Mission

Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America.

—John Lewis

Since its founding in the summer of 2020, Good Trouble, a student-run collective, has aimed to amplify the voices of Cambridge students to improve the experiences of students who come after us. In 2022, when Good Trouble hit a roadblock, we turned to our peers, asking them what issues they saw in school that never seemed to be addressed.

One person mentioned “those teachers,” referring to educators who are the subject of constant student complaints, but never change their style. Conversation erupted immediately, as every student had at least one teacher in mind. Our discussion led to some consistent themes: these educators all assigned work from their desks without engaging with their students.

Inspired by the words of Civil Rights leader and US Congressman, John Lewis, to “get in good trouble,” we started in spaces we knew well: classrooms.

From January to June 2022, Good Trouble designed and launched a new project geared toward student feedback and examining how teachers incorporate it into their teaching. At the end of each semester, teachers usually ask for student feedback on the class. These surveys are a way to improve teaching and learning for the next cohort; however, they raise important questions:

  • To what extent do teachers truly accept the feedback that they receive?

  • How can teachers be sure that they are understanding and applying the feedback appropriately?

  • Are students aware of how teachers attempt to make changes to their teaching style in order to accommodate feedback?

  • How can feedback surveys be reimagined to benefit students while they are actively in a teacher’s classroom?

It is important that students’ voices are heard; yet the current method of obtaining feedback through end-of-semester surveys is ineffective. First, there is no way to monitor whether teachers incorporate or even view the feedback. Second, the timing of these surveys means that the students who gave feedback do not benefit from the potential changes. Third, students might fear that the survey is not anonymous, and so they may resort to false compliments to preserve a positive relationship with the teacher. Fourth, while teachers may read the students’ responses, they may forget to implement the feedback, especially in the bustle of the new semester. Finally, the new group of students will not be able to judge the teacher’s improvement.

To combat this, Good Trouble sought to amplify student voices and give students power within their classes and over their learning, while avoiding the potential pitfalls of providing critiques directly to their teachers. Open, authentic, and honest dialogue with teachers is the most effective way of giving teachers feedback, as it is interactive and demonstrates that student voices are valued. Surveys, on the other hand, can seem like something teachers check off at the end of the year. For this reason, we decided to work face-to-face with students and their teachers.

In effect, Good Trouble served as an intermediary between students and their teacher. By facilitating live conversations, we ensured that students’ perspectives were heard. In Good Trouble-run circles, the students spoke openly without the worry that they may hurt their teacher’s feelings. As opposed to blunt criticism, we packaged student feedback in a constructive way for the educator. When meeting with teachers, rather than lambasting classroom practice, we reflected student opinions and feelings, and discussed how the educator could update, tweak, or adapt their practice based on the feedback. We completed multiple sessions with the students and teachers, including a class observation, to assess whether the teacher took the feedback into account, and offered advice accordingly. Through this process, we prioritized student feedback and perspective without compromising teachers’ honor or student anonymity. Our system was completely student-run, from design to implementation to facilitation. It was a first-of-its-kind initiative at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School (CRLS).

Point People

We split into three groups based on the three teacher volunteers. Since we needed time to facilitate conversations with their students, it was critical that we remained flexible. We had to be ready to “go” at the teacher’s convenience. A crucial part of this system was having a point person for each group who reached out to teachers to schedule meetings and communicated with the rest of their group to ensure they remained on track.

Schedule

In January 2022, we drafted our methodology and developed a schedule. We followed a rigid timeline because we were working with teacher volunteers and needed to ensure that they could trust that we would follow through on our commitment to them and their students.

We set a date in June to complete our final report. Then we planned backward. Our schedule consisted of milestones we would meet to finish on time. These milestones included the following:

Step 1: First Conferences with the Teacher Volunteers

To be as transparent as possible, the facilitators of Good Trouble met one on one with each of the teacher volunteers to explain the mission and purpose of the project. We outlined the potential risks and allowed the teachers to decide whether to participate. These conferences were also used to understand the teachers’ schedules and choose which of their classes would work logistically for Good Trouble members.

