I've just gotten my teaching evaluations for the 2008 version of EC6012, International Monetary Economics.
 
To be honest, I'm gutted.

I have never read into, reflected on, or thought more about the teaching of any other course.

I've written two papers and a case study, and given several conference presentations about the experience of teaching this course (see here and here).

It's clear though that the 18 students out of the 45 in the class who took the survey felt this iteration of the course was, by and large, a failure. Now, maybe the views expressed are not a representative sample, but I'm going to assume they are, because that's the only way I'll improve the course.

The feedback circled around the following points:

1. This guy is smart, knows his stuff and is enthusiastic about his material, but...
2. I don't see the relevance of the course to me or this degree, it's too theoretical.
3. I didn't get any feedback.
4. The lectures were too short.
5. The exam was not what I expected.

This course took an enormous amount of time and effort to prepare, and while some aspects of the course were experimental---which were flagged as such---didn't work, many of the criticisms just don't bear up, at least not to me.

1. Irrelevance. Every lecture (and they are all recorded) contained a reference to the real world, what was happening then and there, in fact entire lectures were composed on the fly in response to changing economic conditions. When it looked like the US economy was in a stagflation, I stayed up all night putting together a lecture about the consequences of that for the US and EU economies. Yes, the material was technical, but all monetary economics is, by the nature of the subject.
2. Feedback. Just about every blog homework was commented on, weekly. I didn't give feedback on the presentations, because there was no point---everybody gave everybody else a B+! I explained this in the last class. For examples of the feedback I gave, see here, here and here.
3. Too short. Each lecture was designed as a conversation starter. The conversation never started---no-one spoke in class. Rather than waste people's time, I left. I explained this each time---again, all the lectures are recorded, so you can hear be saying this, but one student called finishing early 'disgraceful'. I guess this really was the biggest failure of the course, and I won't be repeating it next year (see below).
4. Exam. The exam was a clear iteration of last year's exam, and the sample exam, and was marked fairly and clearly with a concise marking scheme as in the year before, which the students were given access to, so they were aware of the type of questions and the type of answers I was looking for. For comparisons between years, see here and here.

But not one thing about the last four points matters, because, at the end of the day, the module was obviously a failure in the eyes of the people I really needed to succeed with: the students.

I am in the business of communicating ideas. Whatever misperception(s) there might have been on the part of the students, it was my responsibility to clear those up. If a smart, hard working masters student doesn't understand the relevance of a module to their degree, or can't see the woods for the trees when it comes to an abstract model, or doesn't get the points I was trying to get across in lectures, that is my failure as a lecturer, and I'll own that failure as the students perceive it, and be sure to address their points in the next iteration of the module in 2009.

So, in reflecting on this experience, here are the things I'm going to change about EC6012 in 2009:

1. I'm going to start with the data, and show the students how to construct the models in real time with real world data using Mathematica, moving from there to numerical examples to the theory.
2. I'm going to ditch the blogs, the presentations, and the experimental continuous assessment techniques, and go for problem set-based assessment followed by a rigourous exam.
3. I'm going to lecture in the standard manner, for the two hours, rather than trying to do the conversational thing, which actually worked very well in 2007, but obviously was a failure this time around. In 2009 there will be 70+ students, so it won't be a runner anyhow.
4. I'll be on my toes with regard to feedback. I'll create an online survey of each lecture, to check in real time whether each lecture was a success.
5. I'll make it my business to stress, every lecture, how each part of the module connects to the students' degrees and their potiential careers in finance and the business world.

Getting negative feedback is never fun, but when you experiment, you should be prepared for failure. While unpleasant, the feedback will result in a better version of the course in 2009. If any of the students from EC6012 still read this blog and have some ideas for how to improve the course, please drop me a mail.

And now, my friends, I'm going to get a drink.

Comments are closed.