This page contains links to course evaluations for some of the most recent courses I have taught at Iowa State University. These include evaluations for an ESL academic writing course and a Linguistics descriptive grammar course. In addition to the course evaluations, you will find personal reflections on the content of the evaluations.
English 101B: ESL Academic Writing 1
Below are links to course evaluations for three sections of English 101B, an academic ESL writing course that I teach at Iowa State University. These evaluations span two semesters. Following the links, you will find a brief personal reflection on the content of the evaluations.
101B Spring 23 Course Evaluation Section 4
101B Fall 23 Course Evaluation Section 1
101B Fall 23 Course Evaluation Section 6
Reflection
Following a synthesis of the information presented in the three course evaluations linked above, there are many positives to report. For example, students’ average response for the overall rating of the course was 4.6 on a 5-point Likert scale, suggesting that the course was very good overall. Additionally, my average overall rating as the instructor was even higher at 4.8. Together, this information indicates that students’ overall perception of the course and my instruction were particularly favorable.
In addition to students’ overall perception of the course and my instruction, they voiced several positive comments when prompted to specify instructional techniques that facilitated their learning. One trending comment related to opportunities for feedback on written work. Students seemed to appreciate the feedback I gave them as an instructor on their writing assignments. To a lesser degree, they also appreciated the peer feedback they received with each major writing assignment. These comments were validating given the time and energy I devote to providing substantive feedback on drafts submitted before the final draft. I typically provide this feedback via one-on-one conferences or through recorded comments about their work on Canvas. In all cases, the feedback is intended to give the students targeted suggestions for improving their final drafts, which are graded for proficiency. I assume those who commented on peer feedback also appreciated the structured peer feedback workshops I facilitated with each major writing assignment. Typically, these workshops involved modeling good feedback and making suggestions for targeted feedback relevant to the assignment. Students then had to participate in a discussion board assignment on Canvas in which they provided written feedback on their peers’ drafts.
A second positive comment that was relatively frequent in these evaluations relates to the instruction of organizational features. The students seemed to appreciate the depth of information I gave them concerning how to organize different component pieces of their writing assignments (e.g., introduction, body, conclusion). I also modeled examples and provided targeted instruction based on assignment type. For example, in one major assignment focused on making comparisons between two subjects, I provided information regarding different organizational techniques they could use to make comparisons in a single body paragraph.
Despite the positive comments in these evaluations, students also made suggestions for improvement. One common suggestion was to include more grammar instruction related to their writing. Although I try to include one to two major grammar lessons with each writing assignment, I believe these students make a good point. In future courses, I am going to make more of an effort to incorporate relevant grammar instruction into the lessons. I think this will likely take the form of bite-sized lessons that I can add on to the main lesson. These mini-lessons would take no more than roughly 10 to 15 minutes to complete, minimizing their impact on time devoted to the core content of the course. Another slightly less frequent suggestion for improvement was to reduce the number of small assignments. I have already begun to address this by looking at the assignments I regularly distribute. I have attempted to eliminate or make extra credit any assignments I feel don’t substantively contribute to students’ progression as writers.
Linguistics 220: Descriptive English Grammar
Below is a link to the course evaluation for one section of Linguistics 220. This course is a descriptive grammar course focusing on English morphology and syntax. Following the link, I have included a brief reflection on the content of the evaluation.
Ling. 220 Spring 23 Course Evaluation
Reflection
On analyzing the course evaluation of Linguistics 220, it appears that students’ perceptions of the course and me as the instructor were generally favorable. The average student response for the evaluation items measuring these perceptions was roughly 4 on a 5-point Likert scale. This suggests that the students’ overall rating of the course and my instruction were fairly high with some room for improvement. It is worth noting that the overall rating for the course was slightly lower (3.8) than the overall rating of me as the instructor (4.15), potentially indicating the usefulness of adjusting course content to better suit students’ needs. Such adjustment would also likely contribute to raising my overall rating as an instructor.
In addition to students’ overall perception of the course and my instruction, they indicated multiple instructional techniques that improved their learning. The most commonly referenced techniques related to formative assessment intended to help students practice identifying morphological, lexical, and syntactical features in context. Numerous students cited low-stakes participation quizzes and practice sentence diagrams as tools that were particularly useful for helping them prepare for major exams. As an instructor, I appreciated these comments as I spent a fair amount of effort developing quizzes and sentence diagram activities mirroring the types of items they would encounter on their exams.
Students also had suggestions for improvement. To illustrate, some students expressed frustration at the amount of content covered in the class in addition to the difficulty of the concepts. Based on these comments, the next time I teach the course, I will make a point of informally gauging students understanding as I introduce new concepts. If they generally feel as though a given topic is difficult to understand, I will make it a point to spend more time going over examples that clarify the concept for the students. Of course, it is worth noting that some of the frustration over the difficulty of concepts may stem from the fact that many of the students in the course are elementary education students attempting to get a language endorsement for their program of study. As such, they are unfamiliar with the linguistic analysis employed in the class. Overall, this is a problem that concerns me. It has even prompted me to engage in discussions with other professors who teach the course to see what can be done to better address the needs of students who take the course. One possible solution we discussed is reserving one section of the course that is specifically for elementary education students. Such a section could simplify course content, better catering to the needs of those students.