Abstract
Student feedback is crucial for the development of HCI learning experiences. Still, there is little research on how suitable the feedback methods are for gathering learning experiences and especially how the usage of the methods is experienced by the students. Hence, we have collected feedback using two different methods during an international two-week intensive course to understand the students’ experiences and to be able to compare the results. The methods were: the Retrospective Hand method and the Intensive Project Course Evaluation (IPCE) questionnaire method. Feedback was collected both during the course and on the last day of the course. By analyzing the feedback, we were able to iterate the course structure and content accordingly to meet the students’ needs. In this paper we describe the two methods and compare the results from both methods. We analyze the findings, discuss how these methods differ and discuss the usefulness of the feedback. Additionally, we advise how the two methods could be used in other courses for extending the communication between course teachers and students for improving the learning experiences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Chalmers, D.: A review of Australian and international quality systems and indicators of learning and teaching. Strawberry Hills: The Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (2007)
Hammonds, F., Mariano, G.J., Ammons, G., Chambers, S.: Student evaluations of teaching: improving teaching quality in higher education. Perspect. Policy Pract. High. Educ. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2016.1227388
Leckey, J., Neill, N.: Quantifying quality: the importance of student feedback. Qual. High. Educ. 7(1), 19–32 (2001)
Darwin, S.: From the local fringe to market centre: analysing the transforming social function of student ratings in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1712690
Berk, R.A.: Start spreading the news: use multiple sources of evidence to evaluate teaching. J. Fac. De. 32(1), 73–81 (2018)
Kember, D., Leung, D.Y., Kwan, K.: Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 27(5), 411–425 (2002)
Keane, E., Labhrainn, I.M.: Obtaining student feedback on teaching & course quality. Brie ing Paper 2, 1–19 (2005)
Marsh, H., Dunkin, M.: Students’ evaluations of university teaching: a multidimensional perspective. In: Smart, J. (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, pp. 143–223. Agathon, New York (1992)
Richardson, J.: Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 30(4), 387–415 (2005)
Chen, Y., Hoshower, L.B.: Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: an assessment of student perception and motivation. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 28(1), 71–88 (2003)
Griffin, A., Cook, V.: Acting on evaluation: twelve tips from a national conference on student evaluations. Med. Teach. 31, 101–104 (2009)
Strategy Group: National strategy for higher education to 2030 (Report of the Strategy Group). Department of Education and Skills, Government Publications Office, Dublin, Ireland (2011). http://www.hea.ie/files/files/DES_Higher_Ed_Main_Report.pdf
Surgenor, P.W.G.: Obstacles and opportunities: addressing the growing pains of summative student evaluation of teaching. Assess. Eval. High. Educ., 1–14 (2011). iFirst Article. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.635247
Larusdottir, M., Roto, V., Stage, J., Lucero, A.: Get realistic! - UCD course design and evaluation. In: Bogdan, C., Kuusinen, K., Lárusdóttir, M.K., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) Human-Centered Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 11262, pp. 15–30. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05909-5_2
Larusdottir, M., Roto, V., Stage, J., Lucero, A., Šmorgun, I.: Balance talking and doing! Using google design sprint to enhance an intensive UCD course. In: Lamas, D., Loizides, F., Nacke, L., Petrie, H., Winckler, M., Zaphiris, P. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019. LNCS, vol. 11747, pp. 95–113. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29384-0_6
Roto, V., Larusdottir, M., Lucero, A., Stage, J., Šmorgun, I.: Focus, structure, reflection! Integrating user-centred design and design sprint. In: Ardito, C., et al. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2021. LNCS, vol. 12933, pp. 239–258. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85616-8_15
Steyn, C., Davies, C., Sambo, A.: Eliciting student feedback for course development: the application of a qualitative course evaluation tool among business research students. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 44(1), 11–24 (2019)
Byers, T., Imms, W., Hartnell-Young, E.: Comparative analysis of the impact of traditional versus innovative learning environment on student attitudes and learning outcomes. Stud. Educ. Eval. 58 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.07.003
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lárusdóttir, M., Roto, V. (2024). Evaluating Learning Experiences-Comparison of Two Student Feedback Methods. In: Lárusdóttir, M.K., Naqvi, B., Bernhaupt, R., Ardito, C., Sauer, S. (eds) Human-Centered Software Engineering. HCSE 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14793. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64576-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64576-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-64575-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-64576-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)
