The quick course diagnostic (QCD) is an evaluation technique created by Barbara Millis. It is designed to identify participants general reaction to a course as well as determine common strengths & weaknesses from the student perspective. The focus group is comprised of an index card activity and a strength & weakness group ranking activity. The process can be used to get feedback on individual course elements, the entire course, and programs. The output is useful documentation for accreditation bodies like ABET and NCATE. The process took us about 30 minutes per question and 1 hour to tabulate results for a class of 40 students.
Students will be asked to write one word or phrase to describe their impressions of the online portion of the course . They will also be asked to include a rating of 1-5 for their overall satisfaction with the course. (1 represents extremely unsatisfied and five represents extremely satisfied) It is common to see a positive ranking (4 or 5) with a "negative" word impression, which might mean the students were satisfied with the course but feel there are areas which need reevaluated.
The students will be broken into groups of 4-5 students and asked to list strengths of the course. The students will take turns listing strengths by providing one example and then allowing the next student in the group to list an example. Students will be allowed to "pass" if they do not have another strength to list. A student recorder will write down all the strengths as they group members say them out-loud. This process will be completed again for weaknesses. Once the two lists are generated the students will rank order the strengths and weaknesses as a group and submit the rankings to the facilitators. All students will then rank the strengths and weaknesses as a whole group. The facilitators will document the group consensus.
Then the index card and roundtable activities can be repeated with a second question.
The index card information is organized into an Excel histogram with the index card information indicating the satisfaction level with the online components and the words or phrases describing them. (Example Report)
A table was generated reflecting the data generated by each team ranking the strengths & weaknesses, color-coded to reflect trends; and a chart was created based on the whole group rankings for strengths and weaknesses. (Example Report)
Clark, D. & Redmond, M. (1982). Small Group Instructional Diagnosis: Final Report. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 217954.
Diamond, N. A. (2002). Small group instructional diagnosis: Tapping student perceptions of teaching. In K. H. Gillespie (Ed.), A Guide to Faculty Development: Practical Advice, Examples, and Resources. (pp. 82-91). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
Wright, S. P. & Hendershott, A. (1992). In D. H. Wulff, & J. D. Nyquist (Eds), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development (pp. 87-104). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, Inc.