Step 2: Observations

To be successful, we needed to understand what the class felt like for the students. Observations helped inform our next steps and planning. We sent in one student from each of the three groups to observe a full eighty-minute class prior to collecting student feedback. During observations, we sat quietly, avoiding disruptions by not introducing ourselves. We sat near the corner of the room. We looked for engagement levels from the students, the style of teaching, methods the teacher used to reach students, and wrote questions. We took notes about what we observed in paragraph and bullet-point form.

Step 3: Student Feedback, Session 1

Approximately one week after observations, we returned for feedback sessions. The structure of the discussion varied from class to class. In most sessions, the class was split into two or three groups and Good Trouble members facilitated feedback conversations. These sessions were anonymous and the teacher was excluded from the class as they occurred.

We wrote a list of common questions to ask the students to better understand the teaching that was happening in their classroom. These questions were designed to encourage the students to provide as much information as possible about aspects of the class that they found helpful, as well as changes that could be made to better their experience. It was important that every group was asked the same set of questions to maintain consistency across the different classes. Some of the questions that we asked were as follows:

  1. I.

    What does a typical class day look like? Walk us through the day in your class starting with the minute you enter the door.

  2. II.

    What are your immediate thoughts, reactions, and/or feelings when you step into this classroom?

  3. III.

    What’s something that you could change about this class? Why?

  4. IV.

    Do you feel respected as a person and as a student?

  5. V.

    Do you feel like you can reach out to your teacher whenever you need?

  6. VI.

    Do you feel that your grade in this class reflects your work? Is it a “fair grade”? Why or why not?

  7. VII.

    If there was one piece of feedback you could tell your teacher without fear of punishment, bias, or “hurting” their feelings, what would it be?

After developing the questions, we coordinated with the teacher volunteers to determine how and when we would gather this feedback. We debated about the ideal size of the groups because if they were too small, students might feel uncomfortable sharing, and if they were too large, students might feel as if they were still in class and default to staying silent. Taking this and our own experience as high schoolers into consideration, we decided on small groups of around ten students. Rather than random groupings, we asked the teachers to split the class based on friend groups to increase student comfort and encourage them to speak.

The students gave us both positive and negative feedback for each teacher, including: information about the parts of the class that they found helpful, complaints about the class, and ideas of possible ways to improve their classroom experience. While some students wanted more hands-on projects, other students enjoyed the workload and were comfortable with the assignments they were given.

Step 4: Distilling Feedback and Teacher Conversations

After the student feedback sessions, we condensed the information we received into constructive bullet points, and presented them to teachers in twenty-minute in-person chats. We excluded specific quotes and student names for anonymity purposes, but made sure to include all aspects of the students’ feedback, including both positive and negative comments, to ensure that their perspectives were heard. In addition to a student response summary, we also provided Good Trouble-generated suggestions about how teachers might use this information to improve their class. We gave the teachers three weeks to implement the feedback.

Step 5: Second Student Feedback Session, Reflection on Changes, and Additional Feedback

The goals of the second feedback session were to evaluate whether significant changes had been made in accordance with the initial feedback, report additional feedback to the teacher, and allow students to give Good Trouble feedback on our process. Based on round one, we broadened some of our questions for the second feedback session to elicit richer responses. Then, we scheduled our second student feedback conversation with the designated teachers.

After three weeks, we returned to the classrooms to speak with students again. To maintain consistency, we mimicked the first feedback session in format, size, and location. We kept the same groups to reduce bias or complications. The second student feedback began with the same opening questions as we had in the first round. We did this for two reasons: (1) we wanted to analyze how students’ responses compared between sessions and (2) we wanted to give the students space to take the session in a direction that felt valuable to them. Then we asked new questions specifically for the second feedback session. Some of the questions were as follows:

  1. I.

    How do you feel when you walk into this class?

