Mid-Semester Feedback Program

Apply for the Fall 2024 Semester

  • MSFs are available for courses that are taught at least 50% in-person at the Fairbanks Troth Yeddha’ or CTC campus. 
  • MSF sessions occur during one 50-minute block of class time in October.
  • Faculty must also schedule a pre- and post-session meeting with the instructional designer who facilitates the MSF.
  • There are a limited number of spots available, which will be filled on a first-come basis.

Benefits of Mid-Semester Feedback

  • The use of small-group consensus and whole-class voting processes gives insight into areas of strong student agreement and division in the class. 
  • Feedback is useful, actionable, and focused on student learning in the course.
  • Just-in-time feedback can be used to strengthen the course during the semester.
  • Boost student morale and sense of connection to the course by giving them an opportunity to feel heard and valued
  • Consult with expert instructional designers to make the most of student feedback
  • MSF reports can be included in a teaching portfolio as a supplement to Blue evaluations and as evidence of a reflective teaching practice. 

The MSF Process

  1. The CTL will put out a call for faculty who are interested in having a MSF session done during the 4th week of the semester, so that MSFs can be scheduled for mid-term. Faculty will submit an interest form that includes preferred class times for the MSF session and a copy of the course syllabus.
  2. A MSF facilitator will contact the faculty member to set up times for an initial meeting, a classroom MSF session, and a follow-up meeting. 
  3. During the initial meeting, the facilitator and the faculty member go over the MSF process and discuss any specific goals or areas of consideration the instructor has for the course. This information helps the facilitator guide student discussion during the MSF.
  4. On the day of the MSF classroom session, the facilitator will arrive 50 minutes prior to the end of the class period. The instructor then introduces the facilitator and leaves the room. Faculty can choose whether or not to tell students about the MSF in advance. 
  5. The facilitator takes students through a series of questions about the course, individually and then in small groups. Small group answers are discussed as a class, with students voting “agree,” “disagree,” or “neutral” to each statement. 
  6. After the MSF classroom session, the facilitator compiles whole group responses, along with vote totals, and any individual comments of particular interest in the Faculty Report.  The MSF follow-up meeting should occur BEFORE the instructor’s next class session, or as close to the next class session as possible. The follow-up meeting is an opportunity to discuss and contextualize student responses with an instructional design expert and develop an action plan for mid-semester course adjustments. 
  7. Instructors are encouraged to discuss the results of the MSF with their students.

Privacy and Use of Data

  • The CTL will track the number of  MSFs but will not include the names of the faculty who complete them in any reports.
  • Student feedback will be shared only with the instructor.
  • The CTL may use anonymized student responses collected from MSFs to identify trends in student concerns and develop responsive faculty development programming.
  • MSFs are an optional resource that can be used to enhance teaching effectiveness. They are a source of informal, formative feedback on a course, as opposed to the summative evaluations of teaching practice and effectiveness outlined in the UAF Faculty “Blue Book.”

MSF Materials

References

MSF is modeled on Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) – a program developed in the 1980s at the University of Washington. It has been implemented at hundreds of universities and has a wide base of research on its effectiveness. The UAF Mid-Semester Feedback facilitation materials are adapted with permission from the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) program at Northern Iowa University.

Black, B. (1998). Using the SGID method for a variety of purposes. In M. Kaplan (Ed.), To Improve the Academy, Vol. 17 (pp. 245-262). http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0017.019

Clark, D. J., & Redmond, M. V. (1982). Small Group Instructional Diagnosis: Final Report

Kruck, S. E. & Hurney, Carol & Prins, Samantha & Harris, L.N.. (2014). The Impact of a Learner-Centered, Mid-Semester Course Evaluation on Students. Journal of Faculty Development. 55-62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273002293_The_Impact_of_a_Learner-Centered_Mid-Semester_Course_Evaluation_on_Students University of Toronto. (n.d). Gathering Formative Feedback with Mid-Course Evaluations