4 Administration and Closing the Loop
4.1 Three touchpoints model
The formative feedback process can be used at any point in the term — once, twice, or at multiple touchpoints. Different dimensions of learning are most actionable at different stages, and the framework below suggests which dimensions fit naturally at each stage.
| Touchpoint | Timing | Recommended Dimensions | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early | Weeks 2–3 | Prior Knowledge, Knowledge Organization | Students are orienting to the course; feedback on whether the course is connecting to what they know and how it is organized is most actionable here |
| Mid | Weeks 6–8 | Motivation, Practice & Feedback, Student Development & Course Climate | Students have enough experience to report on engagement, the quality of practice and feedback, and the classroom climate |
| Late | Weeks 11–12 | Mastery, Self-Directed Learning | Students can reflect on skill development and metacognitive growth; there is still time for the instructor to adjust the final weeks |
This is a framework, not a prescription. An instructor might use only the mid-term touchpoint. Another might use all three but select only one or two dimensions at each. The instrument is a menu: faculty choose the dimensions that match their course goals and the timing that makes sense for their schedule.
4.2 Mode
Two modes are recommended. Instructors should choose the one that best fits their course:
4.2.1 Option A: In-class administration (~5 minutes)
- The instructor distributes a brief paper form or displays a link/QR code to an online form
- Students complete the feedback anonymously during class time (approximately 5 minutes)
- The instructor may remain in the room (unlike the summative SPLE, the formative feedback process is not an evaluative instrument and does not require the instructor to leave)
- If using paper, the instructor collects the forms; if using an online form, responses are submitted digitally
4.2.2 Option B: Online administration (3-day window)
- The instructor sends students a link to an anonymous online form (Google Forms, Qualtrics, or similar)
- The form is open for 3 days
- The instructor sends one reminder during the window
- Responses are anonymous
In-class administration is preferred because it typically produces higher response rates and takes only a few minutes. However, online administration may be more practical for large-enrollment courses or courses with irregular meeting patterns.
Several universities have deployed online platforms that allow instructors to build and deploy formative feedback surveys in minutes. UC Irvine’s EEE Evaluations system, for example, lets instructors select dimensions, choose items, set a collection window, and view results — all through a self-service web interface. Implementing a similar tool at Cal Poly would not require building from scratch; the CTLT could adapt existing survey infrastructure to offer a comparable experience.
4.3 Anonymity
All responses must be anonymous. The feedback should not collect names, student IDs, or any other identifying information. If using an online platform, the instructor should verify that the platform’s settings do not record respondent identities or email addresses.
4.4 Supplementary open-ended items
In addition to the structured items drawn from the seven dimensions, instructors may include open-ended questions at any touchpoint. The following three types of items are recommended as a starting set:
An open-ended item asking students to identify aspects of the course that are helping their learning. This provides positive reinforcement and helps the instructor understand which practices to continue.
An open-ended item asking for constructive suggestions about the learning experience. The framing should keep the focus on the student’s experience rather than inviting a judgment of the instructor.
An open-ended item providing space for concerns that may not fit neatly into the first two — issues of climate, inclusivity, accessibility, or anything else the student wants the instructor to know.
These open-ended items serve their intended purpose — giving students a voice and giving instructors actionable information — in the formative context where results go only to the instructor. As discussed in Chapter 2, this is the appropriate home for unstructured feedback.
4.5 Closing the loop
The most critical step in the formative feedback process is closing the loop — the instructor’s public response to the feedback received. Without this step, the feedback is a data-collection exercise that may actually reduce student trust if students feel their feedback was ignored.
4.5.1 What “closing the loop” means
Within one week of collecting feedback, the instructor should dedicate 5–10 minutes of class time to:
Acknowledge the feedback. Thank students for participating and confirm that the responses were read.
Summarize the themes. Identify 2–3 themes that emerged from the responses. Be specific: “Several of you mentioned that the pace of lectures is too fast” is more effective than “I got some feedback about the course.”
State what will change (if anything). If the feedback points to a change the instructor is willing and able to make, say so: “Starting next week, I’m going to pause more often during lectures for questions.”
Acknowledge what will not change, and why. This is as important as stating what will change. Students respect transparency about constraints. What erodes trust is silence. If the feedback points to something the instructor cannot or will not change, explain why: “A few of you asked for fewer assignments, but the assignment sequence is designed to build skills progressively, so I’m going to keep the current schedule. What I can do is provide clearer guidance on how to prioritize your time.”
4.5.2 Template for closing the loop
Instructors may find the following template useful for structuring their in-class response:
Thank you for completing the feedback check-in. I read every response. Here is what I heard and how I plan to respond.
What’s working well:
- [Theme 1, in the students’ words]
- [Theme 2]
What you’d like to see changed:
- [Theme 1]: Here is what I plan to do about this: [specific action]
- [Theme 2]: I understand this concern. Here is why the current approach is set up this way: [brief explanation]. What I can adjust is: [specific action, if any]
Other concerns raised:
- [If applicable, address any climate or environment concerns with care and specificity]
I appreciate your willingness to share your experience. If you have follow-up thoughts, my office hours are [time/place] and you can always reach me at [email].
4.6 In sum
The Formative Learning Feedback process complements the summative Student Perceptions of Learning Experience by covering the dimensions of effective teaching that students can observe and report on but that fall outside what they can validly evaluate for personnel purposes. It is voluntary, developmental, and shared only with the instructor — making it the appropriate home for both structured feedback on teaching practices and the open-ended questions that the literature identifies as too susceptible to bias for inclusion in a personnel file. The seven dimensions, drawn from Ambrose et al. (2010), give faculty a research-grounded menu of feedback options they can deploy at any point in the term, on their own terms, in service of their own growth as educators.
4.7 Bibliography
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., and Norman, M. K. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Angelo, T. A., and Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Austin, A. E., Bates, S. P., Bhatt, M., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., Ghosh, S., Jamieson, L. H., Lande, M., and Rodriguez, S. L. (2025). Transforming College Teaching Evaluation: A Guide to Comprehensive, Collaborative, Equity-Minded Practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Clark, D. J., and Redmond, M. V. (1982). Small Group Instructional Diagnosis: Final Report.
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., and Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257.
Diamond, N. A. (2004). Classroom feedback. In W. J. McKeachie and M. Svinicki (Eds.), McKeachie’s Teaching Tips (12th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.