with regard to improvement of the student learning experience (Davies et al., 2005). Providing further compelling evidence of concern, a formative continuous improvement–focused process best facilitates improvements in teaching and learning, while a career trajectory determination summative process best describes the promotion and tenure process (Gómez & Valdés, 2019).

Although essential in the evaluation process, traditional course evaluations often overlook the role of student engagement in learning (Edström, 2008; Freeman & Dobbins, 2013; Ngoh, 2018). A criticism that traditional course evaluations foster teaching as entertainment exists as well (Freeman & Dobbins, 2013).

Findings in the literature that gender and cultural biases influence course evaluation outcomes generate further reason for concern (Alderman et al., 2012; Olivares, 2003). Correspondingly, instructors recognized for teaching excellence recommend evaluation consideration within a perspective of looking for elements of truth within a context of possible bias (Cain et al., 2019). Other factors outside of the instructor’s control such as class size, class type, whether a class is required, and even ratings of other instructors also influence course evaluation outcomes (Davies et al., 2005). In a course evaluation literature review, Heffernan (2021) summarizes research indicating increases in abusive student comments with anonymous survey administration. In contrast, Valencia (2020) discusses an acquiescence bias tendency among graduate students completing course evaluations, in which students tend to endorse the most favorable survey option. In contrast to other research findings, Valencia also noted favorable bias for female instructors. In summary, although considerable financial expenditures occur on course evaluation, questions remain about their impact on fostering improvements to the teaching and learning process (Kember et al., 2002).

Students express concern about traditional course evaluation as well, sometimes questioning the ambiguity of terms used. For example, when asking students about their satisfaction with a course, what does the term satisfied mean (Borch et al., 2020)? In addition to the use of ambiguous terms, concern about ambiguous evaluation questions exists (Ngoh, 2018). Borch et al. (2020) found Likert scale traditional course evaluations yield little, if any evidence regarding how to improve teaching practices, in part because they typically fail to evaluate student learning. Surveys ask scaled questions that focus on, “students’ satisfaction with a course and the teachers” (Borch et al., 2020, p. 86) rather than asking student–centered questions with the potential to improve teaching practices. Steyn et al. (2019) cite evidence indicating that students sometimes view completing a traditional course evaluation with a Likert scale survey as just an end of the course requirement or a checking of the box, suggesting that students and faculty alike view the traditional course evaluation process as ritualistic.

The climate of traditional course evaluation competing priorities and the variety of concerns with traditional course evaluations, coupled with the ritualized nature of the evaluation experience for faculty and students led to the researchers’ consideration of other course evaluation options. The reflective evaluation emerged as a possible complement to recenter the course evaluation on the process of teaching and learning.

Through investigation of the course evaluation literature, the reflective student course evaluation emerges as an option to move beyond the traditional course evaluation ritual and refocus more intentionally on the teaching and learning experience. Steyn et al. (2019) shares that qualitative evaluations provide students the opportunity to reflect on the entire course experience and not just a narrow set of Likert scaled questions such as those found in the traditional course evaluation format. Intentionally designed reflective questions constructed to elicit student feedback and subsequent instructor reflection about the feedback possess the potential for improving teaching strategies (Åkerlind, 2007; Borch et al., 2020, Myers, et al., 2015). While not specifically calling on student reflection as the tool to address the limitations of traditional course evaluations, Darwin (2017) declares a need for course evaluation methodology which elucidates themes generated from student input about what facilitates and inhibits their learning. Reflection serves as one tool to address that need.

Although limited, examples of reflective summative evaluations exist in the literature. Benefit exits from allowing students to reflect on what benefits or impedes their learning (Oliver et al., 2008). Not uncommonly, traditional course evaluations include some open– ended, free–response questions (Brocks, 2012; Erickson, 2016; Grebnnikov & Shah, 2013; Minott & Young, 2009; Nasser–Abu Alhija, & Fresko, 2009; Oliver et al., 2008). Results of this practice indicate that open–ended items provide more in–depth student feedback, more helpful in making improvements to the teaching and learning process than feedback obtained from traditional course evaluations in isolation (Brocks et al., 2012; Minott & Young, 2009; Nasser–Abu Alhija & Fresko, 2009; Stupans et al., 2016). Value also emerges from text mining analysis of large quantities of student qualitative comments (Okoye et al., 2023).

