BRM Project

Topic: A study on the usefulness of teaching feedback methods at IIM BG

Group 5

Table of contents
Abstract 1
Introduction 1
Literature Review 2
Methodology 3
Research Design 4
Results 6
Discussions 10
References 10

Abstract

This diagnostic study aims to assess the usefulness of teaching feedback methods at the Indian Institute of
Management Bodh Gaya. While there is a system of a mandatory course feedback system, there are
doubts about its effectiveness and usefulness. Also, about the impact of biases. Investigating the
international debate on Student Evaluation of Teaching(SET), the research explores the debate around the
consequences and validity. We have tried to assess the potential of SET to throw light on how to improve
teaching methods, ensure fairness, and balance faculty positions. Judging the importance of the “feedback
mechanism” and the cultural background of IIM Bodh Gaya with its compulsory feedback framework and
the financial penalty, this study emphasizes the need for further investigation. Taking help from existing
literature and building upon it, this research aims to provide an articulate understanding of student
feedback methods and their impact on IIM Bodh Gaya’s environment of learning and teaching using
various statistical tests like t-test, correlation, regression, and descriptive analysis of the responses
received.

Introduction

An effective feedback mechanism in an institute is an essential tool for improving the teaching
methodology that helps students learn and makes the overall learning process insightful. The purpose of
choosing this topic was to analyze the usefulness of the current feedback system employed by IIMBG and
find ways to improve the system for teachers and students by helping the instructors reflect on their
teaching and make changes accordingly so as to progress students’ learning.
Business Problem: To assess the usefulness of teaching feedback methods at IIM BG, what
improvements can be identified to enhance the integration of student feedback into teaching practices that
can benefit the students and the faculty?

Business Objective: To conduct a comprehensive study on the usefulness of teaching feedback methods
at IIM BG, to understand the current practices, identify challenges, and propose recommendations for
optimizing the utilization of student feedback in faculty's teaching methodologies.

Problem Statement: Despite the presence of teaching feedback mechanisms at IIM BG, challenges may
hinder the efficient incorporation of student feedback into teaching practices, or the feedback might be of
no significant usage owing to the disinterest of the respondents. The institution might face issues related
to the collection, analysis, and utilization of feedback, impacting the overall effectiveness of the teaching
and learning experience.

Literature Review

Introduction:
The instructional methodology at the Indian Institute of Management Bodh Gaya (IIM BG) uniquely
emphasizes a singular mandated course feedback model. This investigation scrutinizes the efficacy of this
distinctive feedback approach, recognizing its pivotal role in supporting IIM BG's commitment to
academic excellence. The overarching objective is to comprehend its impact on faculty, students, and
institutional practices, aiming to enhance teaching methodologies and shift student perceptions from mere
compliance to genuine engagement. This literature review critically examines performance evaluation
systems, specifically student evaluations of teaching (SETs) at IIM Bodh Gaya.

Effects of Performance Feedback: Challenging Traditional Assumptions:

The organizational psychology literature has long acknowledged the positive motivational effects of
performance feedback (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Feedback, deemed a crucial resource, serves as a
significant source of information at both organizational and individual levels, contributing to human
resource interventions (Murphy, 1999). This review critically assesses performance evaluation systems,
specifically SETs, within an academic institution.

The Controversy:
The use of SETs in tertiary education has ignited considerable debate, particularly in environments highly
valuing academic freedom. Despite criticisms, the emphasis on quality and reflective practice has led to
widespread SET usage in the USA, UK, Australia, and parts of Europe, with slower adoption in Ireland
(Ashford & Cummings, 1983). This trend has permeated premier institutes in India, fueled by legislative,
policy, and quality-oriented perspectives, along with faculty demands for structured feedback.

