Student Evaluation of Teachers

November 10, 1989
Updated August 2000

Preamble

In assessing overall teaching performance, the primary concern is with the quality of the instruction. Quality encompasses such dimensions as intellectual rigor in courses, skill in elucidating difficult material, accessibility to students, interest in students' academic progress, and ability and willingness to assess that progress thoroughly and fairly. Student evaluations of teaching may provide meaningful data to be used in the process of evaluating overall teacher performance.

Teacher evaluation by students may serve two different types of purposes. One is evaluation for improvement or "formative evaluation." For this purpose, student evaluations of teachers may serve:

1. as a mechanism for reminding or sensitizing faculty to their responsibilities in providing quality instruction, and
   
   
2. as a diagnostic tool to aid in self-improvement of teaching.

The second purpose is "summative evaluation" for promotion, tenure, or merit pay considerations. While student evaluations may aid in this regard, they cannot be the only basis for

1. identifying superior teachers,
   
   
2. identifying inferior or unsatisfactory teachers,
   
   
3. categorizing teachers for merit pay purposes, and
   
   
4. categorizing teachers for promotion and tenure purposes.
   

1.    Proposed Purposes

The basic goal for the use of student evaluations of teachers is to contribute to high quality in teaching. Student evaluations alone will not provide sufficient information to judge faculty performance in all dimensions of teaching, but student evaluations can provide a triggering mechanism for the identification of superior and/or unsatisfactory teachers. In this regard, student evaluations can play only a part in helping to make useful distinctions among teachers for:

1. promotion and/or tenure decisions,
   
   
2. salary increases, and
   
   
3. improvement or removal of unsatisfactory teachers.

2.    Distinctions Which Serve No Purpose

Not all distinctions among teachers implied from student evaluations are meaningful or useful. In particular, a full numerical ranking of all faculty would serve little or no useful purpose. The proposed purposes for the use of student evaluations are essentially monitoring performance within a broad category of "satisfactory" and triggering consideration for classification as "superior" or as "unsatisfactory." Ranking within a group or category is spurious.

3.    Intrinsic Usefulness of Student Evaluation

Students who are completing or have completed a course have observed a teacher for many hours and are in a position to provide potentially useful information concerning the teacher's effectiveness. Some of this information might be difficult or costly to obtain through other channels. Student evaluations provide student perspectives on teacher performance which may be intrinsically valuable for:

1. continually sensitizing or reminding teachers that students are their customers;
   
   
2. encouraging faculty members to devote the time and effort necessary for good teaching;
   
   
3. serving as a diagnostic tool to identify weaknesses in teacher effectiveness; and,
   
   
4. aiding in self-improvement.

4.    Limitations of Student Evaluations

One essential ingredient for good teaching is the instructor's knowledge of the subject. Students are not qualified to judge this aspect of teacher competence and should not be asked to do so.

There may be other dimensions of teaching, which students cannot judge objectively but are asked to judge. Improper use of student judgments may prove not only misleading but may be potentially harmful in summative evaluation of teacher performance.

Among the major unresolved issues concerning student evaluation are the reliability and validity of student ratings. Student evaluations of teachers may be influenced by such factors as:

1. course rigor;
   
   
2. class size;
   
   
3. the student's expected grade in the course
   
   
4. whether the course is a required or an elective course;
   
   
5. course content;
   
   
6. the instructor's professorial rank;
   
   
7. class level; and
   
   
8. gender composition of the students in the class.

The effects of these variables on student evaluations of teachers are not easily identified. This implies that attempts to draw fine distinctions between teachers based on student evaluations may be subject to considerable error.

In addition, very little is known about the relationship between "good" scores on evaluations and "learning." Some studies show a very weak positive relationship while others show either no significant relationship or a negative relationship. Thus, there exists little evidence that student evaluations are valid measures of learning.

5.    Teaching Evaluation: Categories

It is only necessary to evaluate teaching at three levels: superior, satisfactory and unsatisfactory. These categories are described as follows:

A.    Superior Teaching

Superior teaching occurs in those circumstances in which an instructor succeeds in earning a reputation among a wide and diverse audience for outstanding teaching. Recognition of superior teaching shall be based upon consistent evaluative evidence from students, colleagues, Department Heads (and/or Deans), as well as alumni. A superior teacher is one who displays characteristics such as the following: 

1. outstanding success in facilitating student learning;
   
   
2. outstanding success in facilitating student interest;
   
   
3. the establishment and maintenance of high academic standards;
   
   
4. substantial influence on the academic and professional pursuits of students;
   
   
5. outstanding success in guiding and facilitating student research, and scholarship (particularly relevant to graduate teaching);
   
   
6. consistent success in making complex ideas and concepts understandable and meaningful to students; and
   
   
7. outstanding knowledge of the current literature in his/her field.
   