Grebennikov and Shah (2013) conclude that qualitative data gathered from student evaluations provide a pivotal component to any evaluation. Key findings indicate higher retention rates occur among students when they feel part of the evaluation process as a change agent and believe others value their input. This suggests potential for qualitative evaluations to facilitate students’ college completion.

Evidence indicates that faculty who use combined traditional and reflective evaluations find the reflective feedback more meaningful (Svinicki, 2001). This suggests benefit in the use of a summative reflective evaluation at the end of a course. According to Borch (2020, p. 4), “Newer approaches to evaluation use also regard the learning that takes place during the evaluation process–process use–as an essential part of evaluation use.” Reflective student course evaluation provides one such approach.

Although limited, examples in the literature of the use of summative reflective course evaluations at the end of a course indicate that the process facilitates student understanding of their academic skills and learning styles and helps the instructor learn about students’ perceptions of their course and themselves as a teacher (Klimova, 2014). The process provides helpful information for making course changes and identifying professional development goals (Youssef, 2017). This points to the potential utility of the reflective course evaluation as a tool for recentering the course evaluation on the teaching and learning process.

Despite the dearth of studies about summa– tive reflective evaluations, evidence suggests that instructors wanting to improve their courses and teaching practices utilize a reflective perspective toward evaluation feedback (Golding & Adam, 2016). In fact, Roxa et al. (2022) assert that the utility of evaluation feedback comes only through reflection on and conversation about options to better facilitate student learning. This approach adopts a selfimprovement focus toward one’s instructional practice, with the intended purpose of seeking student feedback to improve courses rather than seeing feedback as a critical assessment of one’s work, with the implication that impact on promotion and tenure serves as a driver of the process.

The reflective evaluation process incorporates deeper understanding and engagement of course content than typically occurs with traditional course evaluation. Open–ended questions about aspects of the course and related to student effort during the course provide a wealth of information as compared to the traditional evaluation format (Klimova, 2014;

Lewis, 2001; Minott & Young 2009). This enables the instructor to develop increased self–awareness of their teaching and deeper content engagement. It provides a cyclical process between the instructor and student with reflection as the tool (Nicol & MacFarlane– Dick, 2006; Picardo & Sabourin, 2018; Youssef, 2012).

Review of the literature indicates that the competing priorities of traditional course evaluations detract from the realization of desired improvements to teaching and learning resulting from the course evaluation process. In this context, the researchers chose to implement reflective student course evaluations to address the following research question: Do end–of– term reflective student course evaluations provide feedback that instructors can utilize to improve the teaching and learning process? Although the literature provides much evidence on the use of traditional course evaluation practices, far less evidence exists on how qualitative reflection might facilitate improvements to the teaching and learning process (Grebennikov & Shah, 2013; Steyn et al., 2019). The current study attempts, in part, to add to this body of literature.

Seventy–two undergraduate students participated in this study, which took place at a small Midwestern university. Early childhood education majors enrolled in required courses comprised 60 of the participants. Students enrolled in a required or elective psychology course (depending on the major of the students) comprised the remaining 12 students. The four 16–week semester course sections (three online asynchronous courses and one blended/hybrid course) represented in this study included the following: ED 33001, ED 33011, ED 43211, and PSYC 30101/88. A signed institutional review board approved consent form indicated the consent of students willing to participate in the study. Nine students declined study participation.

The researchers developed similar reflective student course evaluations, completed by students at the conclusion of the semester. The instruments included a series of reflective questions to which students provided written responses. The questions encouraged students to reflect on instructional strategies, course content, student learning approaches, and sug–gestions for improvement.

Analysis of the reflective student course evaluations occurred using an iterative phronetic approach (Tracy, 2020). Braun & Clarke’s process of thematic analysis also helped guide analysis of the results (2006). Each researcher completed an initial independent blind review, performing content analysis on each reflection to look for and code common themes. Coding involved noting themes related to teaching and learning process factors over which the instructors had control. The researchers then completed joint review of the documents to compare results and determine themes held in common. An in–depth analysis of the 72 reflective student course evaluations occurred during several biweekly meetings. To ensure accuracy of common themes, the researchers tracked agreement of themes on a spreadsheet. Discussion occurred until coding agreement reached 100%.

