For years, I have used “exit tickets” in most of my university classes. Usually, I hand out a 3X5 index card and ask them during the last five minutes of class time to write their name, the date, their major takeaway, and any lingering questions. There are four primary goals to having them do this after every class:
- It builds in reflection time that helps students put an idea together rather than leave with a unprocessed jumble.
- It opens an avenue of communication with the students so, when I respond to some of them the next class, they know I’m paying attention to them (and they sometimes include a more personal note as well, to which I sometimes respond by email).
- It gives me immediate feedback that allows me to see how I might adjust what I’m doing in future class sessions or when I teach the course again.
- It allows me to take and document attendance, which I require in most of my classes.
My classes usually range from around 5-30 students, so processing these cards is not terribly onerous. I’ve had TAs in some courses who will take care of transferring the attendance data (this takes about 15 minutes), but I do read almost all the cards, which can take 15-20 minutes per class. Students have almost uniformly told me that they like that I do this.
One larger course that I teach, though, makes this approach unfeasible. My “Happiness and the Pursuit of the Good Life” course now has 135 students, but it has ranged up to 400 (depending primarily on staffing limitations). In the past, then, I have automated this process, having them fill out the form online in Canvas, using an access code that I give at the end of the class. There have been two problems with this approach, though. First, the class is technology free so when the phones come out it feels intrusive, even though it is at the very end of the class. Second, though, some students – not a lot but enough to be concerning – texted the code out to their friends who skipped class so they could circumvent the attendance policy. Why anyone would think that the risk (I have failed students from the class who I’ve caught) and effort of doing this justifies it, in a course on the Good Life, remains a bit of a mystery to me, but that is a different topic.
So I decided to go back to paper. Using index cards at this scale and manually processing them all was too time-consuming. So I’ve been experimenting with a semi-automated system. It works like this:
- We distribute a preprinted form to students as they enter the room. The form has defined boxes with each of the fields, which facilitates the processing downstream. (We tried cards, but we could not find an automatic document feeder at Brown that would work with them.) They complete these manually at the end of class.
- We collect the forms as students exit and then scan them, using an automatic document, into a single pdf file. These handwritten forms do not OCR well (frankly, they OCR terribly), either when they come out of the machine or when processed with Adobe Acrobat.
- To get an OCR version of the file, I first open the file in Adobe Acrobat Pro and redact the name and date fields in order to be certain we adhere to FERPA privacy laws. To do this across each form in the entire file takes about a minute (this is one advantage of using the preprinted form, which allows me to automate the redaction). The unredacted version of the file is sent to a TA to manually note the attendance.
- I then feed the redacted version into an online service for OCR of handwriting. I have spot-checked this and it does a remarkably good, if not perfect, job. I then download the transcribed file as a Word document. This service costs me $60/month (for three months, with an allowance of 1000 pages a month) and the transcription takes on a few minutes.
- I am left with a document that collects the student responses in a structured way. For example:
LECTURE REFLECTION
WHAT WAS YOUR MAJOR TAKEAWAY FROM TODAY’S LECTURE? (2-3 sentences, legibly)
My major takeaway was that Aristotle thought you could derive our purpose through our species. Since we have a unique capacity for reason, our purpose involves utilizing reason to its greatest extent.
WHAT IS YOUR LINGERING QUESTION? (write legibly)
Does natural selection cast any doubt on rational thinking being our purpose since this could be reframed as a means to the end of our survival/reproduction?
ANY SPECIAL NOTES TO THE INSTRUCTOR? (optional)
- I upload this document into my paid version of ChatGPT with the following prompt:
This is the collection of student responses for my lecture on Aristotle and the purpose of life. Analyze (1) the major takeaways and (2) the lingerinq question. Was the lecture effective? Are there things I should clarify? What might I change going forward? Also type out, verbatim, the special notes.
I give two examples of the same analysis used with two different chatbots below. The bottom line is that the analysis is proving to be useful. It does a good job pointing out issues I can address at the beginning of the next class and how to sharpen the class in the future.
Incidentally, in this particularly example, I did not feel that I delivered a strong lecture. Even ignoring the typically sycophantic tendencies of chatbots, the results reassured me that the lecture was serviceable. After that, I’m not sure whether to trust my own gut here or the student responses (as refracted through AI).
Is this worth it? The benefits are time efficiency for me (it would take me far longer to read and think about 130 handwritten responses) and an analysis that points out to me patterns I might not see myself. On the downside, it does not help with automating attendance (I cannot see a way to do this within privacy guidelines). I would also like to think that my individual reading of each of these forms will spark other pedagogical ideas that a machine does not, maybe cannot, have. The whole pipeline seems a bit “Rube Goldberg” to me.
