1. Obtaining meaningful student
feedback and evaluations of
the learning experience in a
business English context
Chris Banister
English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
Lecturer
Regent’s University London
Contact: banisterc@regents.ac.uk

2. Agenda
 The Regent’s Language Teacher Research Project
(2014-16)
 Puzzle and teaching and learning context
 Considerations in learner feedback and evaluations
 Research tools and potentially exploitable pedagogic
activities (PEPAs)
 PEPAs in action: Review Collage and Research
Discussion activity
 Understanding
 Conclusions

3. Regent’s University London
 independent and
international, diverse
student population,
 140 student nationalities
 50 staff nationalities
(Regent’s University London 2016)

4. Language Teacher Research Project
2014-16
Regent’s Institute of Languages
and Culture (RILC)
Language Teacher Research
Project 2014-16:
Lecturers/Teachers of English,
Italian, French and Spanish
Exploratory Practice
 teacher research
 the exploration of a teaching and
learning ‘puzzle’
 core principles: enhanced
understanding, mutual
development, quality of life,
sustainability (Allwright 2005).
Project leader: Dr. Assia Rolls

5. Business English modules and
the puzzle
 Learners: Undergraduate exchange students, Upper Int (ENG5A1),
Advanced (6A1)
 Module: 3 hrs p/w, student-led components, blended aspects.
 Puzzle: Why don't I get sufficient, meaningful feedback and
evaluation of the learning experience from students?
 Puzzle origins: modular format, limited contact hours, stuffed
syllabus + limitations of formal instruments = reduce opportunity for
informal feedback and evaluations = disconnect
 To shed light on: materials, activities, methodology, pacing,
interaction and feedback=the totality of the learners’ experience
(Mortiboys 2010)
 Aim: delve deeper beyond the official surveys, obtain feedback for
the teacher but not necessarily about the teacher

6. Considerations:
 Clarity of purpose (Williams and Brennan 2004)
 Survey fatigue,duplication,ritualisation (Williams and
Brennan 2004)
 Psychological: power assymetry (Richardson 2005; cf.
Clayson and Haley 2011
 Interpretation: tendency to “filter information” (Mortiboys
2010:125) anonymity v actionability trade-off
 Importance of feedback to learners (Williams and
Brennan 2004)

7. Approaching the puzzle
Research tools
 Lesson videos
 Peer observations
 Discussions with other LTR members/project leader

8. PEPAs
PEPAs = Potentially Exploitable Pedagogic Activities
 Familiar, everyday classroom activities (surveys, group
discussions, etc.) to explore puzzle (Allwright and Hanks
2009; Hanks 2015)
 Determining the research/CPD journey (Slimani-Rolls
and Kiely 2014)
 Minimal disruption to classroom learning and teaching
(Dar 2015)

9. Potentially Exploitable
Pedagogic Activities
Needs Analysis and Tutorials: importance of dialogue (Mortiboys
2010) and maximising the potential of existing activities/tools.

10. PEPAs
Mid-module: post-it activity, traffic light survey (Espinosa 2014),

11. Focus on two PEPAs
1. Review Collage activity
2. Discussion activity focusing on research findings
related to learner evaluations and feedback

12. PEPA 1:Review Collage

13. Setting up the activity
• Explain learners are
going to reflect upon,
evaluate and review
aspects of the module.
• Show learners the
handout as a class and
ask if they recall most of
the activities.

14. Review Collage and Questions
Discussion Questions Handout
• Which language skills were
you developing when you did
this and how?
• Do you think that this activity
helped you or not? Why/not?
• How do you think you
performed when working on
this activity?
• Did you enjoy this activity?
• Would you rather have done it
differently? If so, how and
why?

15. Review Collage: Procedure
Report back to the class on the one which
provoked most discussion/interest.
Tell students to choose two activities each and to
write their reflections and evaluations.

