Extra Course Questionnaire

I devised a questionnaire to gather additional information from students about L216.  It was organized into two areas of inquiry:  1. course structure and organization and 2. assignments and activities.  Students were generous with their input and opinions about future versions of the class.  I summarize below the results of the questionnaire with my reflections following each in italicized print. 

I a. Seminar Format

Students responded favorably to this prompt, with many saying they really liked the format.  Several expressed reservations about the format during those times when students were unprepared or reluctant to participate; respondents commented that discussions fell flat too often and that they wished I had intervened more.  Most wanted more lively discussions.

I think I need to “teach” students first how to lead a discussion (see reflection above on individual oral presentations).  Perhaps early on I could give some tips and protocol – maybe even a class warm-up exercise to get people thinking about the topic in a more focused way.  It seems student discussion leaders often didn’t know what to ask or what to comment on.  I could also devise a preparation worksheet, so students arrive prepared and already guided toward meaningful discussion topics. (note 8)

Students universally liked working in groups.

I, too, was pleased with the quality and quantity of group work.  Judging from some complaints about doing a lot of work outside class, I think I am doing exactly what I’m aiming for – getting students to collaborate more and to spend more time on task outside of class.  Perhaps next time the in-class group exercises need to be more guided and more product oriented (so that students feel they are getting something out of the group interaction).

Students’ comments on the texts in the course revealed no surprises and suggested no major changes in the required readings.  They wrote that we rushed through the Barber text (Jihad vs. McWorld) and that they needed more time to digest it.  Readings in Ritzer (The McDonaldization of Society) on the other hand, needed to be trimmed so we could treat certain topics in greater detail.

I think I need to choose key passages from Ritzer that all students should read in order to understand major concepts.  Discussants should then read in greater depth in order to prepare their discussion.  As I suspected, the students found Barber difficult.  I think I need to pare down the amount covered – perhaps attempt only part one – and prepare a reading guide (study sheet) for each chapter.  Students need help learning what to look for and what inferences to make in order to understand why the Barber text is important to our course.

About half the class reported specifically that they found the class mentally challenging; several reported they spent lots of time preparing for the course (more than other courses); three thought there was too much reading.

It seems I’m right on target here.  Perhaps students need to be reminded of the amount of time they should be spending on a 3 hr. course. (note 9)  The consensus seems to be that the course was mentally challenging and that students spent ample time preparing for class.  For the 3 who complained about too much reading there were twice as many who said the amount of reading was appropriate to the goals of the course.

Some students reported that these were challenging because they had never written this kind of paper before; others reported that they were not very meaningful or useful.

Students needed more guidance and more clearly defined expectations for these short, informal papers.  In an attempt to be less formal, I was very lenient with dues dates, which resulted in papers of poor quality coming in long after we had begun discussing other texts.  Although I doubt I will continue to use this type of assignment in L216, the parameters for the assignment must be firmed up and made explicit should I decide to assign response papers.  Due dates must be firm and students must be instructed on how to write a response, so they know what to do.

Feedback on these assignments centered on the difficulty of working with Ritzer and Barber and frustration with the grading.

Changing the way Ritzer and Barber are taught (see above) will help students write about these texts.  As for the grading, I don’t think I should lower my standards (in fact, there could be a strong argument made for raising my standards), but I do think students need to be made better aware of my expectations for the papers.  I also need to spend time on teaching the skills students will need to write competent papers so they can succeed, if they are willing to do the work.

Although students liked this project in the end as much as I did, many commented that they needed much clearer directives about what they were to do.

I indicate my reflections on this assignment above in the Reflections section.

Several students commented that they did not like the docents in Tour I; others commented that they liked the art tour but weren’t sure how it connected to the rest of the course.

I shared the students’ dislike of the docents.  They patronized the students and treated them like sixth graders.  Although I don’t think the answer is to not use docents, I do think the docents need to be coached on how to treat bright, motivated students.  As for integration, I think students need to be reminded that art is a humanistic “text” and that it can relate intimately to course content.  Perhaps they need to be prompted more to use the knowledge they gain from the Art Museum in papers, or in their final reflective paper.

Students commented that they preferred group led discussions over discussions led by individual students.  Some reiterated their frustration at discussions that fell flat because student discussion leaders didn’t seem to know what questions to ask.

Please see above for my reflections on these assignments.

Many students reported that they enjoyed using Oncourse and that they especially enjoyed reading the perspectives of other students.  Some commented that they needed more structure and/or guidance.  Two students registered a lack of enthusiasm for this technology.

All in all, I think the use of Oncourse was a success, but at the same time, I think I could have used it more effectively than I did.  Students responded to my postings, but rarely responded to one another.  Hence, it became a place to increase interaction between the students and me, but did little to increase contact among students.  I think students need to be given more opportunities to interact with one another, both in synchronous chat functionalities and in asynchronous discussion threads.  In order to make this work, I will have to provide well-defined structural models in which students can conduct meaningful discussions.  In addition, they will need to be given a set of etiquette guidelines and rules of conducts, such as those outlined at the Teaching Center at Florida International University.  These structuring devices, provided by the instructor, greatly facilitate efficient and useful electronic communication outside the classroom.