SKIDDing in America

University teachers face many questions in evaluating course content and process. Was all of the material relevant? Is there new material to add, and if so, how do I incorporate it in the present course outline? Are the students learning what I had intended that they learn? Are there more effective ways to present the material? How is the pacing of the course: too fast or too slow? SPOT is one way to obtain information on these issues, SGID (pronounced `skid') is another.

The Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) method of course evaluation is directed at helping individual teachers answer questions similar to those posed in the above paragraph. The method not only identifies problem areas, but also generates some alternatives for the suggested revisions. Possible secondary benefits include increased student interest in and acceptance of the course material and methods.

The SKID method was developed by Joseph Clark at the Centre for Instructional Development and Research, University of Washington, Seattle and is being used at a number of universities across the United States. Implementing SGID involves only about 20 to 30 minutes of class time (directed by a facilitator other than the lecturer). The class members are asked to form small (six member) groups, preferably with persons they do not know well. The groups are asked to choose a chair/spokesperson and then to come to some consensus on the following questions:

1. What do you like about the course?
2. What do you think needs improvement?
3. How do you recommend that your suggested improvement be accomplished?

The groups are asked to report back to the entire class following 10 minutes of group discussion. The students' suggestions are collected and summarised by the facilitator using a blackboard or overhead projector. Individual student comments on the results and the evaluation process are elicited. Later, the facilitator meets with the instructor to discuss the evaluation and, if desired, to assist in developing a plan for implementing teaching and learning alternatives.

Course teachers are urged to refrain from announcing the up-coming evaluation session, to insure an element of spontaneity in response from students. Moreover, advance notice might discourage some students from attending the session. Students who are hesitant about expressing opinions in evaluation, or sceptical of evaluation due to previous experiences with more impersonal methods, are just as important to the process as those holding strong beliefs about the course and the lecturer. Student participation in the evaluation process is voluntary, however, and strict confidentiality of students' responses needs to be maintained. The lecturer is not present during the evaluation period so that students can feel more open to make comments they might feel uncomfortable in voicing directly to that person.

According to Clark, student and lecturer response to the methods has been positive. Feedback elicited by SGID has been consistent within individual classes and has helped to focus on the major issues and characteristics of courses. The SGID method is generally used as a mid-semester evaluation which provides lecturers with an opportunity to implement immediate change. Students are directly involved in the evaluation process, and the potential for their perceiving change as a result of their efforts is increased. Therefore, students feel more investment and motivation for learning in the course. Additionally, student suggestions may save the lecturer some effort and provide diversity of perspective in generating problem-solving alternatives.

For further details on SGID, and/or expressions of interest in using it with your classes, contact Owen Hicks on ext. 3845.