16. Why use the Review Collage?
 Multi-faceted: review, revise, reflect, evaluate.
 Locally relevant
 In-class and blended components
 Adaptable: mid-module or end of module
 Minimal preparation (digital/paper materials)
 Obtain learner perspectives in their own words, could
resonate for future cohorts.

17. Further details
For the full procedure and more details about this
see my upcoming piece “Review Collage” in
English Teaching Professional (Issue 105 to be
published in July 2016).

18. Learner feedback and
evaluations
Transferable
skills/knowledge Peer participation
The topics and materials …
which benefit me in listening
[to] lectures given by the
lecturer of Financial Risk
Management…the skills of
presentations and report helped
me in giving another two
presentations” (ENG 6A1
student, autumn 2014)
“Discussion Board: My focus
was to increase my speed in
writing English… This activity
could be improved if
participants were more
motivated.” (ENG 6A1 student
Spring 2015)

19. Learner feedback and evaluations
Difficulty Ambiguity
If we don’t have the
final time limited
writing, I’ll like this
course more.” (ENG
5A1 student, autumn
2014)
“It is not a criticism it is
just a suggest is give to
the students more
technical
argument.”(ENG 6A1
student, spring 2015)

20. Learner feedback and evaluations
• Areas for development
“Maybe you could have
included more practical
examples of how to do
a report or an essay.”
(ENG 6A1 student,
autumn 2014)
My personal expectations
the first day were more
focusing on vocabulary
such as: merger, asset,
liability…etc. (ENG 6A1
student, autumn 2014)

21. Enhanced understanding
 Mismatch between some learners’ expectations of
the modules and the stated aim of the modules
 Clarification of module aims
 Desire for greater clarity re: written assessment
requirements
 Introduction of exemplars
 Need for a boost in the vocabulary component
 Incorporation of explicit vocabulary learning strategies
(e.g. vocab cards) with business vocabulary highlighted
in language feedback slots
 Contagious nature of lack of engagement
 Stricter guidelines for contributions to online discussion
boards

22. Improvements to quality of life in
the classroom
“I have learnt many new and useful business words.”
“The vocabulary card quiz’s. It makes you be ready and
updated.”
(end of module student feedback Dec 2015)
Reconnecting to and in dialogue with my learners

23. Phase 2 focus
 Involving the learner as partner
 Refocus on the process of obtaining learner feedback
and evaluations
 Engage with research findings
 Compare our experiences and feelings with what the
experts say
 Potential value of “learner agency (and) perspectives”
(Rowland 2011:261)
 Doubts: my students not teachers, language=very much
a tool
 A challenging new landscape (Hanks 2015)

24. PEPA 2: Discussion of research
(Adapted
from
Williams
and
Brennan
2004)

25. Questions
 Which of the above points do you agree with? Why/not?
(explanation, knowledge, personal experience, etc.)
 Can you think of any other potential advantages and
disadvantages of these ways of collecting student
feedback?
 Do you like being asked your opinion? Why/not?
 Which mechanisms do you personally prefer? Why?
 Do you always tell the truth when asked for
feedback/evaluations by teachers or institutions?
Why/not?
 B Discuss your ideas with a partner and be ready to
summarise part of your discussion to the class.

26. Enhanced understanding
 Red lines: Anonymity important, “anonymous surveys
are the most efficient way to collect honest information”
and students sometimes doubt that anonymity is real
 Student ‘buy in’: “It’s more important for me to feel that
mmy feedback is useful and they implement changes.”
 Strategic: stating that the course is too hard could
disadvantage the current cohort
 Time to build a trust relationship
(ENG 6A1 students, spring 2016)

27. Why use language/classroom
research-based discussion
activities?
 Adopts learners as research partners-teacher
researchers and learner-researchers
 Raises awareness of the purpose of such activities and
potential for student voices to be heard
 ELT activities but research-focused in line with
expectations of HE

