RA End-of-semester course evaluation – Version 1 2015.05.12
By Jarrod Hines, Psychology, UW-Eau Claire
For each of the following items, rate your research advisor on a scale from 0-10 (5 = mid-point). An example for
the first item has been provided. You can also write in “N/A” if the item is hard to assess from your perspective.
Please feel free to write in a verbal response for any items about which you can elaborate (i.e., it’s nice to have
numbers, but the real benefit of this sort of evaluation is the written feedback, which is much more constructive).
1. Professional Competency – Knowledge of disciplinary concepts and processes
 The mentor is knowledgeable and up-to-date in his/her field of expertise.
 The mentor helps students learn background information that represents the depth and breadth of
knowledge in the discipline.
 The mentor knows how to do scholarly work in the discipline (e.g. create, inquire, research, and practice).
 The mentor understands and implements effective research mentoring practices.
2. Design and development skills – Creation and implementation of effective scholarly projects
 The mentor identifies research problems/goals that are appropriate for UWEC setting.
 The mentor acquires appropriate resources to enable research success.
 The mentor plans and adjusts scholarly processes (e.g., expectations) as the project proceeds.
3. Mentoring practices – Understanding and utilization of effective mentoring processes by the mentor
during each of the stages of the mentor/student relationship
o
Recruitment
 The mentor provokes student curiosity, confidence and appreciation of undergraduate research;
 The mentor explains rewards and responsibilities associated with undergraduate research;
 The mentor tailors research expectations and required work to the strengths of student researchers.
o
Initiation – student initiation of the collaborative research
 The mentor discussed the project’s background and objectives.
 The mentor communicated expectations and responsibilities clearly.
 The mentor created work plans and a plan for the division of labor.
o
Cultivation – Knowledge and skill development in students
 The mentor successfully developed working relationships with students.
 The mentor is approachable.
 The mentor is approachable when something goes wrong / takes an undesired turn.
 The mentor is accessible (e.g., for assistance or feedback).
 The mentor taught relevant skills.
 The mentor clarified performance expectations.
 The mentor shared decision-making with students about aspects of the project.
 The mentor provided explanations for decisions made about the project.
 The mentor challenges students.
 The mentor protects and supports students when necessary.
 The mentor gathered evidence of student performance in research activities.
 The mentor delivered constructive feedback to students.
 The mentor helped students learn and practice characteristics of good scholars.
 The mentor provided exposure to the discipline and promoted student visibility.
o
Completion and Closure – completion of project (product) and end of the formal relationship
 The mentor guided creation of final product (poster)
 The mentor assisted with the presentation or publication of product (poster)
3. Collaborative environment – Creation and maintenance of a supportive and challenging scholarly
environment
 The mentor provided regular encouragement, support and counsel.
 The mentor supported long-term goals by nurturing students’ growth.
 The mentor conveyed passion for learning through the scholarly process.
 The mentor provided clear, constructive critiques of student performance and behavior.
4. Free response section

If your research mentor possesses skills that are unassessed by the above questions, please cite
those skills here. In other words, is there anything you haven’t already mentioned that he did well and
should not change in the future?

Along a similar line of thought, is there anything you haven’t already mentioned that your mentor did
poorly (or perhaps in a way that did not “fit” you well—should he have adapted his behavior more for
each student in ways that he did not)?