Student Evaluations

•

Introduction:

Conducted: Qualtrics Survey Fall 2011 o o o o Sample Size: 642 FT Tenured: 158, FT Untenured: 59 Adjunct: 190 Students: 218 Purpose: Gain constructive feedback to improve evaluations. • Who Uses the Evaluations?

o o o o Students: To make registration decisions. Teaching Faculty: To gain feedback and make suitable changes to the course/instruction. Department Chairs: Gain feedback and help instructors with professional development Administrators: Use them as supplementary materials in hiring, tenure and promotion decisions.

Findings:

Students: o Most of the student population is unaware of the resource and where to find it. o Students find the results hard to understand.

o Written comments are more useful than numerical data.

o Reliability of the results? • Most instructors receive favorable ratings. • Most students do not complete the form seriously because they believe that the college does not take it seriously.

o The information provided is not what the students are looking for. • Revisions to the questions are suggested

Members of the teaching faculty believe: o They do not gain valuable feedback from the numerical data.

• Scores are usually 4-5 • Written comments are more useful.

o The results to them should be available sooner o Student interest is low. (elaborate it with data) o Current evaluations are inadequate for admin purposes. • • Results are generally in the same range. Difficult to compare scores.

Dep’t. Chairs and Admins believe: o The evaluation is a useful instrument, but inadequate by itself. (Supplemented with peer evaluations etc.) o Current scale is less reliable.

• Scores are usually 4-5 o Dep’t. Chairs as well as instructors do not gain necessary feedback to improve pedagogy.

o Written comments are more useful than numerical data.

o o o Questions do not provide feedback about the curriculum. (research this again) Inclusion of an overall rating/ summary can also be helpful.

• •

Recommendations

How can we make the evaluations more useful to students?

Revise the scale, 4 point instead of 5. Faculty and Students both suggested that we revise the current questions. o Include straightforward questions about: • Fairness • Learning o Need to address areas such as: • Instructor’s ability to communicate (Q 2,7) • Appropriate level of difficulty • • Nature of the assignments, examinations, papers.

Instructor’s helpfulness (Q 8,9) o o Evaluation results should be available at the time of registration.

• Link provided along with the appointment time. Results need to better publicized & easy to find. Cont’d

Recommendations (Cont’d)

Written Comments: • Faculty and students both indicated that written comments are a lot more informative than numerical data (as currently presented).

o o Students: • should be allowed to view written comments. • should have the option of expressing their opinions about the course to other students. (why ratemyprofessors.com is popular) Faculty: • • Senior FT opposed to making written comments available to students. Untenured and Adjuncts less opposed.

Recommendations (Cont’d)

How to make the evaluations more useful to instructors?

• Faculty and students both suggested that the current questions be revised. o o Provide better feedback about the coursework.

More specific about instructor’s quality of teaching. • Suggestion: Include questions that will guide students towards writing more useful comments.

Prompts for Written Comments

• Baruch’s written comments section is vague.

• Recommendations to Include specific questions were made.

o o It will prompt the students to write more feedback. Instructors can also be given an option of customizing the questions to gain feedback.

• A separate question which is shared with the entire school community will also prove helpful.

Prompts for Written Comments

Sample Questions: Source: Brooklyn College • Apart from the instructor, what are the strengths of the course? • How can the course be improved?

• Apart from te course, what are the strengths of the instructor?

• How can the instructor’s teaching be improved?

Prompts for Written Comments

An additional question: • What would you like to tell others about the course?

Shared with everyone in the Baruch Community.

Recommendations (Cont’d)

o Administer Mid-Term Evaluations.

• optional and available only to the instructor.

o The evaluation results should be timely processed.

• enough time to make changes for the following term

Recommendations

How to make the evaluations more useful to Dep’t. Chairs and Administrators?

• Faculty criticisms: o o Questions do not effectively measure instructional quality.

Evaluations do not provide the dep’t. chairs and the instructors an opportunity to learn about specific shortcomings. • Written Comments are more suitable, having access to comments will prove to be more useful. • The full-time teaching faculty suggested: o o The current rating format/scale needs to be revised, data seems statistically unreliable.

The form is inadequate because it does not provide enough details about the instructor. Cont’d

Recommendations (Cont’d)

Part-time faculty members: o o Expressed concerns about instructors diluting grades and lowering class difficulty levels in order to gain a favorable evaluation. Suggested that the college should examine the relationship between grading practices and evaluation scores. Students suggested: o o Take the evaluations seriously!

Make written comments available at least to the dept. chairs and admins.

  FT tenured strongly opposed that idea. FT untenured and adjuncts supported having the written comments available to the dept. chairs.

 Expressed moderate views about having comments available to admins.

Baruch:

Presentation of Data

•

Presentation of Data

There are no departmental comparisons • Difficult to read • Difficult to navigate • Improve the overall user interface.

•

Presentation of Data

Brooklyn: Individual vs. Dep’t.

•

Presentation of Data

Brooklyn: Individual