The Case Against Student Evaluations:

Critics argue that relying on SETs may introduce bias, with factors like student motivation and anticipated
grades influencing evaluations (Cashin, 1988). SETs are sometimes criticized as 'personality contests,'
lacking validity in assessing teaching efficacy (Tomasco, 1980). Concerns also arise about grade inflation,
a lowering of academic standards, and subjective evaluations influenced by demographics (Calderon et
al., 1996). Critics contend that students lack expertise to evaluate teachers accurately, potentially leading
to focus on less challenging material (Murphy, 1999).

Some scholars question the cost-benefit ratio of implementing SET systems, while others argue for their
role as low-cost evaluation alternatives (Greenwald & Gilmore, 1997). However, critics like Johnson
(2000) argue that the adoption of SET systems primarily serves bureaucratic needs rather than educational
purposes. The prevailing sentiment is that SETs, influencing teachers' rewards, shift power dynamics
within academic institutions.

Case for Student Evaluation of Teaching:

Despite criticisms, commentators support SETs for providing valuable insights into teaching
effectiveness, equity, faculty focus on students, and enthusiasm for course content (Stockham & Amann,
1994). The developmental opportunities offered by student feedback are often overlooked (Hand & Rowe,
2001). SETs can prevent unrepresentative information proliferation and identify teaching-related
problems through representative samples in specific class settings, especially in larger or diverse
classrooms.

Using a teaching-related measurement instrument can balance the academic's professional role by
recognizing teaching dimensions in professional development (Radmacher & Martin, 2001). Brookfield
(1995) advocates formative feedback systems, emphasizing trust and development over fear or censure.
Despite debates, SETs have the potential to enhance teaching methods, promote equity, and balance the
academic role.

Focus on "Feedback Reaction" & Perceived Seriousness:

This review identifies a gap in understanding the importance of 'feedback reaction' in existing literature.
Individual reactions to performance feedback impact professional development efforts. Focusing on
participants' reactions can enhance the potential of feedback systems, fostering meaningful dialogues
within the academic institution (De Nisi & Kluger, 2000).
There are a lot of factors affecting change perceived positive change in such organizations. One that stood
out to us was that faculty members agree that students do not take SET seriously, with students once again
being less likely to agree.
The only issue upon which no difference in perceptions was found is the suggestion that most instructors
do not take student evaluations seriously; 29 percent of students and 30 percent of faculty agreed or
strongly agreed with this statement. (Jane Sojka, Ashok K. Gupta, and Dawn R. Deeter-Schmelz)

Cultural Context and Policy Implications:

In the nuanced cultural context of IIM BG, the mandated course feedback, accompanied by a 2000-rupee
financial penalty, assumes significance (IPM Policy Manual). This policy is crucial in a premier
institution where class participation is a variable factor, potentially exacerbating a perceived 'personality
contest.' Understanding the interplay between institutional policies, course structure, and subjective
assessments is crucial for comprehending the teaching and feedback landscape at IIM BG.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, this literature review explores the efficacy of SETs at IIM BG, navigating global debates,
acknowledging biases, and potential pitfalls. Despite concerns, a strong case emerges for the valuable
insights SETs provide, promoting equity, improving teaching methods, and balancing academic roles. The
review underscores the need to understand 'feedback reaction' and highlights intricate dynamics within
IIM BG's cultural context, where a mandated course feedback model, coupled with a fine, plays a pivotal
role. This sets the stage for subsequent diagnostic research, aiming to contribute nuanced insights to the
discourse on teaching feedback methods and their impact on IIM BG as an academic institution.

Methodology

Hypothesis Formation: We formed the hypothesis based on our findings from the literature review and
interpretation of the research problem.

H0: The current teaching feedback methods at IIM BG are effective.

H1: The current teaching feedback methods at IIM BG are not effective.

To assess the effectiveness of the feedback methodology, we need to divide this multifaceted topic into
smaller hypotheses to test

1. Satisfaction level of students and faculty with the current feedback system, using a t-test:

Ho= satisfaction of professors = satisfaction of students

H1= satisfaction of professors ≠ satisfaction of students

2. Cronbach alpha between the constructs “how serious the students think that the faculty is” and
“if the feedback provided by the students is being considered” to check if they measure the same
concept.

