This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 20 December 2014, At: 08:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Community Junior CollegeResearch Quarterly ofResearch and PracticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc19

FEEDBACK FROM CLASSROOMRESEARCH PROJECTSGilbert J. Cuevas aa University of Miami , FloridaPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Gilbert J. Cuevas (1991) FEEDBACK FROM CLASSROOMRESEARCH PROJECTS, Community Junior College Research Quarterly of Researchand Practice, 15:4, 381-390, DOI: 10.1080/0361697910150403

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0361697910150403

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

FEEDBACK FROM CLASSROOMRESEARCH PROJECTS

GILBERT J. CUEVASUniversity of Miami, Florida

A survey of faculty and administrators who successfullycompleted a staff development course on classroom feedback/research techniques is reported. The results indicate twodirections which classroom research activities appear to havetaken. The first is an emphasis on the assessment of teachingover student achievement and learning skills. The second oneinvolves a positive use of feedback results in the planning offollow-up instructional activities. The value of classroomresearch endeavors appears to have outweighed the time it takes toprepare the assessment instruments, to implement the activitiesand to analyze the results. The paper concludes with adiscussion of the need for institutional support systems todevelop classroom research activities.

INTRODUCTION

The assessment of instruction in higher education has tradition-ally focused upon "products" rather than the quality of theprocesses involved in teaching and learning. There have beencalls for a shift in emphasis to formative assessments. Thisshift will require a conceptualization of the "teacher as re-searcher" with the classroom as the context of the studies. Theneed for such an approach arises partly from the relatively littleimpact curriculum and instructional research has had on practice.

Action research has been defined in general as "the study ofsocial situations with a view to improving the quality of actionwithin it" (Elliot, 1981) . More specifically action research hasbeen viewed as "that research which is carried on by educationalpractitioners to solve their own problems" (Taba & Noel, 1957).More recently, Cross (1987) has promoted the idea of "instructorsas researchers" to address the improvement of instructionalpractice and student learning.

Community/Junior College, 15:381-390, 1991 381Copyright © 1991 by Hemisphere Publishing Corporation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

382 G. J. CUEVAS

The concept of classroom research has its foundations on KurtLewin's (1947) model of action research. This model involves aseries of cycles having a number of components. These componentsinclude the identification of an instructional problem, and thedesign of an intervention to solve the problem. Data arecollected and, based on the findings, subsequent plans areimplemented and assessed. From an educational perspective, theprocess encompasses the observation of student behaviors, thecollection of data on student learning, and the design, implemen-tation and formative evaluation of instructional activities. Thebasic rationale for such an approach is that changes to improvelearning must begin at the classroom level.

Miami-Dade Community College (MDCC), in collaboration with theUniversity of Miami, created a staff development course to dealwith techniques of classroom assessment/research. The underlyingfoundation of the course encompassed the need to address thequality of teaching and learning from a "grass-roots" perspective.During the 1988 Fall semester, 47 MDCC faculty and administratorsparticipated in a class given by the University of Miami. Thecourse was designed to provide participants with the skillsrequired for the collection and analysis of feedback data oninstructional and learning processes. Activities emphasizedsimulation and classroom implementation of the techniques. Thecourse was offered again a year later in 1989. At that time anadditional group of 34 MDCC faculty and administrators partici-pated.

The implementation of a classroom research project constituted oneof the requirements of the course. The framework for such aproject included three components. The first one addressed theidentification of a learning or instruction-based problem. Thesecond one involved the design and implementation of learning orteaching strategies. The third included the collection of datarelative to the outcomes of the implementation. Course partici-pants were also asked to discuss the results concerning follow-upinstructional plans.

METHODOLOGY

A survey was conducted to obtain feedback on the strategies,outcomes and perceptions of faculty and administrators who hadcarried out classroom research projects. More specifically, thesurvey attempted to seek answers to the following questions:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

FEEDBACK FROM CLASSROOM RESEARCH PROJECTS 383

1. What areas were addressed by faculty and administrators in theclassroom research projects?2. why were these areas or topics selected?3. What methods were used by faculty and administrators to obtaindata relative to the problem in question?4. What results did the class participants obtain as a result oftheir data collection efforts?5. How were the findings used in relation to teaching and learningpractices?

In addition, the author wished to assess the continued implemen-tation of classroom feedback/research techniques by course par-ticipants .

Beginning in the 1988 Fall semester and through the Fall of 1989eighty-one faculty members successfully completed the class. Eachof the participants submitted a classroom research report as oneof the requirements of the course. From this pool of projects arandom sample of 27 reports (33%) was selected This groupincluded reports from 20 instructors and 7 administrators. Nurs-ing (38%), Technology (5%), English (26%), Social Sciences (5%)and English as a second language (26%) represented the academicdisciplines of the participants.

RESULTS

A conte'nt analysis of the research reports provided the data toanswer the questions of the study.

Feedback Questions

1. what areas were addressed by participants in the classroomresearch projects?