While rich and varied feedback resulted from the reflective evaluations, the results discussed in this manuscript most closely align with the research question: Do end–of–term reflective student course evaluations provide feedback that instructors can utilize to improve the teaching and learning process? Relevant themes include instructor strength themes of experiential learning with subthemes relational opportunities and enacting concepts, direct application of learning to the student, course structure: organization and variety of materials, relationship building through feedback and responsiveness, and opportunities for collaboration. Themes related to opportunities for improvements to the teaching and learning process included enhanced clarity with subthemes of course schedule clarity and assignment clarity and availability of instructor: online students want face–to–face interaction.

As an additional analysis step to center results on making improvements to the teaching and learning process, the researchers returned to Bain’s What the Best College Teacher Do (2004) by linking both strengths and opportunities for improvement to Bain’s discussion of good teaching and learning practice. Through this exercise, the researchers hoped to not just analyze the results of the reflective student course evaluations but to also reflect with intention about the meaning of the results for the process of teaching and learning.

The psychology class and two of the education classes provide experiential assignments, on which students commented positively. For the education classes, lab experiences served as the experiential assignments. They involved classroom interaction at elementary schools with early childhood classroom teachers and their students. Students appreciated the oppor–tunity to apply the material from the course in the classroom and to observe their mentor teachers using the concepts. The experiences helped deepen students’ learning and provided opportunities for real–world application of the course content.

The lab experience associated with the education classes provided relational opportunities not replicable in the university classroom. So much of the impact of an educator resides in their relationship with students, the nuances of which students observe in the elementary school (in this case) classroom but not in a description or lecture provided as part of a university course. In addition to learning by observing the relationships and interactions between classroom teachers and students, learning occurred through the relationships the university students formed with the students in the early childhood classroom as well as with the mentor teachers they observed.

In addition to the immersion in relational activities of the school day with the mentor/ classroom teacher and students, students put theory into action by practicing what they learned in the class through the application of their learning. These occasions demonstrated that students benefited from the opportunity to process classroom events as well as analyze and evaluate their experience by reconciling the events with their prior learning. This helped transform information students understood while reading it in a textbook into opportunities to apply, test, modify, and solidify their learning as they experienced the information in the relational classroom context.

Although different in nature than the education classes, the psychology class also provided many student responses that exemplified experiential learning. Students engaged in experiential opportunities that asked them to complete sport and performance psychology self–assessments or to practice skills such as deep breathing, imagery, or goal setting, and then reflect on the experience in writing.

The experiences in the psychology course positively impacted students’ perception and understanding of the course material and its utility. In some cases, it also had an important impact on students’ personal lives.

Practicing sport and performance psychology strategies for class provides students the opportunity to try them out within the context of the class environment. This serves as the initial encounter with such strategies for some students. Other students hold negative perception toward psychological strategies, and the class environment provides the excuse that they “need” to do them for an assignment. This facilitates the potential for decreased stigma associated with the strategies (i.e., using them because of a mental health concern). Once they try the strategies, students often find them valuable and continue using them.

Another theme emerging from student comments about course assignments related to the way they fostered consideration of the material from the individual student’s perspective. In the psychology class, this occurred through students choosing a role from which to consider the information, such as their current role as a student or their future professional role as a coach or psychologist. In the education courses, students naturally viewed themselves as future educators.

To summarize the themes related to the assignments, experiential learning, and direct application of learning to the student emerged as themes. In relation to the experiential learning subthemes, students in the education classes benefited from their classroom lab experience through relational learning and enacting information learned in the classroom. Students in the psychology class found the practice of psychological strategies impactful.

Appreciation for course structure emerged as the second instructor strength theme identified in student reflective evaluations, specifically the organization and variety of course materials. Course structure and organization play a crucial role in any course but even more so for an asynchronous online course, with no direct face–to–face interaction between the instructor and student during which to respond to student questions or address misunderstandings. Course structure and organization help set the foundation for students progressing through a course or being faced with frustrations before they even begin to complete an assignment. This thematic area emerged as an instructor strength for all four courses.

Students commented that the course organization facilitated their learning. They knew what to expect, allowing them to plan accordingly. This helped students establish a rhythm for approaching their classes during the semester.

Cultivation of the student–instructor rela–tionship through provision of feedback and timely responses to students emerged as a third instructor strength theme. Students appreciated the instructors’ efforts in responding to questions and providing timely feedback.

