Procedure for Presenting Student Evaluation of Teaching Data for Alumni Award Nominations
Student ratings of instruction, which we call Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) at the University of
Windsor, are one of many kinds of evidence that can be used to document instructional excellence. Like
any kind of data, SETs must be organized, presented, and appropriately contextualized so that the
reader can make an informed judgment based on the information available. Student ratings should not
be submitted in the form of raw questionnaires or computer printouts. Instead, the nominator should
summarize the evidence in an informative way that takes into account the following points:
1. Provide SET instructor scores for all of the credit-courses the instructor has taught in the last five
years, in a table. Include the following:
 course name,
 course level,
 semester,
 year,
 total enrollment, and
 SET “overall effectiveness of instructor” score (Question A12 on the SET form).
The table would look something like this:
Student Enrollment and Evaluation: Winter 2008-Fall 2011
Course
Psychology 101
Level
First Year
Psychology 102
First Year
Psychology 103
First Year
Semester
Fall
Fall
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Year
2011
2010
2011
2010
2009
2008
Enrollment
507
502
515
508
510
512
SET Score
6.2 / 7
6.3 / 7
6.4 / 7
6.6 / 7
6.6 / 7
6.6 / 7
This information provides the Committee with a clear sense of the instructor’s teaching load, typical
teaching responsibilities, and the overall student perspective on the instructor’s effectiveness.
2. Provide an average SET instructor score for each semester over the last five years, with a
comparison to a peer group’s average SET score for that semester. Usually the peer group would
be the rest of the instructors in the department. Depending on an instructor’s teaching profile,
though, you may wish to supplement the departmental information by providing information about
a peer group – it might be worth identifying average instructor scores for required, large-enrolment
courses in a faculty, for example, for a nominee whose teaching focuses specifically in that area. The
purpose of this is to put the instructor’s scores in context: average SET scores can vary quite a bit
between faculties, so it is helpful to know how this instructor compares to peers. One way to
provide this information is in graphic form, but charts can also work:
SET Scores: Winter 2008-Fall 2011
7
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.3
6.4
6.2
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
W 08
W 09
W 10
Professor X
F 10
W 11
F 11
Psychology
3. Provide a brief contextualizing statement summarizing the evidence of excellence shown in SET
scores, as well as any significant contextualizing evidence. Large-enrolment and required courses
could be identified, for example, particularly if they are courses that are traditionally unpopular or
difficult. Account for irregularities in the data (low ratings that result from significant changes to a
course or other unforeseen situations, gaps in ratings due to a leave of absence or special
assignment, or reduced teaching responsibilities). This should include a statement about whether
the instructor is teaching a normal course load for the department, and if not, why.
4. The elements described above are the minimum information that should be submitted in your
nomination. SET forms also provide detailed information about students’ views on various specific
aspects of instructor performance. Aggregate multi-year data on specific characteristics (such as
“stimulated your interest in the subject and motivated your learning” or “was sensitive to students’
difficulties”) can also be used to support specific claims about the specific qualities an instructor
brings to teaching. These data can be persuasive additional source of evidence. There are also
before and after “enthusiasm for the course” scores, and these may also have some value in making
your case for the nominee’s instructional excellence.
Please feel free to contact Jessica Raffoul (jraffoul@uwindsor.ca) for more information about the
presentation of SET information for teaching awards. As a CTL staff member, Jessica cannot work on
internal teaching award nominations, but she will be happy to provide suggestions about how to report
these data.