3 Relationship to the Summative SPLE
3.1 Comparison
The formative feedback process is not a practice run for the summative SPLE, and it should not be framed as one. The two instruments differ in every relevant dimension:
| Dimension | Formative Learning Feedback | Summative SPLE |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Developmental: help the instructor improve the course in real time | Evaluative: provide data for the personnel file |
| Audience | Instructor only | Instructor, department chair, personnel committee |
| Timing | Throughout the term (weeks 2–3, 6–8, 11–12) | Last two weeks of instruction before finals week |
| Content | Seven dimensions of learning (Ambrose et al., 2010) | Six aspects of class climate |
| Format | Flexible: structured items, open-ended questions, or both; faculty choose dimensions | Standardized: Likert-scale items and structured open-ended prompts |
| Anonymity | Anonymous | Anonymous |
| Personnel file | No | Yes |
| Required | No (instructor’s choice) | Yes (institutional requirement) |
| Input for self-reflection and iterative growth | Yes | Yes |
The formative feedback process exists because some of the most useful feedback students can provide — what is working, what is not, what they wish were different — is most valuable before the course ends, when the instructor can still act on it. The summative SPLE, by contrast, captures the student’s experience of the full term and provides data for institutional evaluation. These are complementary but distinct functions. Both instruments provide input for self-reflection and iterative growth (Dimension 5 of the TEval framework) — the formative process by giving instructors actionable feedback while the course is still in progress, and the summative instrument by revealing patterns across terms that inform longer-term development.
3.2 Formative feedback as the home for open-ended questions
The SPLE committee voted to retain open-ended questions on the summative instrument under structured prompts and guardrails designed to minimize the equity bias that the literature documents in unstructured responses (see the SPLE proposal for the full evidence base). Open-ended questions also play a central role in the formative feedback process. In the formative context, results go only to the instructor, so potentially biased comments cannot influence personnel decisions. In a formative context:
- Results go only to the instructor, so biased comments cannot influence personnel decisions
- The instructor can contextualize comments with their knowledge of the class
- The developmental framing encourages constructive rather than evaluative responses
- There is no need to standardize or compare across instructors
Open-ended questions serve their intended purpose — giving students a voice and giving instructors actionable information — without the risks that attend their inclusion in the personnel file.
3.3 Optional structured check-in on SPLE dimensions
Instructors may optionally include a brief structured component — a “temperature read” on the six aspects of the SPLE — to get a quick snapshot alongside the formative items. This is not the SPLE itself; it is a lightweight check-in that uses the same conceptual dimensions.
Please indicate how you have experienced each of the following so far in this course.
Response options: Positive experience, Mixed experience, Negative experience, Not sure / Not applicable
| Dimension | |
|---|---|
| Regard for Students — feeling treated with regard | ○ Positive ○ Mixed ○ Negative ○ N/A |
| Consistent Communication and Enforcement of Expectations — feeling that all students are treated equitably | ○ Positive ○ Mixed ○ Negative ○ N/A |
| Perceived Course Coherence — seeing how course elements connect | ○ Positive ○ Mixed ○ Negative ○ N/A |
| Participatory Climate — feeling comfortable asking questions and sharing ideas | ○ Positive ○ Mixed ○ Negative ○ N/A |
| Access to Instructor and Instructor Resources — feeling able to access help when needed | ○ Positive ○ Mixed ○ Negative ○ N/A |
| Responsive Learning Environment — feeling that the learning environment is responsive to all students | ○ Positive ○ Mixed ○ Negative ○ N/A |
This structured component serves two purposes: it gives the instructor an at-a-glance summary of the dimensions they will be evaluated on at the end of the term, and it helps students become familiar with the conceptual framework before they encounter the summative SPLE. It is not scored, reported, or retained beyond the instructor’s own use.
3.4 What the Formative Learning Feedback is not
To prevent misunderstanding, the following points should be communicated clearly to both instructors and students:
- The formative feedback process is not the Student Perceptions of Learning Experience instrument. The SPLE is the summative instrument administered at the end of the term.
- The formative feedback process is not part of the personnel file. No administrator, department chair, or personnel committee will see the results.
- The formative feedback process is not required. It is a tool available to instructors who want real-time feedback on the learning environment in their course.
- The formative feedback process is not anonymous feedback about the instructor’s teaching ability. It is anonymous feedback about the student’s learning experience — the same conceptual framing as the SPLE, but in a developmental rather than evaluative context.
- The formative feedback process does not replace the SPLE. Students will still complete the summative instrument at the end of the term regardless of whether formative feedback was collected.