The comments varied in nature, but all emphasize the importance of student/instructor interactions as a key component in students’ positive perceptions of the course. Relationship building is important in any course, but in the case of asynchronous online courses, instructor engagement in intentional relationship building in a natural way facilitates the course. Student responses indicated that despite the asynchronous online nature of the class, they felt a connection with the instructor. Students received instructor feedback from a growth perspective as opposed to a deficit perspective.

The education courses allowed students the choice of whether to collaborate with their classmates on the completion of some assignments. A number of students commented on the value of this opportunity as well as the ways it facilitated course engagement and learning.

Theme identification provided the opportunity for the researchers to connect reflective evaluation results with Bain’s What the Best College Teachers Do (2004). Student feedback on assignments connects to the “unifying principles” (p. 99) of the “How do they conduct class?” section of What the Best College Teachers Do (Bain, 2004, p. 98). Table 1 presents the seven unifying principles (the titles of which are from Bain, 2004), a short description of each, and discussion of how the courses in this research study exemplified each princi–ple. As can be seen in the table, despite the differences in the education and psychology courses, they exemplified Bain’s themes in similar ways and across the themes identified.

The information obtained from the reflective course evaluations provided the researchers with knowledge of aspects of the class going well and which should continue. As hoped, the evaluations also provided information on opportunities to improve the teaching and learning experience. Students’ desire for more clarity around the subthemes of the schedule and assignments provided the first opportunity for improvement.

Course Schedule Clarity. The organization of an online course makes sense to the instructor while designing the course. The instructor often only realizes where points of confusion lie through student feedback. That feedback provides the opportunity for the instructor to address the concerns for subsequent weeks of the course and for future semesters.

The feedback pointed out the importance of reminding students about the role of the syllabus as their guide to the entire semester. Feedback also highlighted the importance of regular, timely announcements on the course homepage for keeping students abreast of assignments. Although time consuming to set up, utilization of the learning management system’s intelligent agents provides timely reminders to students about upcoming course activities.

Assignment Clarity. Alignment with the nature of online courses necessitates that instructors provide static one–way (instructor to student) information about assignment details and requirements. Although provision of assignment information occurs in a variety of formats such as written or video, assignment production largely depends on students’ perceptions of the information conveyed. In contrast to an in–person class, an online class lacks opportunities to communicate with students about whether their perception of the assignment instructions match the instructor’s expectations. Oftentimes knowledge of assignment understanding emerges with the submission of assignments not meeting expectations. Student reflective evaluation feedback suggested the need for additional assignment details and clarity.

Instructor reflection on this information led to ideas about how to present assignment information in additional ways. In addition to written assignment information, ideas to facilitate student assignment understanding include: a video “walkthrough” of the assignment requirements, examples of good and not so good assignments with explanations of the assignment qualities that led to that designation, assignment rubrics, and assignment templates.

The hybrid and asynchronous online format courses in this study by nature include limited instructor–student interaction. Despite that fact, students provided feedback regarding the desire for more engagement with the instructor.

Two impressions resulted from such comments about the desire for more face–to–face interactions. First, optional synchronous online sessions potentially address this concern. By definition, online asynchronous courses cannot require synchronous meetings, so any synchronous meetings offered would have to be optional. Second, more intentional provision of explanations to students about the expectations and limitations of an online asynchronous course potentially facilitates alignment between course format and student course expectations.

In summary, student suggestion themes for course improvements included assignment and schedule clarity and a desire for face–to–face interaction. The discussion of instructor strength themes for the courses included in this study aligned with Bain’s seven unifying principles of good teaching as presented in Table 1. According to Bain, “As potent as these seven principles may be, they can still fall flat if the professor doesn’t act on them well...hon– ing these skills can make good teachers even better” (2004, p. 117). Bain goes on to discuss four categories for honing an instructor’s “craft of teaching” (Bain, 2004, p. 117). Table 2 presents the four categories (the titles of which are from Bain, 2004), a short description of each category, and discussion of how the course suggestions emerging from this research study exemplified each category.

Student comments stress the importance of good explanation and frequent, intentional communication opportunities in online classes. While helpful to conceptualize student suggestions from Bain’s perspective, Bain’s work focuses on in–person rather than online courses. Investigating best practices for student engagement in online courses emerges as a clear opportunity for the researchers to explore.