  2. II.

    Do you feel like your teacher has made an effort to improve student learning?

    1. A.

      If so, how has your teacher made this improvement?

  3. III.

    What was one thing that you noticed that has changed from three weeks ago?

  4. IV.

    Do you feel like your feedback was heard? Do you feel like your feedback has been incorporated?

  5. V.

    Do you feel this process helped to improve your classroom experience?

    1. A.

      Do you feel it helped your teacher understand who you are and what your needs are?

Step 6: Second Teacher Meeting

Before we met with the teacher the second time, we analyzed and looked through the feedback we received; then reframed it to deliver it in a constructive and helpful manner to the educator. Then, we met with the teacher to discuss the feedback and answered any questions they had.

Evidence

We worked closely with our three teacher volunteers to collect, share, and discuss student feedback. For Teacher One and Teacher Three we had three Good Trouble Members who collected the feedback, and for Teacher Two we had one Good Trouble Member who collected feedback.

Teacher One

When we first observed Teacher One’s class, we noticed that the students stayed silent for most of the period. The teacher encouraged their students to talk about the classwork at the beginning, and they eventually started to do so. When the class transitioned into new material, the teacher lectured the students and they fell silent again. After multiple attempts to engage the students in different ways, Teacher One finally managed to get the students to participate. This struggle for student engagement may have been due to it being period one of the school day, which meant students were tired.

The following week, we had feedback session one. One of the student groups was very hesitant to speak and initially didn’t give us much information. We tried warming them up by giving examples of our own experiences in high school, and they eventually came up with feedback. The other group, however, gave us a great deal of feedback immediately. We believe this contrast between the two groups reflected the students’ own classroom behaviors and it was not something that could easily be changed. Below is a summary of the feedback:

  1. I.

    If students don’t respond to questions, move on instead of waiting for students’ responses, as a way to keep them engaged.

  2. II.

    Students would benefit from optional challenges that can be attached either to the group work or to the optional homework.

  3. III.

    The students would prefer two shorter breaks throughout the class to break up the period and make it feel shorter.

  4. IV.

    Students would enjoy more hands-on project-based assignments to maintain interest in the class.

  5. V.

    Students would prefer if the teacher stays consistent with the idea of homework being optional (i.e. don’t punish students for not finishing the homework if it is said to be optional).

For the second feedback session, we wanted to see if the students noticed any changes that the teacher had implemented. The most obvious change that the students noticed was that there were two breaks evenly spaced out, instead of one in the middle. Students also told us that the teacher had explained some of the changes they attempted to implement, but students had not noticed the changes the teacher described. When we told this to the teacher, they expressed surprise, and thought the students all knew exactly what had changed. This emphasized a major disconnect between what the teacher thought they were doing, and what the students wanted the teacher to do. While the teacher had good intentions to help the students and respond to their feedback, a gap remained between both parties.

Teacher Two

In Teacher Two’s class, our main takeaway during the initial observation was that the class seemed unengaging. Students completed an assignment on their computers, and when the teacher did speak, many students were on their phones or distracted.

During the first feedback session, the class was split into two groups and separated by friend groups and table groups. The groups also happened to be divided by gender.

Group one was more difficult to engage. The students seemed hesitant to offer feedback about their teacher and made it clear that they all appreciated the educator. They noted that the teacher was beginning their career, as well. Most students in this group did not enjoy the class and stated that they often found it “boring.” That said, they emphasized that it was largely an issue with the subject and the curriculum, which they stated “was unengaging to begin with.” Students also expressed concerns around the workload, which they described as mostly “easy.” Students also disliked delays in grading. When asked what they would change about the class, students in Group one struggled to find answers, and reiterated that their teacher was “good” and “trying,” but that the issue, again, was the subject and the curriculum. In many ways, the feedback from Group one felt like whiplash. One subset of students would argue that there was too much structure in assignments, a lack of options and creative outlets, and too many graphic organizers. A different subset then immediately argued the exact opposite. One thing that students agreed on, however, was that the class needed more student choice. The other major point of consensus was that there should be less independent work on the computer and more class interactions such as discussions and group work.

