What is a Mid-semester Analysis Poll (MAP)?
Just as a geographical map provides guidance and direction to help orient oneself in space and make informed navigational decisions, a pedagogical MAP provides formative feedback and data to faculty to gauge students’ learning and make informed instructional decisions.
Modeled after the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) process developed at the University of Washington in 1982, the MAP process helps faculty know what students currently find helpful to their learning, while also providing faculty with practical suggestions to further improve student learning. Furthermore, since it takes place at the midpoint of the semester, faculty have time to reinforce the pedagogical practices that are effective, yet make adjustments and revisions to improve learning before the class is over.
In addition to providing useful feedback to instructors, the MAP process is also beneficial for students. The MAP process provides an opportunity for students to reflect on their learning, think about their own accountability for their learning, safely express their ideas, and feel as though their voices have been heard. Studies show that students who participate in such a feedback process demonstrate improvements in learning behavior in the form of improved motivation and engagement (Clark & Redmond, 1982).
What are the benefits of a MAP?
- Provides quantitative and qualitative data about student perceptions of a course
- Allows for in-depth student feedback and gives insight to student thinking
- Captures divergent views through a voluntary and anonymous process
- Gives students the opportunity to reflect upon their learning and feel that their voices have been heard, which tends to improve learning behavior
- Leads to course adjustments that can improve SPOT evaluations
- Is intentionally structured and thoughtfully facilitated to be an overall positive experience
How does the MAP process work?
A MAP consists of six parts:
- Request MAP:
- The process begins with the instructor submitting a MAP request that identifies a pedagogical goal, and lists potential consultation and MAP dates. A Koehler Center faculty developer will confirm scheduling, and request a course syllabus.
- Pre-MAP Consultation:
- The instructor and Koehler Center faculty developers will meet to discuss the instructor’s goals, the course, and the MAP process.
- MAP Class Visit:
- Instructors are not present during the structured, class-polling visit. During the class-polling visit, faculty developers will give students the opportunity to reflect on what is helping their learning, what is impeding their learning, and what suggestions might improve their learning. Students will discuss their thoughts in small groups and as a whole class.
- Post-MAP Consultation:
- The instructor and Koehler Center faculty developers will meet to debrief the results of the class-polling visit. Instructors will be provided with a written report that includes detailed qualitative and quantitative data, and any additional relevant resources. Together we will discuss how to use the data to make informed instructional decisions. We will also discuss and include tips on how the instructor can talk with the class about the feedback, which is a crucial part of the process.
- Implement Changes:
- The instructor will use the MAP data, resources, and notes from the Post-MAP consultation to make a plan. The instructor will discuss the feedback with students and share 1) things that are going well and will be continued; 2) things that can be changed; 3) things that can’t be changed; 4) things needing further clarification. The instructor should continue to solicit ongoing feedback about the changes made throughout the semester. Instructors are also encouraged to conduct an end-of-course survey of student learning gains related to the MAP process, which can be discussed in more detail if desired.
- Ongoing Self-Reflection:
- The instructor will receive a self-reflection guide as a resource. They are encouraged to use the guide to write a self-reflection of teaching to record thoughts about any changes implemented, and the overall impact of the MAP process. At the end of the semester, once the course is finished, instructors will receive a follow-up survey providing an opportunity to share their reflections with the Koehler Center and provide feedback on the overall impact of the MAP process.
Instructors may choose to share their written reflections with departmental leadership, or they may choose to include them in a teaching portfolio for broader peer or departmental evaluations. We encourage you to check with your department regarding these expectations.
Who can request one?
Anyone teaching at TCU can request a MAP. This is a development opportunity the Koehler Center provides to the TCU teaching community. MAPs are facilitated by Koehler Center faculty developers. For larger departmental needs, the Koehler Center can also train faculty members to facilitate MAPs within departments; this strategy is most successful for departments wishing to conduct multiple MAPs within a given semester or academic year.
Please note that conversations with Koehler Center staff are confidential. The Koehler Center will not share information generated during the MAP process with anyone but the requesting faculty member.
How do I request one?
Requests for MAPs must be submitted by the following dates.
- 2020-2021 MAP requests are currently on hold. Please check back later for more information.
To request a MAP, simply fill out the form below.
Black, B. (1998). Using the SGID method for a variety of purposes. To Improve the Academy, 17, 245–262.
Clark, D., & Redmond, M. (1982). Small group instructional diagnosis: Final report. (ED 217 954)
Diamond, N. A. (1988). S.G.I.D. (Small group instructional diagnosis): Tapping student perceptions of teaching. In E. C. Wadsworth (Ed.), A handbook for new practitioners: Professional and organizational development in higher education. New Forums Press/Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
Seldin, P. (1997). Using student feedback to improve teaching. To Improve the Academy, 16, 335-346.