This study reviewed the use of reflective student course evaluations to address the competing priorities of traditional course evaluations by providing a complementary evaluation practice centered on the improvement of teaching and learning. Based on the results of this study, the researchers identified key considerations regarding the usefulness of reflective student course evaluations. The researchers desired a course evaluation component to recenter the process on teaching and learning and to move beyond the ritual of traditional course evaluations.

The researchers found great value in the information relevant to teaching and learning provided by the reflective student evaluations. Student responses about instructor strengths provided evidence of positive impact for many of the instructional practices used by the instructors and aligned with Bain’s (2004) evidence of good teaching. Experiential learning opportunities emerged as students’ favorite class activities both in terms of experiences enjoyed by students as well as experiences that enriched students’ understanding of theory and course concepts. Based on students’ comments, in some cases, these experiences pro–vided life–changing impact for students. No greater validation exists for an instructor than to receive such feedback.

The instructors spend much time designing assignments and curating materials to provide quality course experiences for students. Feedback indicated that students noticed and appre–ciated the effort. They also appreciated the opportunities for relationship with the instructor, other students, and in the case of the education courses with labs, the classroom teacher and students.

Naturally, students also provided comments for course improvement, providing the instructors with feedback hoped for through the use of the reflective course evaluation, feedback that might facilitate meaningful changes for the teaching and learning process. Suggestion consistency occurred across all four courses in this study related to course schedule clarity, assignment clarity, and offering synchronous online interaction opportunities. As mentioned in the presentation of study results, the instructors identified several strategies to address these opportunities and look forward to engaging in an iterative process of instructor consideration of student comments, implementation of course refinements, student completion of reflective evaluations, and further instructor consideration of student comments.

An initial consideration for the use of reflective student course evaluations necessarily includes the time it takes to analyze and interpret the feedback (Harper & Kuh, 2007; Grebennikov & Shah, 2013). After completing the review of the reflective evaluations without the use of assistive technology, the researchers concur about the time–consuming nature of the process. However, with the advent of technology options, this process appears on the cusp of becoming a more manageable task (Grebennikov & Shah, 2013, McDonald et al., 2020).

The perception that the use of qualitative data lacks rigor in comparison to the quantitative data provided by traditional course evaluations may lead some to question the utility of reflective evaluations. Researchers with quantitative training sometimes avoid qualitative evidence because of limited experience with it (Harper & Kuh, 2007; Grebennikov & Shah, 2013; Steyn et al., 2019). The qualitative data provided by reflective evaluations complements the quantitative data provided by traditional course evaluations, offering an enriched view of the teaching and learning process and insights that statistical evidence in isolation lacks (Harper & Kuh, 2007; Grebennikov & Shah, 2013; Steyn et al., 2019).

The qualitative data resulting from this study provided the researchers with much information to consider for enhancing the teaching and learning process within their courses. Much value resulted from taking the time to engage in the process. The information obtained exceeded the breadth and depth of information available from the researchers’ experiences with traditional Likert scale course evaluations. The researchers left the process with tangible ideas for changes to make for their courses for the following semester. In addition to strategies already discussed, course changes planned for the psychology class include integration of additional assignment options and topic–related videos. Plans for the education courses include a survey tool inquiring if students desire arranged course meeting times as well as providing the university descriptions for completely online–asynchronous and hybrid course designs for students’ consideration. These strategies facilitate better student understanding of the parameters of the different course formats and help ensure that the course experience offered matches their expectations. The researchers question whether students really want remote synchronous meetings for an online class but plan to provide opportunities and see how students respond.

Not all students gave consent for the use of their evaluations for analysis and discussion, presenting a possible limitation of the study.Feedback from those who gave consent and those not consenting possibly differed in substantive ways. The researchers reviewed the evaluations from their own classes for the nonconsenting students. They perceived the feedback from the nonconsenting students to resemble the feedback from the consenting students.

Students completed the reflective course evaluation as a final course assignment for credit, presenting another study limitation. Despite framing the feedback as appreciated, possible reluctance of students to provide negative comments because of the potential for adverse grade impact exists. In addition to completing the reflective evaluation, instructors provided the opportunity for students to complete traditional Likert scale course evaluations and anonymously share comments. Most students chose not to complete the traditional evaluations, and the information from them, although limited, evinced no increased criticism or negativity in comparison to the feedback on the reflective course evaluations. Use of and communication of blind grading for the reflective course evaluations address this concern for the future. Awarding full credit for assignment completion and communicating that to students also helps address this limitation.