The debate and discussion that occurred within Group one illustrated the difficulty of being a teacher and the impossibility of accommodating all students. Yet, it also illustrated the beauty and importance of asking students for feedback. Students were able to consider and point out the nuance.

Group two was more talkative and more critical than Group one. They expressed discontent with the grading practices, class structure, and assignments. Many also said that they found the class too “easy” and felt like it was full of “busy work.” Some students, of course, disagreed, illustrating the difficulty of ninth-grade classes, in which students from all different backgrounds and educational experiences come together. Similar to Group one, the consensus was that there needed to be more options, considering the vast needs of all students. Both groups craved more class interaction, group projects, and debates. The independent nature of the class was what made it unengaging.

When we returned for the second feedback session, we had a whole class discussion. When we asked how students felt when they walked into this class, the responses were largely negative, whereas many were more neutral initially. When asked if they saw any changes to the class since the feedback session, the majority of students said that they had not. Upon being prompted to rank pedagogical changes on a one to ten scale (one being absolutely nothing has changed and ten being big, significant changes) every student had an answer under four. In fact, many students expressed greater discontent with the class. Many attributed the lack of change to how late in the year it was. One student said that they felt like their teacher was “stalling until the year was over,” a statement that resonated with others. The students also expressed that the fact that their teacher was willing to participate in this project showed their willingness to listen to student voices, which they appreciated. Despite the overall discontent, the students validated Good Trouble’s project. Many even asked if we could go to their other classes and do the same thing.

Teacher Three

In Teacher Three’s class, for our first feedback session, we split the class in half, allowing the students to decide their groups. By allowing them to choose, we hoped to increase student comfort to guarantee more conversation. While we had a curated list of questions, we allowed students to direct the conversation. The first group was very outgoing, and throughout the session, they built off of one another. It was clear these students really related to their peers’ experiences. Their biggest concerns were the grading system, their teacher’s style of teaching, and confusion about their assignments. The second group was less receptive. They voiced similar concerns; however, there was much less conversation.

During our conversations, the grading system was consistently mentioned. The students’ biggest frustration with the system was that it differed from the standard grading system in their other classes. Throughout their educational careers, these students were used to a certain structure: exceeding expectations translating to an A, meeting expectations being a B, and needs improvement was a C or lower. In this class, however, a “meeting expectations” translated to a lower mark in the gradebook. Many students made similar comments and some explained that they didn’t attempt assignments as they’d receive the same grade regardless. The grading system seemed to be a deterrent for students.

Students also discussed the style of their lessons. Many were displeased with the lecture model this class often utilized and they expressed the difficulty of retaining information during lectures. Having to take notes was a source of anxiety for students. As facilitators, we knew this model is common in students’ high school careers and beyond.

In regards to assignments, many students mentioned they didn’t understand the prompts or what was expected of them. Their confusion stuck out to Good Trouble facilitators because it was likely the leading factor for various other issues the students mentioned. Particularly with grading, if students don’t understand what is expected, they can’t “meet expectations.” Understanding assignments is the foundation for students’ academic success.

When we briefed the teacher, we broke down our notes based on significance and the frequency they were mentioned in the discussions. The three main topics were as follows: (1) grading system, (2) lesson styles, and (3) student confusion regarding assignments.

We began with positive feedback to prevent overwhelming the educator with critiques. Our intention was to improve pedagogy, not attack it. One of the biggest challenges we faced was converting students’ grievances, which were often negative, into constructive criticism. Having three different categories helped as it allowed us to highlight major areas of improvement without repeating all the information we heard.

During this meeting, there was a real effort on the teacher’s end to hear our perspective on solutions since we could relate to their students. Once we’d given the feedback, it was time for the implementation. Due to availability, the implementation time period for this class ended up being seven weeks.