I wanted to share this because it might be useful for some. Perhaps others, though, have solved these problems in more elegant ways.
Let me know!
EXCURSUS
The class was devoted to exploring Aristotle’s discussion of whether we, as human begins, have a purpose and, if so, how we determine what that purpose is. Below are two outputs I received using the same Word document and the same prompt. The first one was from a chatbot that I optimized for this specific class (the “I” is supposed to be me, not the chatbot) and which I’ll discuss in a future post. The second is from the standard ChatGPT 5.2 model. I think that the first one is better and more useful, but there are many points of similarity with the second output.
CUSTOM GPT OUTPUT
I read the full set of reflections carefully. What follows is not a summary for reassurance, but a diagnostic: what students actually took from the lecture, what they are still unsettled by, and what that tells me about how the lecture functioned.
I am grounding this entirely in the student responses you provided.
1. Major Takeaways: What Landed
A. Aristotle’s teleological structure mostly came through
A large proportion of students correctly grasped the basic Aristotelian move:
- Humans have a function (ergon).
- That function is tied to what distinguishes humans as a species.
- Rational activity, exercised well (virtue), grounds eudaimonia.
This shows up repeatedly in formulations like:
- “Our purpose involves utilizing reason to its greatest extent.”
- “Eudaimonia is the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.”
- “Happiness is something you do, not something you feel.”
That tells me the core architecture of the lecture was effective. Students are not confusing Aristotle with hedonism, nor are they reducing happiness to mood. That is not trivial, and it means the lecture did real conceptual work.
B. The activity vs. feeling distinction also largely landed
Many students explicitly noted:
- The difference between “how you’re living” and “how you’re feeling.”
- The possibility of a “good life of misery.”
- The idea that happiness is evaluated over a whole life, not moment to moment.
This suggests that the contrast between subjective well-being and Aristotelian flourishing was heard and remembered. Several students even used that distinction to interrogate their own assumptions.
C. Students clearly registered the species vs. individual tension
One of the strongest through-lines is the repeated distinction between:
- Human purpose as a species
- Individual purpose as personally constructed
Students return to this again and again, sometimes approvingly, sometimes skeptically. This tells me that the lecture succeeded in unsettling a default modern intuition without resolving it—and that is exactly what I wanted. They are now aware that Aristotle’s question is not “what feels meaningful to you?” but “what does it mean to live well as the kind of being you are?”
D. The hierarchy of the soul was memorable but partially misread
Students remembered the layered model (nutritive / sensitive / rational), often vividly. But several responses suggest a slide into value ranking rather than functional description. That shows up in questions about whether animals, people with disabilities, or those lacking rational capacity are “worth less.”
This is not a failure of attention. It is a predictable interpretive pressure point—and it tells me exactly where clarification is needed.
2. The Lingering Questions: Where Students Are Stuck
Across dozens of responses, a few clusters dominate.
A. Who defines “reason” and “virtue”?
This is the single most persistent unresolved question.
Students are pressing on:
- Whether rationality is objective or culturally contingent
- Whether virtue can be measured
- Whether Aristotle smuggles norms in under the guise of “function”
This tells me they understand Aristotle’s claim, but they do not yet see how Aristotle thinks reason works normatively rather than descriptively. They are sensing, correctly, that the argument depends on more than mere biological distinction.
B. Is rationality evolutionary, instrumental, or normative?
Several students ask whether evolutionary explanations undermine Aristotle:
- If reason evolved for survival, why treat it as a telos?
- Why not say reproduction is the purpose?
- Does natural selection flatten teleology?
This is a crucial philosophical tension, and the fact that students are asking it is a sign of success. But it also means I may need to slow down and make explicit that Aristotle is not making a biological claim in a Darwinian sense at all. Some students are trying to adjudicate Aristotle with tools he does not recognize.
C. Moral exclusion and hierarchy
Students are troubled—rightly—by:
- Aristotle’s views on women and slaves
- The implications for people with disabilities
- Whether hierarchical psychology implies moral hierarchy
These questions indicate both ethical seriousness and conceptual confusion. They are unsure whether Aristotle’s framework is merely limited or fundamentally unjust—and I have not yet given them enough scaffolding to separate critique from rejection.
D. Study vs. action
The study/action debate clearly animated them, but many are unclear what “greater” means:
- Greater for happiness?
- Greater for virtue?
- Greater for society?
- Greater as an ultimate end?
This suggests that while the comparison was productive, I may not have sufficiently anchored the criteria of evaluation. Students are circling the right issue but without a stable axis.
