American Liberal Arts Blog

Teaching the Liberal Arts in the American Context
Annual Reports and Student Evaluations
Print
By Ryan R. Holston, August 10, 2011 in Uncategorized

A friend of mine recently posted a message on a familiar social networking site (which I’m sure can be guessed!) that revealed a great deal of angst over having to write an Annual Self-Evaluation for performance in his/her current position.  This friend is an academic in a relatively new teaching job, who says that all members of the faculty are expected to provide evidence of “excellence in teaching.”  However, in the short time at this institution, my friend says that his/her feedback received from student evaluations has been less than stellar, thus leaving this person in a bind as to how to present their case to the department chair and dean. 

Since it is that time of year when many, if not most, academics are doing such self-evaluations and since we’ve all experienced at one point or another student feedback that we wouldn’t necessarily want as the top line on our C.V., I thought this would be a good opportunity to reflect on both phenomena.

The first and most important thing to remember when considering student evaluations is to approach them with the appropriate perspective or frame of mind.  It is a cliché in academia that in assessing faculty teaching, too much emphasis is often placed on evaluations that come from students who are, in the first place, unqualified to be appraising the teaching of their professors, and, in the second place, often base their evaluations on superficial considerations, such as whether they found the professor entertaining or whether grades received in the course reflected their self-perceived intelligence level.  The problem is that these criticisms of student evaluations do nothing to help the faculty member who finds him or herself already within this system of assessment.  Moreover, and more problematically, such criticisms actually buy into the logic which treats such evaluations as serving as an - albeit flawed - metric or barometer of good or bad teaching.  But it seems to me that faculty have it within their power to alter this assumed premise about student evaluations simply by changing their outlook on and interpretation of them.  The key is to treat student evaluations simply for what they are -- the perspective on one’s teaching from the vantage point of someone who sits in the room and takes the class.  In other words, once one jettisons the assumption that such reports are designed to measure, score, or rate professors’ performances and replaces it with the idea that they merely provide the view of the course from the eyes of the student, feedback not only loses its teeth and becomes considerably less threatening but can actually be a useful tool in improving one’s teaching (not to mention impressing one’s department chair and dean).

Consider that there are two possible outlooks or ways of interpreting my friend’s negative student feedback.  One is to view these student evaluations as reflecting his/her poor performance over the course of the academic year.  Students, implicitly perceived as the authorities on good and bad teaching, “rated” this colleague of mine poorly, and, if this is the case, he/she is immediately put in a defensive position of having to justify the “score” received.  Interestingly, many respondents to this friend’s post seemed to accept this premise and immediately began offering possible excuses for the performance:  this mutual friend of ours was still relatively new to teaching, he/she did not have ample time at the institution to gauge and adjust to the student population, he/she was teaching one or more required courses that self-selects students who are forced (and thus do not want) to be there, his/her research had been occupying a substantial and disproportionate amount of time, etc.  But this all misses the point.  Such excuses are only warranted if one assumes that the goal is to get high “scores” from students whose job is to “rate” one’s performance.  Alternatively, my advice to my friend was to reflect on the particular areas in which the students voiced critical concerns about the course and to consider which of these concerns had merit and which did not.  The outcome of such self-reflection and deliberation - what is valid and what is invalid about the areas of concern to the students - is what I believe should comprise the content of an Annual Self-report that relates to teaching.  The message that this sends to any department chair or dean is decidedly different from that which assumes one is being “rated.”  First, it conveys the sense that one is open to - and does not just get defensive about - criticism of one’s teaching, something which even the best teachers receive (in the words of my current chair, if you only receive positive feedback from students, you must be doing something wrong).  Second, it indicates that one is engaged in an active process of examining and thinking hard about what good teaching is -- one of the main things, in my opinion, that chairs and deans are actually looking for in assessing faculty teaching.  Third, and related to this latter point, is that such qualitative discrimination between students’ critical comments tacitly reinforces the notion that the value of student feedback is its vantage point or perspective, which still requires the judgment and expertise of the professor in order to have legitimacy, e.g. student complaints about “too much reading” aren’t unequivocally valid.  Indeed, even if one has overwhelmingly positive student feedback, I would argue that all of these points that are crucial to convey to one’s supervisors become undermined when one treats student evaluations as if they were merely a “score” or “rating” of one’s teaching performance. 

In the end, I told my friend, this is about the difference between seeing student feedback as a teacher’s report card or a self-improvement resource.  The former outlook, in my opinion, creates teachers who seek only the approval of their students, while the latter, by contrast, uses a critical eye and actually sees student criticisms as helpful.  It is important, in my view, to continually reemphasize the latter outlook on student evaluations, not only in one’s own mind, but in the minds of department chairs and administrators as well.   