There were three areas addressed in the projects: student academicskills, student learning skills and assessment of instruction.These areas follow the breakdown of feedback techniques presentedin Cross and Angelo's (1988) Classroom asafia.iment techniques.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

384 G. J. CUEVAS

Table 1 presents the frequency and percentage of projects for eachof the topic areas.

TABLE 1. Frequency of Projects by Topic Areas

Area Instructors

Freq. % Freq.

Adminstrators

= 2 Total

Student academic skills and

intellectual development 30 6(22)'

Student learning skills 35 14 8(30)

Assessment of instructors'

objectives, methods, materials 7 35 86 13(48)

TOTALS 20 27

'Percent of total number of instructors2Percent of total number of administrators3Percent of total number of participants

The results show 48% of the participants wished to obtain feedbackon teaching practices. The second area of interest was thedevelopment or assessment of student learning skills. In addition,most of the administrators (86%) focused on the assessment ofinstructional processes.

2. Why were these areas or topics selected?

The contents of the reports concerning this question were classi-fied by role groups and topic areas. In the area of studentacademic skills, faculty members wanted to know whether thestudents had learned the material presented in class or if certaininstructional activities had been successful in terms of studentachievement. A faculty interest in determining the students'learning difficulties and learning styles summarized the reasonsgiven for projects in the area of study skills. Two facultyparticipants and one administrator focused on strategies designedto assist students improve their learning skills.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

FEEDBACK FROM CLASSROOM RESEARCH PROJECTS 385

Projects which dealt with instructional processes explored theassessment of specific teaching strategies and/or materials.Administrators modified the approaches to fit aspects of managementor staff development within their departments. One administrator'3project provided feedback on the degree to which classroomresearch practices were being used by faculty who had participatedin the course.

3. What methods were used by faculty to obtain data relative tothe problem in question?

The techniques used in 85% of the classroom research projects wereadapted from those presented in Cross and Angelo's (1988) Class-room assessment techniques: A handbook for tsachera. Thirty-fivepercent of these participants used two or more feedback techniquesor a combination of feedback and summative assessment strategiesto collect the data. Ten percent of the data collectionstrategies were originally developed for the particular project.It is interesting to note that in 40% of the reports the feedbackstrategies became the instructional "treatment" the participantswere interested in assessing.

4. What results did the faculty obtain as an outcome of their datacollection efforts?

The reported results were grouped into the three topic areas. Theresults were then examined from two perspectives:•Did the results yield the information sought? Were the resultspositive?•Were the results useful in the design of follow-up instructionalplans?Table 2 shows the findings from this phase of the survey.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

386 G. J. CUEVAS

Table 2Evaluation of the results obtain by topic areas

Topic Area Question Yes (%) No (%)

Student academic

skills

•Were the findings

positive? 6 (100)

•Were the results/data

generated

useful for planning

follow-up

activities? 3 (50) 3 (50)

Student learning 'Did the results yield the

skills information sought? 8 (100)

•Was the information

useful in planning

activities to help

students become more

proficient learners? 6 (75) 2 (25)

Assessment of

instruction

•Did the assessment yield

the feedback requested? 11(85)- 1 (8)'

•Was the data useful to

improve/

change instructional

practice? 6 (46)- 2 (13)

'One respondent was not sure.2The respondent found the implementation of the feedback techniqueto be faulty.3Five respondents were not sure.

Overall, participants were very positive about the results ob-tained from the classroom feedback/research activities. It isinteresting to note that half of the participants who addressedstudent academic skills appear to have perceived the activity as asummative evaluation of student achievement. These respondents

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

FEEDBACK FROM CLASSROOM RESEARCH PROJECTS 387

indicated that there was no need for follow-up based upon theresults of the project.

The five participants who assessed their results as negativeindicated this was due to either the lack of well-plannedactivities or faulty instruments. This can be interpreted as thedevelopment of an evaluative sensitivity on the part of thefaculty relative to the use of intervention and assessmenttechniques.

5. How were these findings used in relation to teaching/learningpractices?

Data concerning this question were obtained from the plans forfollow-up activities the respondents outlined in their reports.The responses were grouped according to the areas addressed in thestudies.

The plans described in the research reports ranged from, "I willcontinue to use a variety of feedback techniques as part of theclass activities," to the restructuring of instructional activi-ties. Overall, there appeared to be a general effort byparticipants to "align" assessment with instruction and to use theresults of the assessment in the planning of follow-up teachingand learning activities

Follow-up surveys

Another objective of the survey was to determine the extent towhich implementation of classroom feedback/research techniques hadcontinued. Three months after the completion of the first courseAronovitz (1989) conducted a survey of faculty and administratorswho had completed the class to determine the use of feedback/research techniques. Seventy percent of the first group offaculty who participated in the Fall '88 class responded. Eighty-four percent of them said that they had continued to conduct someform of classroom research. Other results indicated that 55% ofthe participants stated they had changed their teaching as aresult of the feedback/research activities, and 61% of theserespondents indicated they had recommended the techniques tocolleagues. Twenty-six percent felt the time required for datacollection and analysis exceeded the benefit of the results.