3. The correlation between the perceived faculty seriousness (by the students’ perception) and the
positive changes in the teaching methodology.

Ho= B1=0 suggesting there is no relationship between positive change and perceived faculty
seriousness

H1= B1≠0, suggesting there is not enough evidence to prove there's no relationship between
positive change and perceived faculty seriousness

4. Bivariate Regression analysis on “perceived faculty seriousness” and the “perceived positive
changes in the teaching methodology” directly impacts students' overall learning satisfaction.
 Research Design

The type of research is diagnostic: We will try to understand the current practices, identify challenges, and
propose recommendations for optimizing the utilization of student feedback in faculty teaching
methodologies for the students and teachers at IIM Bodh Gaya.

Methods of Collecting Data:

We collected data with the help of Surveys from students and teaching faculties. We collected data in both
online and offline modes. The Survey included open-ended and objective questions based on nominal
and Likert scales.

Surveys: Administer online questionnaires through email and pen paper questionnaires to faculty,
measuring

● If the students think the faculty is serious about the feedback and if it is taken into consideration
(Measured through a Likert scale)
● How satisfied the students and faculty are with the feedback (measured through a likert scale).
● If the students can observe any positive changes in the teaching methodology after the feedback
has been taken.
● If faculties take personal feedback.
● Difficulty faced in the implementation of feedback suggestions.
● What recommendations and suggestions they would suggest to improve the existing feedback
system.

Sampling:

● Convenience sampling: Target interviews towards faculty and students that we know and are
reachable.
● Purposive sampling: We intentionally chose the faculty we believed would best suit our research.
We knew the purpose of the research and only went to the faculty who were relevant and only
went to the faculty who had taken the feedback atleast and were there in the institution for a
sufficient amount of time.
● Simple random Sampling: The participants, specifically the students, were selected purely out of
chance. We floated the form in our unofficial and informal groups and sent a mail asking people
to complete the questionnaire.
● Measurement: Open-ended questions, nominal and Likert scales.

Concepts and Constructs:

Effectiveness of the system (Student and Faculty)

- Positive Changes: Ask the students if they feel that positive changes can be seen after the
feedback is submitted, and ask the faculty if there was any improvement in the scores of two
successive batches owing to the adoption of different teaching strategies. Moreover, we asked the
 faculty if the collected feedback (by the administrators and personally, if applicable) helps them
improve their teaching methodology and if they see positive changes after implementing the
collected feedback.
- Perceived Seriousness: Asking the students if they think that the faculty is serious about the
whole feedback system and if they incorporate any changes in their teaching methodology as per
the feedback received
- Transparency: Ask the students if they perceive the feedback system to be transparent and what
the different fields they can see changes in owing to the feedback mechanism.
- Satisfaction level: We asked how satisfied the students and faculty are with the current feedback
practices and what changes they would like to see in the system to improve it further. Moreover,
we also asked the faculty about any problems they faced while implementing the feedback and
what kind of adjustments they would like in order to apply the feedback smoothly.

Results

Survey results: Field and batch-wise data from professors and students.

Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive analysis of Student responses:

1. Student Satisfaction: The mean satisfaction score is 2.74 out of 5, with a standard deviation of 0.969.
This indicates that the student's overall satisfaction level is average or more on the dissatisfied side, which
shows tat there is a need for improvement in the current feedback mechanism.
2. Perceived faculty seriousness: The mean score for perceived faculty seriousness is 2.72 out of 5, with
a standard deviation of 1.077. This indicates that students perceive that the faculty does not take feedback
seriously. This can be a reason for dissatisfaction that might cause students not to provide their
suggestions in the future which would further enlarge the gap between problems faced while learning and
teaching methodology.