Tags: No subjects

4 Comments
Tim Simpson on Aug 14, 2011 at 3:25 pm

You provide keen observations on how to read student evaluations. All the typically negative responses from faculty to student evaluations do not matter if our chair, Dean and administration still put stock in them. You offer a useful way to acknowledge them, but within a larger conceptual framework. Even if the faculty member contextualizes the student evaluation, there still remains a problem if our administration views the student evaluation in a more narrow perspective. Perhaps then we must educate our administration as well to understand the greater context.

Lee Trepanier on Aug 15, 2011 at 8:19 am

I agree with Tim and your second suggestion: student evaluations need to be treated as the starting point of a dialogue about your performance as a teacher. I would only add that there are some things, like whether the professor return backs in time, keep office hours, is the class well-organized, that students are competent to evaluate. It becomes more questionable whether students are really competent to evaluate the subject matter itself or whether they have learned anything in the classroom. In other words, I would argue student evaluations are good tools for evaluation, but we need to figure out what we want the students to actually evaluate, i.e., what they are competent to evaluate.

Ryan R. Holston on Aug 27, 2011 at 12:00 am

Tim & Lee: Thanks so much for your thoughtful feedback (and my apologies for the delay in my reply!)

If I understand Tim's point, you think my strategy of re-framing or re-contextualizing student evaluations is a decent one, but if administrators are persistent in treating them as authoritative, we need to supplement this strategy with an effort to understand the larger trend or educational/cultural context that is responsible for this. I would have to agree! I suppose my strategy was/is at least Burkean insofar as it tries to play the hand we've been dealt and work within this system. But, I think that that is consistent with your idea of figuring out how we got here. (And there is, to be sure, a very Burkean quality to that as well!)

Lee, I also agree with your helpful suggestion that we make distinctions as to what students are evaluating, and acknowledge that there are some things they are and other things that they aren't qualified to assess. I believe it is possible, as I indicated above, to "pick over" some student feedback. But I think you are right that that becomes tougher when one is talking about other areas that they certainly are able to evaluate, e.g. professional demeanor, returning work on time, keeping office hours, etc.

TDE on Jan 25, 2012 at 6:11 pm

It is reckless to give substantial credence to student evaluations, whether they are positive or negative. Think about it this way: would such an anonymous evaluation ever pass scrutiny under the Federal Rules of Evidence? Of course not. Anonymous, subjective opinions are inherently unreliable. Law schools rely on this otherwise inadmissible evidence because it is the least expensive way of measuring progress and it placates the students. Notably, they provide little training to their instructors (especially adjuncts) and provide little meaningful feedback from within the faculty.

I have been an adjunct lecturer at our local Law School for ten years. In teaching Civil Procedure to first year students, my goals are often inconsistent with the student's expectations. Students want the clearest and most efficient path to getting a good grade. Grades, grades, grades. What will be on the exam? What are you looking for? Can I have more feedback please? Did I miss something that might be on the exam at the end of the semester? This cluster of questions defines their main priorities.

When you teach to these priorities, i.e., "teach to the exam," you will get better evaluations. This has been my experience.

I do not teach to these priorities. In fact, my priorities are different. I want the students to learn how to analyze and solve problems, assimilate relevant law and take responsibility for how they approach the purpose, audience and format requirements that are inevitably tied to any procedural question. I do not spoon feed them the law, and I expect them to show up to class prepared and ready to discuss complex issues that they will confront as lawyers. I provide direct feedback, expect good work, and don't accept unplausible excuses. This is not a popularity contest, and my goal is not to make friends (and certainly not make enemies). I treat the students with respect, and I make it clear when their work is good. As a partner in a relatively large law firm, I treat our associates pretty much the same way. Most of them respect me.

So my question is this: as a student, do you want someone to hold your hand up to the examination or encourage you to learn how to use a basic set of skills that will actually help you become a proficient attorney? The practice of law spoonfeeds nothing, and it can be unforgiving. You will be responsible for deadlines, calendars, dealing with judges, opposing counsel, employees and supervisors. In the middle of that, you will actually be practicing law.

My conclusion is simple: At least with respect to first year law students, evaluations have marginal value, if any. When I teach to the test, my evaluations are much better. When I force the students to think and take responsibility for their own learning experience, I am insulted or criticized in a manner that makes it clear that the "evaluator" may be being forced, perhaps for the first time in his or her life, to actually do some work. I take this as a complement.

about the author

Ryan R. Holston
Ryan R. Holston

I teach political theory in the Department of International Studies & Political Science at the Virginia Military Institute where I have been since the fall of 2009.   During  the 2008-2009 academic year, I taught Public Law and Political Theory in the Political Science Department at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.  I received my Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins University (2008), my M.Sc. at The London School of Economics and Political Science (2000), and my B.A. from Dickinson College (1996). 

My research interests include  tradition and the philosophy of history, liberalism and modernity, romanticism and continental philosophy, moral and political pluralism, deliberative democracy, and the philosophy of law.  I have had articles appear in Humanitas and the Political Science Reviewer