Sample size poses yet another potential limitation of this study. Use of reflective course evaluations with a broader student population and additional curricular backgrounds would lend increased support for the utility of the process. Implementation of suggested changes and assessment of their impact also lends future support for the use of reflective course evaluations. As previously mentioned, assistive technology provides an easier path to broader reflective evaluation implementation. Easy access to assistive technology to review reflective comments ultimately encourages others hesitant to implement reflective evaluations into their course evaluation process due to the amount of time it takes to review and code.

As a next phase of this project, the researchers plan to implement a midterm reflective course evaluation, providing the researchers an opportunity to respond to student feedback in a timelier manner than possible when just using a reflective course evaluation at the end of the semester. The midterm evaluation will help the researchers make necessary course changes during the semester, providing the opportunity for improving students’ learning, course experience, and feelings of agency in the course. Grebennikov & Shah (2013) indicate the potential for course evaluations to positively impact student retention. The researchers hope that reflective evaluation will help realize that positive impact on retention.

The reflective course evaluation process provides the unanticipated and welcome consequence of helping identify course changes to facilitate equity and inclusion and help work toward the university’s and state system’s goal of closing equity gaps. When the researchers implement the midterm reflective evaluations, they plan to include assessment of students’ perception of equity and inclusion within the course.

The researchers feel certain of their work’s positive impact on the teaching and learning process for the courses they teach and the students they serve. The work also adds to the literature base related to the use of reflective course evaluations as a complement to traditional course evaluations and advances conversation about and exploration of the topic.

To help address the research question: Do end– of–term reflective student course evaluations provide feedback that instructors can utilize to improve the teaching and learning process?, the researchers initially planned to compare the information received from traditional Likert scale course evaluations with information received from the reflective student course evaluations. They received too few traditional evaluations for that comparison to occur. Out of 81 total students enrolled in the four courses in this study, they received only seven completed traditional course evaluations. Although disappointing, it lends further support for the need for an evaluation process to complement traditional course evaluation.

Despite time consuming and extensive analysis, the reflective course evaluation process resulted in rich information with the potential to result in meaningful changes to the teaching and learning process. This study affirmed that the feedback gathered from a reflective evaluation serves as an important complement to the traditional evaluation process. Most importantly, the researchers found that giving students the opportunity to reflect and share their perspectives yielded insightful feedback with the potential for improvements in teaching and learning.

This process provided a beneficial reflective experience for the researchers. It offered them the opportunity to move beyond the traditional course evaluation ritual while reading and rereading student feedback, identify the important information contained within the feedback, think about that information over time, discuss that information and its meaning for the course with a colleague, draw conclusions from the information, and implement course changes. The researchers learned a lot about themselves as instructors through this process and found validation in it as an iterative method for engaging in continuous course improvement. The literature supports this process as a form of self–mentorship (Muhayimana, 2023).

Traditional course evaluations remain firmly entrenched as a higher education standard, and the limited nature of online course feedback from them will likely continue. Reflective course evaluation information complements that process and provides richer feedback on which to reflect and consider changes to the course–level teaching and learning process.

The researchers undertook this process to identify a complement to address some of the limitations of the traditional course evaluation process and to address their research question: Do end–of–term reflective student course evaluations provide feedback that instructors can utilize to improve the teaching and learning process? They implemented reflective evaluations, and guided by Bain, considered the results. According to Bain, course evaluation must focus on, “Does the teaching help and encourage students to learn in ways that make a sustained, substantial, and positive difference in the way they think, act, or feel—without doing them any major harm?” (2004, p. 164). The evidence from this study suggests that reflective course evaluations provide information to improve the teaching and learning process.

Ultimately, this research process brought the researchers back to the sentiments expressed in the literature that course evaluation is best conducted by using multiple measures (Bain, 2004; Harper& Kuh, 2007; Steyn et al., 2019). The results of this study suggest that as the use of reflective course evaluations becomes more widespread, the potential exists for it to positively impact teaching and learning and to serve an important role as a respected component of multiple measure evaluation processes.