28. Benefits: a focus on obtaining
feedback and evaluations from
learners
 Facilitates development of the reflective skill in both
learners and teachers
 Provides mutual access (teacher-learner) for greater
understanding
 Cultivates a learning environment with an open space
for ongoing dialogue
 Complements but does not duplicate official university
instruments for obtaining student feedback and
evaluations- additional and potentially rich pool of
data

29. Benefits of EP
 Potentially transformative for the teaching-research
relationship. Classroom events become a “legitimate
source of research knowledge about teaching and
learning” (Borg 2010:418)
 Brings teachers and learners together by
foregrounding and improving classroom quality of life
and enabling creativity (Hanks 2016)
 Helps cultivate quality in teaching by motivating
experienced teachers (Slimani-Rolls 2003), boosts staff
satisfaction with their practice in a “collegially supportive
environment” (Slimani-Rollls and Kiely 2014:433)
 CPD benefits: 15+ conference papers, 7/8 publications

30. Conclusion
 English language teaching and the English language
classroom in HE settings can become an interface of
learning, teaching and research
 Students can comment insightfully on the feedback and
evaluation process
 Enriched learner feedback and evaluations can help
boost quality of life in the classroom

31. Thank you and questions
 Thank you very much for listening.
 Feel free to get in touch: banisterc@regents.ac.uk
?

32. References
 Allwright, D. (2005) ‘Developing Principles for Practitioner Research: The Case of Exploratory Practice.’ The Modern Language Journal,
89 (3): 353-366.
 Allwright, D. (2009) The developing language learner : an introduction to exploratory practice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Bond, B. (2015) Exploratory Practice and the EAP practitioner. Teaching EAP [blog] 1 May 2015. Available at:
https://teachingeap.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/exploratory-practice-and-the-eap-practitioner/ [Accessed on 17th May 2016].
 Borg, S.(2010) ‘Language teacher research engagement.’ Language Teaching Research, 43 (4): 391-429.
 Clayson, D.E. and Haley, D.A. (2011) ‘Are students telling us the truth? A Critical look at the student evaluation of teaching.’ Marketing
Education Review, 21 (2): 101-112.
 Dar, Y. (2015) ‘Exploratory practice: Investigating my own classroom pedagogy.’ In D. Bullock and R. Smith (eds.) (2015) Teachers
Research! Faversham, Kent, UK: IATEFL.
 Espinosa, F. (2014) The Necessity of Needs Analysis. In 33rd Annual Colloquium TESOL France Telecom Paris Tech, Paris, France.
14-16 November 2014.
 Hanks, J. (2015) ‘Language Teachers Making sense of Exploratory Practice.’ Language Teaching Research, Jan 2015: 1-22.
 Hanks, J. (2016) ‘ “Why Exporatory Practice?’”A collaborative report.’ ELT Research 31 Feb 2016 IATEFL Research SIG
(resig.iatefl.org.)Available at: http://resig.weebly.com/issue-31.html [Accessed on 17th May 2016].
 Mortiboys, A. (2010) How to be an effective teacher in higher education: answers to lecturers' questions. Berkshire, UK: Open University
Press
 Regent’s University London (2016) ‘Facts and figures about Regent’s University London .‘ [online] Available at:
https://connect.regents.ac.uk/departments/marketingandadmissions/Pages/FactsandfiguresaboutRUL.aspx
 [Accessed on 17th May 2016].
 Slimani-Rolls, A. (2003) ‘Exploring a world of paradoxes: an investigation of group work.’ Language Teaching Research, 7 (2): 215-233.
 Slimani-Rolls, A. and Kiely, R. (2014) ‘We are the change that we seek’: developing teachers’ understanding of their classroom practice.’
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51 (4): 425-435.
 Richardson, J.T.E. (2005) ‘Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature.’ Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 30 (4):387-415.
 Williams, R. and Brennan, J. (2004) 'Collecting and using student feedback: A guide to good practice.' Open Research Online. [PDF]
Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/11875/1/Collecting_and_using_student_feedback_a_guide_to_good_practice.pdf [Accessed 20 Feb
2016].