Each composition instructor can write questions for his or her sections, and the reports will contain the responses of only the students in those sections, but for questions at all levels of the hierarchy. However, although the instructor can see how his or her students responded to the department head s questions and the course director s questions, neither the department head nor course director have access to information at levels lower than their own. The faculty members have most of the semester to create the department hierarchy and write questions because phase 2, student response, does not begin until the final week of class. There is also a short list of standard questions for the entire Academy. While this may seem a daunting list, we have cautioned our faculty to make sure that individual student surveys not exceed a total of fifty questions and be closer to the thirty-question limit of our earlier paper version.
Source codes are available on request.
In its first two semesters of operation, the system collected about 20,000 responses each semester of 22,000 possible, about 91 per cent overall. We judge this a successful response rate. Note the system informs instructors of students who have and have not responded during Phase II, allowing for in-class reminders. A major problem is the tendency to mistake the numerical nature of the data with objectivity, ignoring the multitude of variables that affect student evaluation of instruction. However, when considered from the formative perspective, there is more of a tendency to see the feedback contextually, understanding it as the student impression of the learning situation and appreciating its value for certain types of information.