3. Positive changes: The mean score for positive changes is 1.87 out of 3, with a standard deviation of
0.784. This suggests that based on their feedback, most students have not witnessed many positive
changes in teaching methods or are not in the position to assess if any changes are being made owing to
non-repetition of the same course or faculty.

4. Taken into consideration: The mean score for feedback being taken into consideration is 1.92 out of 3,
with a standard deviation of 0.711. This indicates that most students do not believe that their feedback is
considered for improving teaching methods, and they can see any change in the teaching methodology as
the course is not continued after the feedback.

5. Perceived importance: The mean score for the perceived importance of faculty feedback is 3.88 out of
5, with a standard deviation of 0.981. This indicates that students perceive feedback as important for
enhancing the overall learning experience, while there are some students who do not regard it as an
important tool for enhancing their learning.

6. Transparency: The mean score for transparency is 2.86 out of 5, with a standard deviation of 0.921.
This indicates that students perceive the faculty as somewhat transparent about the changes implemented
as a result of feedback, while they are still uncertain about it.

Teachers' Responses Descriptive analysis:

1. Personal Feedback Collection Practice: Judging from the data, teachers at IIMBG usually collect
personal feedback and have a personal feedback system. This can be due to personal preferences or the
need to improve administrative data collection methodology.

2. Betterment After Individual Feedback: The average rating for improvement after implementation of
feedback is 2.68 out of 3. We can judge by this data that teachers perceive their teaching is positively
affected after the personal feedback and regard it as important.

3. Change in Student Scores Due to Feedback Adoption: As per our data, faculties are not sure there are
any changes in the scores of two successive batches owing to the feedback implemented. This can be
owing to changing course outlines, no concrete measures to calculate the changes, or simply
non-responsiveness.

4. Satisfaction with Administration Feedback: Teachers generally find the administration feedback
useful, with an average satisfaction score of 3.94 out of 5. The administration feedback is considered
somewhat helpful and provides some insights for the teachers to improve their teaching methodology.
Inferential Analysis
T- Test Results

Tools used:
1. Past
2. Excel

We’ve used a 2 sample t-test to compare the means of samples of students and faculties and draw
conclusions about the greater population.
Hypothesis:
Ho: μ1=μ2
H1: μ1≠ μ2

The constructs that we measured are the Satisfaction Level of Students and the Satisfaction
Level of Faculties. The test results show that, statistically, there is a significant difference
between the means of the two groups. We did this test to determine if the two groups' satisfaction
levels was equal. To check whether the students are as satisfied as the teachers are. As we can
see here, The p-value for the two-tailed t-test is 0.008355, which is significantly less than 0.05.
This shows that professors are more satisfied with the feedback system while the students aren’t.

This means that we can reject the null hypothesis since we don’t have enough evidence to
support the statement that means of the two groups are equal.

Bivariate Regression
Constructs: Perceived faculty seriousness and positive changes observed after the feedback
method.
We wanted to see if the perceived seriousness of faculty by the students towards the feedback has
any impact on the positive changes observed after the implementation.

● Dependent variable = “positive changes,”

● Independent variable = “perceived seriousness.”

To calculate perceived faculty seriousness, we took the average of two parameters which
measured how seriously faculty took the feedback method and if the feedback given was taken
into consideration. Both of these constructs were measured by the perception of students as they
are the consumers of the system, and their perception affects the whole effectiveness of the
feedback mechanism.

With a positive correlation of 0.529, we found the

Cronbach alpha to be 0.6925; since the value is above
0.6, it falls in the range of satisfactory internal
consistency.

Now we come to the constructs- perceived faculty

seriousness and perceived positive changes; we found a
positive correlation of 0.60645, indicating a moderately
strong positive relationship.

We found the Cronbach alpha to be 0.755; since the value is above 0.6, it falls in the range of
satisfactory internal consistency. They are covarying hence we moved forward.
 y= -0.0061288 + 0.69157x

This means that as the values of the seriousness construct increase, the values of positive changes
also tend to increase. The slope of the regression line is positive, which confirms this
relationship.