A follow-up study was conducted by Herrera (1990) a year after thefirst survey to determine the degree to which the original groupof participants was continuing to use classroom feedback/researchtechniques. Sixty-nine percent of the faculty members andadministrators returned completed questionnaires. The resultsindicated faculty and administrators who took the initial coursehad continued to implement feedback/research strategies. Thisfollow-up survey supported the findings of the previous study. Italso indicated that participants found the strategies practicaland supportive of efforts to improve the teaching/learning pro-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

388 G. J. CUEVAS

cess. One complaint still indicated by participants concerned theamount of time needed to prepare the instruments, conduct theactivities and analyze the feedback data.

REMARKS ABOUT THE RESULTS

The survey reported is viewed by the researcher as a vehicle toobtain feedback information on the relative effectiveness thestaff development course. The following comments reflect theinterpretation of the results for course modifications.

First, assessment of teaching practices was most frequentlyaddressed in the projects. This appears to be a reflection offaculty concerns, or their interpretation of how to improvestudent learning. There needs to be a clear indication in thecourse that student learning can be improved through approacheswhich balance the assessment of student achievement, learningskills and teaching practice.

The results also indicated two areas which could be interpreted asmisconceptions of the purposes of classroom research. One areaconcerned the role of the assessment of student achievement.There was a tendency by the participants to report studentachievement results without a discussion of learning or instruc-tional implications. The role of the assessment of learningoutcomes needs to be clarified in the staff development course sothat the results are viewed as part of a formative evaluation ofinstruction.

The other area involved the nature of feedback given by theinstructor on student learning skills. This appeared to be viewedas a needs assessment. Strategies for improving these skills werenot frequently addressed in the projects. The staff developmentcourse needs to make a stronger emphasis on strategies faculty canteach students to become proficient learners.

Finally, the results indicated a need to place more emphasis onthe notion of classroom or action research as a "cyclicalactivity." Faculty may perceive the collection of feedback dataas "mini-summative" evaluation activities, separate from theprocess of making mid-course changes in instruction. The conceptof the "teacher as learner" needs to be conveyed more emphatically.

Concluding remarks

Initially, this researcher was not sure of the degree to whichadministrators would relate and be able to implement the conceptscovered in the classroom feedback course. Given the results ofthis survey, administrators have been able to adapt the techniquesto management situations. From verbal comments given, theseparticipants have reported the value of feedback strategies inhelping faculty develop professionally and in "fine tuning"

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

FEEDBACK FROM CLASSROOM RESSEARCH PROJECTS 389

administrative procedures. MDCC administrators who have taken thecourse have been very creative in the generation and adaptation oftechniques to accomplish these goals.

It was a rewarding experience to see faculty integrate assessmentand instructional activities to a high degree. This followsCohen's (1987) idea of instructional alignment in which "stimulusconditions match among three instructional components: intendedoutcomes, instructional processes, and instructional assessment."

Feedback/classroom research activities take time to prepare,conduct and analyze. The value of the results obtained from theseefforts seem to outweigh the time consuming factor of the processfor some faculty members. How do we reach the faculty for whomtime spent on these endeavors is an obstacle?

If the concept of classroom feedback/research is to be successfullyimplemented at the community college level, there needs to be aninstitutional support system to facilitate faculty research ac-tivities. This support system may involve:

•networks for faculty to assist each other in the development andimplementation of assessment strategies,•availability of a variety of assessment "tools" which can bereadily used or adapted to learning/teaching situations,•assistance with data analysis,•availability of "model" instructional strategies which facultycan use to follow-up assessment results, and

•release time for classroom research

Without an appropriate support system the goal of reconceptualizingthe role of faculty as "instructors as researchers" and "teachersas learners" will not come to fruition.

REFERENCES

Aronovitz, F. (1988). Classroom research survey. Report toMDCC Teaching and Learning Commitee. Miami: MDCC.

Cohen, S.A. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching forthe magic bullet. Educational Researcher, November, 16-20.

Cross, K.P., & Angelo, T. (1988). Classroom assessment techniques:A handbook for faculty. University of Michigan:National Center for Research to Improve PostsecondaryTeaching and Learning.

Cross, K.P. (1987). The adventures of education in Wonderland:Implementing education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, March,496-502.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

390 G. J. CUEVAS

Elliot, J. (1981). Action research: A framework for self-evaluation in schools. Working Paper #l. University ofWest Anglia, UK: Center for Applied Research in Education.

Taba, H., & Noel, E. (1957). Action research: A case study.Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Herrera, A. (1989). A survey of the utilization on of classroomresearch techniques by faculty and administrators ofMiami—Dade Community College. Miami: Unpublished report.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:25

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14