3. Was the Lecture Effective?
Yes—but unevenly, and productively so.
The lecture did three things well:
- It displaced naïve intuitions about happiness.
- It introduced a coherent alternative framework.
- It generated genuine philosophical pressure rather than compliance.
Students are not parroting conclusions. They are arguing with Aristotle, testing him against evolution, disability, AI, subjectivity, and modern pluralism. That is a sign that the lecture invited thinking rather than obedience.
The weaknesses are not about clarity of exposition; they are about implicit premises left implicit.
4. What I Should Clarify Next Time
If I revise or revisit this lecture, I would make four things more explicit.
1. Aristotle’s claim is normative, not empirical
I should say more clearly—and earlier—that Aristotle is not asking:
“What do humans in fact do best?”
He is asking:
“What would count as excellent functioning for this kind of being?”
That alone would defuse many evolutionary objections.
2. Hierarchy of function ≠ hierarchy of worth
I need to explicitly separate:
- Functional differentiation
- Moral worth
Right now, students are importing modern egalitarian intuitions and assuming Aristotle must violate them. I should slow down and show how Aristotle does violate them—and why that matters—without letting the conceptual confusion do all the work.
3. Virtue is not rule-following, and not self-erasure
Questions about “getting rid of urges” suggest that some students heard virtue as repression. I should emphasize again that Aristotle’s moral psychology is about alignment, not elimination.
4. Clarify the criteria in study vs. action
Next time, I would explicitly name:
- Greater for what?
- According to which standard?
- Ultimate end vs. instrumental good
Otherwise students argue past one another while thinking they disagree.
5. What I Might Change Going Forward
- I would insert a brief, explicit comparison between Aristotle and Darwin—not to reconcile them, but to mark the category error.
- I would flag Aristotle’s exclusions earlier, not later, so students don’t feel “caught” discovering them on their own.
- I might pose one deliberately uncomfortable question at the end:
If Aristotle is wrong, what kind of argument would actually refute him?
That would channel their skepticism into analysis rather than drift.
6. Special Notes to the Instructor (Verbatim)
Here are the special notes exactly as written, excluding all comments about alignment marks, exactly as requested:
[REDACTED]
If there is one meta-observation I will end with, it is this:
Students are not asking “what should I believe?” They are asking “what would it mean to take this seriously?” That is exactly where I want them to be at this point in the course.
CHATGPT 5.2, GENERIC
Michael — this is a goldmine. Honestly, if I were evaluating the effectiveness of a lecture, this is exactly the pattern I’d hope to see: clarity on the framework, resistance at key pressure points, and questions that show they’re actually wrestling with it.
Below is a structured analysis.
1️⃣ Major Takeaways: What Landed
A. They understood the core structure of Aristotle
The following themes appear again and again:
- Function argument
- Rationality as uniquely human
- Virtue as activity
- Eudaimonia as ultimate good
- Happiness ≠ pleasure
- Ultimate goods vs instrumental goods
- Study vs action
- Three levels of soul
- Continence vs incontinence
- Objective vs subjective happiness
This is not superficial repetition — they are articulating Aristotle’s structure accurately. For example:
- “Happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.”
- “The highest good is not a means to an end.”
- “Rational faculties connect us to our purpose.”
- “There is a difference between human purpose & individual purpose.”
- “Objective vs subjective criteria for happiness.”
That’s strong evidence the lecture was conceptually clear.
You’re not just being heard. You’re being understood.
B. The Class is Split on the Big Question
One of the most interesting patterns:
There are three camps emerging.
1. The Aristotelians
They accept:
- Humans have a species-level purpose
- Rationality grounds that purpose
- Virtue is objective
2. The Existential Individualists
They insist:
- Individuals may have purpose
- Humanity probably does not
- Purpose is self-assigned
3. The Skeptics
They question:
- Whether rationality is uniquely human
- Whether purpose must be species-wide
- Whether virtue can be objective
That’s philosophically healthy. It means the lecture didn’t flatten disagreement — it activated it.
C. What Really Energized Them
Three things clearly generated engagement:
1. Study vs Action
This question absolutely dominated lingering questions.
Many students:
- Think action is greater
- Think study without action is empty
- Think the dichotomy may be false
- Are confused about what “greater” means
This is the live wire.
2. Objective vs Subjective Happiness
Students are deeply unsettled by:
- “Who defines virtue?”
- “How do we measure virtuous?”
- “What if a thief thinks their purpose is stealing?”
- “Can happiness be objective?”
This is the philosophical pressure point.
3. The Soul Hierarchy
They’re intrigued by:
- Plant / animal / rational distinction
- Whether animals reason
- AI and rationality
- Disability and purpose
- Women and slavery in Aristotle
This is where the metaphysical assumptions are bumping into modern intuitions.