- The slope coefficient (a) is 0.69157, which is positive and significant (p-value < 0.001).
This means that for each unit increase in the seriousness construct score, there is an
increase of 0.69157 units in the “positive changes observed” score.

- The intercept coefficient (b) is -0.0061288, which is negative and not significant (p-value
> 0.05).
This means that when the seriousness construct score is 0, the predicted positive changes
normalized score is very close to 0.

- R squared value = 0.36778

This says that around 36% of the variance in the dependent variable of Positive changes
can be explained by the independent variable of Perceived Seriousness in the regression
model.
This shows that about 36.77% of the data can be explained. In other words, there exists a
significant positive relationship between the "seriousness construct" and "positive
changes observed" variables.

- The p-value for the slope is very small, indicating that there is a significant relationship
between the "seriousness construct" and "positive changes normalized" variables.
 Discussions

Quantitative aspects

● T-test: The t-test compares the means of two groups. It helps us figure out if there is a difference
between the means of these two groups that is statistically significant.
- We did the t-test to find out if the mean satisfaction level of teachers with the current
feedback system is statistically different from the mean satisfaction level of students.
- The test was conducted to analyze what aspect of the feedback mechanism needs to be
addressed first to enhance the overall satisfaction level and, thus effectiveness of the
system.
- We wanted to see if the students who are directly affected by the feedback are as satisfied
as the teachers. Our hypothesis found a significant difference between the two groups,
and the faculty is more satisfied with the system than the students.
- To address the problem of unsatisfied students, we asked them open-ended questions on
how to improve the current system.
- Further, we tried to increase the satisfaction level of students by measuring the aspects
that can impact satisfaction level, namely the perceived seriousness of faculty members
and positive changes observed.

● Correlation: Correlation checks how strongly and in what way two variables are connected.
- It only means that they move in some way together, not that one causes the other.
- Pearson correlation coefficient ranges from -1 to 1.
- It helps to see that variations in one variable might be linked to changes in another.
- We did the correlation analysis to check whether students' perceptions of the teacher’s
seriousness and consideration construct are related. To check the relationship between
them.
- We also found a correlation between Perceived faculty seriousness and positive changes.
To see if how the students perceive faculty’s attitude towards the feedback has a relation
with positive changes or not.
- According to our results, both of them were found to be correlated, which implies that if
students believe their teachers are taking their suggestions seriously, it will also affect the
perception of positive changes.

● Cronbach alpha: Cronbach alpha is a measure of reliability and helps assess if the underlying
constructs measure the same concept.
-We took out the Cronbach for perceived seriousness and consideration.
-According to our findings, the value came out to be 0.6925, which shows that both the
constructs measure the same concept.
- For the regression analysis, we grouped both of these values and found the relationship
between perceived seriousness and observed positive changes.
 ● Regression is a way to use statistics to model the connection between a dependent
variable (what you want to guess) and one or more independent factors (what you think
might have an effect on the dependent variable).
- The data points are used to draw a line or curve showing how the factors are related.
- We found regression between Positive changes and the perceived seriousness construct.
We wanted to see how the changes in perceived seriousness affect the positive changes.
- According to our research, we found that with an increase in seriousness, there is an
increase in positive changes observed.

We discovered that the current feedback system at the institute had significant potential for enhancement.

Qualitative aspects and shortcomings

● Need for personal feedback: Although the teachers were content with the current approach,
most still prefer receiving personal feedback.

● Real-time feedback: Professors and students indicated real-time data requirements.

● Unstaisfaction of students: Although not the most adept at assessing the current issue, the
students, who are the consumers, are mostly unsatisfied with the current methods. Students view
the feedback as a deadline due to the mandatory clause and financial penalties, often completing
it insincerely.