When we returned to the classroom, we split up into the same groups to maintain consistency. We began with the same initial questions. Student answers barely differed. Frustration was evident. The students acknowledged that while there had not been significant differences, they’d seen the teacher make efforts to change. They appreciated that they switched from essays to more creative projects. Overall, however, there were no major modifications. This showed a discrepancy between how the students viewed the results of the process versus the teacher. Even though students hadn’t seen much progress, they enjoyed having a safe place to air their grievances. Many of the students agreed that having these conversations helped them realize they weren’t alone in their struggles. By the end, the students expressed that they wanted to duplicate the process in their other classes.

Obstacles

Two unexpected obstacles challenged Good Trouble. The first obstacle was the lack of constructive criticism from students. We heard many more complaints about teachers and far fewer suggestions. Though the purpose of our project was to give teachers honest feedback, many students did not present concrete solutions to issues that they voiced. Packaging the feedback constructively was a challenge. Over time, we realized that we needed better follow-up questions in feedback sessions. If a student mentioned an issue, we asked them to brainstorm possible solutions. This strategy elicited much more high-quality feedback.

The second issue concerning feedback was the lack of participation from some students in group discussions. Though many students contributed, several members in each group consistently stayed quiet. One reason for this could have been that some students felt uncomfortable putting their opinions out in the open. We debated how to engage these individuals, as our mission is to lift up the voices that teachers might not hear. We need to continue to develop solutions for this challenge.

We learned that the most effective way to increase student engagement is to provide a complete overview of our mission before every discussion, emphasizing confidentiality and lack of judgment. After this introduction, more students readily answered our questions. This adjustment taught us that increasing our transparency made us more relatable as fellow students. Being seen as equals is a key part of the project, as teachers, by nature, are in a position of power, which makes it difficult for students to offer them honest feedback when prompted.

Conclusion

Getting feedback from students is a fairly simple process; the students must be asked for feedback, the teacher must thoroughly read the feedback, and then the feedback must be implemented. In our feedback sessions, almost all students had something to say, and most of the feedback was concise and comprehensible. Often, the thoughts and voices of students are overlooked in relation to teacher feedback because people assume they don’t know what makes a good learning environment. However, students are best able to determine whether or not a learning environment is effective. Additionally, students were happy to debrief their in-class experiences. It built a sense of community, knowing that their thoughts were shared by their peers. Although the students felt that not much changed during the process, they liked having the opportunity to talk to each other and discuss the class. Most asked us to provide this space for other classes, along with teachers asking us to do the same. Furthermore, our teacher volunteers were happy because they didn’t have to create and read survey results. It was a lot less labor-intensive for them.

This process revealed changes we want to make and long-term goals we have. The most necessary changes were as follows:

  1. I.

    Beginning this process earlier in the school year:

    1. A.

      Adding more turns of the cycle so that the students are more comfortable with the facilitators and the teachers have more time to implement feedback.

  2. II.

    Adding more student facilitators:

    1. A.

      Increasing the diversity of the facilitators in terms of academic experiences and perspectives, grade level, gender identity, religious beliefs, etc.

    2. B.

      More facilitators would mean working with more teachers and classes, allowing for more student participation.

  3. III.

    Bringing teacher participants together so that they can advise one another and talk about the changes they are making in their classes.

  4. IV.

    Adding a transparency and accountability step for teachers where they notify students of the changes they are trying to implement and what policies they do not have the power to change.

Good Trouble’s biggest takeaway is that it is critical to create spaces for students to express their feelings about their classes—whether it is productive feedback or simply venting grievances. Conversation-based feedback makes students feel better about class whether or not the feedback is implemented. Forms and written feedback don’t accomplish the same goal. Therefore, we would advocate for one lesson every quarter where students can discuss with their peers (and a student facilitator to then give the feedback to the teacher) based on their experience in the classroom.