Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

The Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) provides an instructor with more structured feedback on student perceptions than the traditional classroom evaluation. Furthermore, since it is typically conducted in the middle third of the semester, an SGID can help faculty make adjustments in their approach for the rest of the term, as well as serving as an ideal opportunity to remind students of the classes’ learning goals. SGID’s are conducted only at the request of the faculty member; results are shared only with the faculty member requesting the service.

The particular variant of the SGID we use at the Learning Enhancement Service (LES) takes the students through a four-step process requiring a full class period. At the beginning of the session, the LES facilitator tells the students that all comments are confidential, and that a written report will be prepared for their professor. Furthermore, the students are informed that the SGID service is something that is available to all faculty, and that by voluntarily choosing to employ it, their professor has demonstrated a high level of commitment to the quality of their education.

In the first stage of the SGID, the students are asked, individually, to complete a sheet that contains three questions:

1. the components of the course/instruction that they like best
2. the components of the course/instruction that they like least, and how the course could be improved.
3. what they (the students) could do to improve the course.

Students are urged to be as concrete as possible, and to explain why specific aspects course/instruction are beneficial and/or should be changed.

Students are then assigned to small groups (3-4 people) and asked to choose a recorder. Starting with the positive aspects of the course, each member of the group states his/her three most important items before there is any discussion. This gets everyone's opinions on the table, and tends to prevent a dominator from controlling the group's agenda. After each person has contributed, the group discusses the possibilities and arrives at a consensus on the three most important positive components of the course. They then repeat this process for the other questions. The LES facilitator listens to these small group discussions so as to be more able to explain the results to the faculty member.

In the third stage, each small group reports out its three consensus items for each of the questions. The LES facilitator puts all of the comments on the board, and leads a large group conversation to help the class arrive at a consensus on which three points, in each category, they see as most significant. The final stage for the students is to indicate through a numerical scaling device their level of agreement with the class consensus in each category. During the large group discussion, the LES team takes notes on the large group conversation, and combines that information with the individual and small group written materials to create a summary of the session.

The other critical portion of the SGID process is consultation between the LES team member conducting the SGID and the faculty member. Once a request has been made and a time arranged, the LES facilitator checks with the faculty member to see if there are any special issues or areas of concern to listen for. After the classroom visit is completed, the faculty member receives a written report from LES, including summaries of student comments at the various levels (individual, small group, and large group) as well as the individual scaling. The LES team member who conducted the SGID then meets with the faculty member to interpret the results, reminding the recipient that the comments are student perceptions. If requested, the LES representative can discuss possible alterations in teaching strategies and/or ways of explaining to the class why aspects that they don’t like are essential given the learning goals.

Most faculty members add a third component to the SGID process by involving their students in a conversation about teaching and learning. It is recommended that the faculty member announce the SGID to their class in advance, explaining that this is a voluntary process and that the faculty member is giving up a class period because s/he sincerely wants student feedback at this point in the semester. After the faculty member has received the results, it is very beneficial to take a few minutes to discuss them with the class. The faculty member can use this opportunity to place the student comments in the context of his/her goals for the course, as well as announcing any adjustments that seem appropriate.

The SGID technique offers a number of benefits, many of which are not available in less structured forms of feedback.

The SGID process of funneling student views toward a central consensus gives the faculty a clear view of the most critical issues from the perspective of the class as a whole. This significantly decreases our very human tendency to obsess over one or two idiosyncratic comments. It also provides a much more manageable range of issues to think about. At the same time, the numerical scaling system can be especially helpful in revealing divisions and by showing the strength of feeling associated with each point.

By holding an SGID, the professor makes students feel that their views matter. This, of course, is true to some degree of all evaluations, but giving up a full class period and conducting the process at mid-semester greatly increases the impact. (Students often thank the LES facilitators at the end of a session, thus revealing their sense that this was a special event.) The student sense of being heard is heightened even more if the professor uses the results as an opportunity for further discussion of teaching/learning goals. Faculty often report that students seem more cooperative and willing to work harder after an SGID.

Since students are more likely to see the SGID as a sincere effort to improve teaching and learning, the feedback they provide is often much more reflective and helpful than end of the semester evaluations. Furthermore, since only one of the SGID questions is focused on negatives, the results are also more balanced. Both the atmosphere and the structure of the SGID thus tend to promote a focus on key issues and constructive suggestions.

The third question ("What can I as a student do to improve the course") shifts the students’ focus back to their own behaviors. They are thus encouraged to see the teaching/learning endeavor as a partnership. Faculty can heighten this sense by using the answers to this section in their post-evaluation conversation.

The open conversation/consensus-building process helps rein-in individual students or small groups who are dissatisfied with some aspect of the class. These students often believe that everyone else shares their opinion. When they discover in small or large group conversation that this is not the case, they tend to modify their views and behaviors.

If you are interested in having a SGID done in your classroom, or would like to discuss the process in more depth, please contact Ken Jones (2720 or kjones@csbsju.edu) or Johanna Davis (5157 or jhdavis@csbsju.edu).