● Students' perception: The student's perception of the teacher's seriousness to feedback

significantly influenced the positive changes reported in the regression analysis. We deduced
from the student data that they believe teachers do not value their comments, leading to a
decrease in their satisfaction ratings. Feedback is collected at the end of the term, leaving
insufficient time for individuals to evaluate if their proposals are being put into practice. It is
possible that they may not have the same opinions or take the same course from the same
professor again.

● Lack of qualitative data: Teachers receive cumulative scores of student responses rather than
qualitative data, which does not give the faculty a concrete answer on which area to improve. The
timeliness of the feedback is seen as ineffective as it is received after the course has concluded.

● Biasness and non-responsiveness: Faculty hesitated to criticize the administration when

contacted in person, so anonymous forms and surveys were used instead. Moreover, several
participants declined to respond to questions concerning personal comments due to their
opposition to the institution's policies.

● Assurance of anonymity: The students were skeptical about the anonymity of the collected
feedback and hence avoided writing negative comments for fear that their marks would be
impacted negatively.
 Future Scope

1. A more in-depth look at certain problems:

The study points out problems with adding feedback, but it could go into more detail
about what those problems are.
- Talk to and hold focus groups with students and teachers to find out how they
feel about problems such as privacy concerns.
- Actionable feedback: Does the faculty get clear input that they can use to make
their lessons better? What changes can be made to the feedback system to make it
give more detailed and helpful advice?

2. Other ways to get feedback:

We can look into other input systems that work with or add to the current one.

- Peer feedback: Faculties that have been in the institute for quite some while can
help the faculties that have joined the institue recently.
- 360-degree feedback: Having a feedback system where the student and more
experienced faculties can provide feedback on a faculty's teaching method. This
could also be done through the senior faculty sitting through a lecture and
assessing the effectiveness of the teaching method.

3. Domain-wise data analysis: This might help us find relationships between different
domains and the usefulness of feedback in general. For example, having feedback in
subjects like marketing and HRM might be more useful than the fields that have a limited
way of teaching. Knowing the need for feedback as per the field would help get a holistic
view of the students' needs in that subject.

Conclusion

The mandated teaching feedback system at IIM Bodh Gaya has potential but still faces many
challenges. While the teachers may find it useful and insightful, the students still believe it lacks
transparency and perceive it as ineffective. A majority of students remain unsatisfied. Some of the
suggestions are to collect qualitative data, look into different ways to give feedback, be more
open and honest, give faculty feedback that they can use, and address the cultural setting. More
transparency will also change the perception of students and make them believe that the faculty is
more serious about their recommendations and suggestions, this would affect the positive changes
observed in the teaching methodology. IIM Bodh Gaya can make a better feedback system that
helps both students and teachers by making these changes and then looking at how they will
affect things in the long run. This will eventually make learning better for everyone.
 References

1. (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hackman-and-Oldhams-Job-Characteristics-Model-1
980_fig1_248906385
2. (Ashford & Cummings, 1983) https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-10912-001
3. (Cashin, 1988) https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED302567
4. (Tomasco, 1980) https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1982-04508-001
5. (Calderon et al., 1996)
https://www.proquest.com/docview/210894898?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=tr
ue&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals
6. Greenwald & Gilmore, 1997)
https://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Gwald_Gillmore_JEdP_1997.OCR.pdf
7. Johnson (2000)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220040324_Cooperative_learning_methods_A_
meta-analysis
8. (Stockham & Amann, 1994) https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/files/tcheval.pdf
9. (Hand & Rowe, 2001) “Evaluation of student feedback” in the Journal of Contemporary
Issues in Business and Government
10. (Radmacher & Martin, 2001) https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-11646-002
11. Brookfield (1995)
https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2290672
12. De Nisi & Kluger, 2000). https://www.jstor.org/stable/4165614
13. (Jane Sojka, Ashok K. Gupta, and Dawn R. Deeter-Schmelz)
file:///C:/Users/heyia/Downloads/Sojka-StudentFacultyPerceptions-2002%20(1).pdf
14. (IPM Policy Manual)