NURS 767 Week 7 Written Assignment 5 Example

Evaluating My Own Teaching: Student Feedback, Peer Observation and Learning Data From a Flipped Class on Postpartum Hemorrhage

The Class and the Question

In Week 4 of the practicum, I taught a 90-minute flipped class on postpartum hemorrhage to 32 junior BSN students. The class had four objectives: explain the four causes of bleeding, calculate cumulative blood loss, prioritize the first actions for uterine atony and communicate using SBAR. My practicum goals included evaluating this class through peer observation and student feedback. Oermann et al. (2018) describe the evaluation of teaching as a continuing responsibility of every educator, drawing on several sources because each sees only part of what happens in a classroom. I collected three: student ratings and comments, a peer observer's report and evidence of what students learned. This paper reports what each showed and what I will change.

Source 1: Student Ratings and Comments

Twenty-six of 32 students completed an anonymous five-item survey after class. Ratings were high: 24 agreed or strongly agreed that the class helped them understand postpartum hemorrhage, and 25 that the cases were useful. Comments praised the cases and the blood loss calculation. Six comments said the third case felt rushed, and four said the pre-class video was helpful but that they had not had time to finish the reference card.

How much should these ratings count? Uttl et al. (2017) reanalyzed the multisection studies that had been used to support student evaluations of teaching and found that, once the influence of small studies was removed, how highly students rated an instructor bore no relation to how much those students learned. Ratings tell me how students experienced the class, which matters, but they do not tell me whether students learned. The comments are more useful than the numbers, because they point to specific parts of the class: the third case and the pre-class load.

Source 2: Peer Observation

An adult health faculty member sat in on the class and completed the department's standard observation checklist. I had asked her to watch two things: how much I talked during the cases, and whether the timing held. Her report was candid. During the first two cases, students did most of the talking, and I moved among groups asking questions. During the third case, which asked students to consider causes other than uterine tone in a patient two days after cesarean birth, groups stalled, and I began explaining. She timed my talking at eleven of the twenty-five minutes allotted to that case. As a result, the summary and exit ticket were compressed into seven minutes rather than fifteen.

The observation explained the student comments. The third case felt rushed because I filled its silence with explanation and then ran short of time. Without the observer, I would have concluded that the case was too long; with her report, I can see that the case was the right length and that my response to the students' difficulty was the problem.

Source 3: Evidence of Learning

On the exit ticket, students worked out a blood loss total from a set of pad weights and stated what they would do first for a soft uterus with heavy flow. Of 30 students who completed it, 28 calculated the blood loss correctly and 29 named fundal massage. Four weeks later, the unit exam included three items linked to the class objectives. The blood loss calculation item was answered correctly by 91% of students and the first-action item by 88%, but an item asking students to recognize signs of hypovolemia in a patient with modest visible bleeding was answered correctly by only 54%, with poor discrimination.

The learning data agree with the observer. The two objectives taught in the first two cases, where students did the thinking, were learned. The objective most connected to the third case, recognizing hemorrhage when bleeding is not obvious, was not, and that was the case in which I did most of the talking.

How Much to Trust My Own View

Before reading the other sources, I wrote a short reflection rating my own teaching. I rated the third case as the best part of the class, because I had explained the less common causes of bleeding clearly. The evidence suggests the opposite. Wilgenbusch et al. (2026) found that nursing students with lower course grades rated their own clinical judgment higher, a reminder that self-assessment can be least accurate where performance is weakest. My own rating may have the same flaw: I felt most effective where I was most active, which is where students learned least. Self-reflection is still necessary, but it must be checked against other evidence.

Limits of This Evaluation

One class is a small sample, and each source has weaknesses beyond those already discussed. The observer is a colleague in the same department, and although her report was candid, peer observers may soften criticism of a colleague they will work with for years. The exam items were written by my preceptor and me, and the hypovolemia item's poor discrimination may mean the item itself was flawed rather than the teaching; I will review its wording before drawing a firm conclusion. Six students did not complete the survey and two missed the exit ticket, and students who skip optional feedback may differ from those who complete it. Finally, the exam came four weeks after the class, after the second simulation and several clinical days, so the item results reflect all of that teaching and not the class alone. These limits do not erase the pattern, since three independent sources point to the same weakness, but they argue for treating the conclusions as a strong hypothesis to test in the next class rather than a final verdict.

Sharing the Findings With Students

Evaluation of teaching usually stays private, but sharing a short version with students can model the reflective practice the course asks of them. At the next class, I told students that the feedback and exam data showed the third case had not worked as intended, that I had talked too much and that we would return to the quiet signs of hemorrhage on the clinical unit. A few students told me later that no instructor had ever explained to them what had been changed in a course because of their feedback. That brief conversation also gave students a reason to keep giving honest feedback.

Comparing the Sources

What I Will Change

Three changes follow from the evidence. First, when students stall on a hard case, I will give a hint in the form of a question, such as "What would her heart rate tell you that the pad cannot?", and wait at least a full minute before offering anything more. I will ask my preceptor to time my talking in the next flipped class. Second, the reference card will be cut from one page to a half-page focused on the four causes and the first actions, since students reported not finishing it. Third, the hypovolemia cues will be taught again through the clinical days, where I will ask students at every postpartum assessment what the vital signs would show before bleeding is visible.

Continuing to Evaluate My Teaching

The NLN competency on ongoing improvement of one's own practice as an educator asks educators to use feedback and evidence to improve their practice over time (Halstead, 2019). As a faculty member, I plan to repeat this three-source evaluation once each term for one class I teach, to invite a peer observer at least once a year with a specific focus and to look at item results by objective after each exam. The class I thought I taught best was the part students learned least, and only two other sources of evidence could have shown me that.

References

Halstead, J. A. (Ed.). (2019). NLN core competencies for nurse educators: A decade of influence. National League for Nursing.

Oermann, M. H., De Gagne, J. C., & Phillips, B. C. (Eds.). (2018). Teaching in nursing and role of the educator: The complete guide to best practice in teaching, evaluation, and curriculum development (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing Company.

Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007

Wilgenbusch, B. A., Jurevic, V. D., Gilb, K. E., Jeanmougin, C. E., Zehler, A. R., Cole, B. S., & Osborne, J. (2026). Adapting the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric for student self-assessment. Journal of Nursing Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20260227-05