The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of Bidirectional and Collaborative Feedback can improve the learning of students and teaching of instructors. The current practice on feedback in Universities is that students provide feedback to their instructors in the mid-term or final of the class, that are primarily unidirectional. While this approach may partly improve the teaching and learning, but sometimes, it will produce side effect and even hurt the effective teaching and learning. There are three reasons: 1) In one class, students have so different backgrounds and preferences, so their feedback usually subjective and hard to be always shared with all other students; 2) In one class, there are usually more than 30 students, instructors are impossible to always change to follow all suggestions from each feedback. Students have to adapt instructors sometimes; 3) The Universities have built a complete system to collect students’ feedback, but instructors also need to some paths to give feedback to change students; 4) instructors’ feedback raise a thought for students to check themselves to give the efficient and objective feedback to instructors. We all know that in SoTL concept, instructors and students work best when information goes both ways. From instructors to students and from students to instructors, feedback can travel, so both people work as a team so students improve their performance, and instructors improve their ability to help students perform better. In my research, I will make some comparisons: 1) two SGIFs in my class, 2) midterm exam and final exam in this semester and in Fall semester last year, and 3) normal instructor and course evaluation in semester and in Fall semester last year. I want to figure out differences between the midterm SGIF and the final SGIF, differences between exam grades prior to implementing bidirectional feedback and after implementing bidirectional feedback, and differences between instructor and course evaluation prior to implementing bidirectional feedback and after implementing bidirectional feedback.
The procedure in this project includes:
1. At the mid-term of the semester, instructors from Innovation in Learning Center (ILC) at University of South Alabama (USA) will have Small Group Instructional Feedback (SGIF) in my class to collect feedback from students about my class for what I should improve or change. SGIF is a formative mid-course check-in process for gathering information from students on their learning experience. The process is designed to foster communication and dialogue between students and instructors so that learning objectives and outcomes can be met successfully.
2. After I get report of SGIF, I will review the report with students and give students formal feedback for what they should change to adapt my class and other students. I will give feedback to students, such as study habit changing, study schedule changing, study method changing, and study materials changing, as well as finding appropriate partners. Also, when instructors make the change to following specific student’s feedback, they also have group discussion to determine whether this feedback is applicable to other students.
3. Students in my class will have midterm exam and final exam.
4. At the end of the semester, instructors from ILC will have SGIF again in my class to collect feedback.
5. Students in my class will have normal instructor and course evaluation.
6. I will make some comparisons: 1) two SGIFs in my class, 2) midterm exam and final exam in this semester and in Fall semester last year, and 3) normal instructor and course evaluation in semester and in Fall semester last year.
Are you a researcher? Would you like to cite this paper?
Visit the ASEE document repository at
for more tools and easy citations.