2️⃣ The Lingerinq Questions (The Real Ones Beneath the Surface)
If I compress 100+ reflections into core themes, here’s what your students are really asking:
A. Who Gets to Define Virtue?
This question appears in 10+ variations.
They are uncomfortable with:
- Objective moral claims
- Rationality as a universal metric
- Cultural variance
They want epistemology.
B. Is Purpose Species-Level or Individual-Level?
This might be the dominant conceptual tension.
They repeatedly ask:
- Can there be one purpose for all humans?
- Why assume species-level purpose?
- Why not purely individual purpose?
This suggests they haven’t fully grasped (or aren’t persuaded by) Aristotle’s teleological biology.
C. What Does “Greater” Mean?
Many students explicitly say:
“What are we comparing study and action to?”
“Greater in what sense?”
“Greater for happiness? Society? Internal flourishing?”
That’s a clarity issue.
They’re intuitively sensing ambiguity in the framing.
D. Is Happiness a Feeling or a Way of Living?
This confusion shows up constantly.
They are toggling between:
- Emotional state
- Life evaluation
- Moral status
- Narrative coherence
This is your teaching opportunity to sharpen distinctions:
- Affect vs life satisfaction vs flourishing
E. Modern Challenges to Aristotle
Students repeatedly introduce:
- Evolution / natural selection
- AI
- Disability
- Gender
- Economic inequality
- Capitalism
- Community vs individualism
They’re asking: Can this framework survive modern knowledge?
That’s intellectual engagement, not rejection.
3️⃣ Was the Lecture Effective?
Yes. Very.
Here’s why:
- Students can articulate Aristotle accurately.
- They are disagreeing intelligently.
- They are transferring ideas to modern contexts.
- They are personalizing the material (“What is my purpose?”).
That’s not passive note-taking. That’s philosophical activation.
But.
There are places to sharpen.
4️⃣ What Needs Clarification
🔹 1. Define “Greater” More Precisely
The study vs action framing is too open-ended.
Next time, specify:
- Greater for what?
- Moral formation?
- Social impact?
- Internal flourishing?
- The highest human function?
Otherwise, they debate past the question.
🔹 2. Clarify Aristotle’s Version of Objectivity
Students hear “objective” and assume:
- Authoritarian morality
- Cultural absolutism
- Anti-pluralism
You may need to slow down and explain:
- Aristotle’s claim is about human function, not divine decree.
- Objectivity here means grounded in human nature.
- The thief example is precisely why internal coherence isn’t enough.
They are pushing exactly where you want them to.
🔹 3. Address the Evolutionary Challenge Explicitly
The natural selection question is sharp:
“Doesn’t rationality just serve survival?”
That’s a legitimate teleological counter-argument.
You could strengthen the lecture by explicitly staging:
- Aristotle’s teleology vs Darwinian explanation.
Right now students are doing that work on their own.
🔹 4. Clarify the Soul as Functional, Not Ghostly
Some students are reading “soul” metaphysically.
Others functionally.
You might emphasize:
- Soul = organizing principle of life
- Not a ghost in the machine
That would clear confusion about whales, wind, AI, etc.
🔹 5. Happiness as Activity vs Feeling
This is the biggest conceptual confusion.
You may want a clean 3-column slide:
FeelingLife SatisfactionFlourishing
And explicitly distinguish them.
5️⃣ What You Might Change Going Forward
✔ Add a 5-minute “Objection Lab”
After presenting Aristotle, immediately stage:
- Evolution objection
- Relativism objection
- Thief objection
- Disability objection
Students are already generating them. Lean into it.
✔ Refine the Study vs Action Framing
Rephrase question as:
If contemplation is the highest human activity, how does that relate to political or moral action?
That’s sharper than “Which is greater?”
✔ Lean Harder Into Modern Stakes
They’re hungry for:
- AI comparisons
- Social media & contemplation
- College as means vs end
- Capitalism & virtue
You’re already halfway there.
6️⃣ Overall Verdict
This lecture worked.
Not because they agreed.
Because they’re thinking.
The dominant pattern is not confusion.
It’s productive tension.
That’s the sweet spot.
7️⃣ Special Notes (Verbatim, excluding alignment-mark comment)
Here are the special notes exactly as written:
[REDACTED]
If you’d like, I can also:
- Quantify thematic frequency
- Map objections to specific lecture segments
- Or help you design the next lecture to respond directly to this data
But as it stands?
This is a very strong class session.
They’re wrestling with Aristotle — not memorizing him.
That’s a win.
