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 Students: To make registration decisions.
o Teaching Faculty: To gain feedback and make suitable changes to the
course/instruction.
o Department Chairs: Gain feedback and help instructors with professional
development
o 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 Questions do not provide feedback about the curriculum.
o (research this again)
o 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
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.
o
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 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)
o 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 Provide better feedback about the coursework.
o 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 It will prompt the students to write more feedback.
o 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 Questions do not effectively measure instructional quality.
o 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 The current rating format/scale needs to be revised, data seems
statistically unreliable.
o The form is inadequate because it does not provide enough details about
the instructor.
Cont’d
Recommendations (Cont’d)
Part-time faculty members:
o Expressed concerns about instructors diluting grades and lowering class
difficulty levels in order to gain a favorable evaluation.
o Suggested that the college should examine the relationship between
grading practices and evaluation scores.
Students suggested:
o Take the evaluations seriously!
o 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.
Presentation of Data
Baruch:
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