It deserves emphasis that "above average" teaching does not qualify as superior teaching. See the discussion below under satisfactory teaching.

B.    Satisfactory Teaching

Satisfactory teaching is characterized by conscientious attention to teaching duties and an absence of the traits and characteristics of an unsatisfactory teacher (described below). Satisfactory teaching is therefore good, conscientious teaching. In a highly qualified faculty, such as ours, we would expect the vast majority to be categorized as satisfactory.

In any discussion of satisfactory teaching, the following points should be noted:

1. It is difficult and unnecessary to make judgments concerning graduations of teaching effectiveness within the broad category designated as satisfactory teaching.
   
   
2. Unlike the superior category, deficiencies in some areas may be offset by strengths in others and more flexibility can be used to judge the characteristics of the satisfactory teachers.
   
   
3. Research evidence reveals that an overwhelming majority of faculty members regard themselves as "better than average" teachers and that student evaluations tend to rate most faculty members "above average" (on a numerical rating scale). The meaning of this for purposes of defining the satisfactory teaching category is clear. Many faculty members who regard themselves as better-than-average and who are rated as better-than-average by students would fall within the broad group of faculty members whose teaching is best described as satisfactory.

C.     Unsatisfactory Teaching

Unsatisfactory teaching occurs in those circumstances in which the instructor falls below minimum acceptable standards of teaching performance. An unsatisfactory teacher is one who displays one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Incapacity or inability to communicate adequately with students.
   
   
2. Inconsistency of evaluation of students and announced standards.
   
   
3. Evaluation of students using criteria unrelated to the teaching/learning process.
   
   
4. Reliance on subject matter that is judged by learned peers to be trivial, outdated, or factually incorrect.
   
   
5. Failure to establish and maintain adequate academic standards and expectations.
   
   
6. Failure to fully and promptly evaluate students' work.
   
   
7. Failure to meet classes regularly (including failure to meetclasses for the full class term).
   
   
8. Unwillingness to meet with students outside of class hours.
   
   
9. Absence of defined instructional purposes in courses.
   
   
10. Failure to show evidence of knowledge and use of current scholarship.
    
    

For evaluation purposes faculty performance in teaching must be judged to fall into one of the three categories identified above.

6.    Teaching Evaluation: Policy

Student evaluations will be conducted in each class including summer term classes and Executive MBA classes.

Safeguards are needed to prevent the facile use of numerical averages of student ratings in evaluating teacher effectiveness. Student evaluations will not be used to rank order instructors within broad categories of superior, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. Because the faculty believe that teaching courses reflecting the most theoretically sound practices, having a high level of rigor and fulfilling the role of a core course in a curriculum are most important, student evaluations should not impede those efforts.

All classes will be evaluated using the seven-item "C&BA Teaching Effectiveness Evaluation Form" (attached). The seven questions are not intended to be equally weighted. Questions one through six indicate dimensions of the instructor that can be rated objectively by a student; these questions are designed only to identify potential problem areas for an instructor. The last question is intended as an overall evaluation of the instructor and requires a subjective assessment by the student. This is the only question that will be used for classification of teaching.

A calibration instrument was used to determine a discrimination value of the scale for question seven to identify instructors who may be performing unsatisfactorily. This form was administered to a random sample of C&BA students outside of regular classes to reduce bias toward any particular class. A minimum acceptable score of 2.8 was established using the calibration instrument. A score below 2.8 is defined as "unacceptable."

Assessment of teaching performance will be consistent with the following policies and procedures

1. If an instructor occasionally receives an unacceptable evaluation in a course or a small number of courses, the instructor may choose to take one of the following courses of action.
   
   
1. The instructor may explain to the Department Head's satisfaction why the evaluation is below the acceptable standard.
   
   
2. The instructor may seek outside help in order to improve.
   
   
3. The instructor may invite a peer evaluation.
   
   
4. The instructor may do nothing.
   
   
2. If an instructor (1) receives unacceptable evaluations in a number of courses or (2) receives consistently, over a period of time, unsatisfactory evaluations in a course, the following courses of action are to be taken.
   
   
   1. The instructor must explain to the Department Head's satisfaction why the evaluations are below the acceptable standard, and either seek outside help, or invite a peer evaluation to help determine whether student evaluations are correct.
      
      
   2. Remedial action, approved by the Department Head, must be initiated.
      
      
   3. Peer evaluation of course content and grading standards will be part of monitoring subsequent performance.
      
      
3. If an instructor's teaching evaluations persistently fall below an acceptable standard without explanation, then this is sufficient reason to judge the teaching performance as unsatisfactory.
   
   
4. To determine whether a teacher is superior requires much more documentation. In the absence of nomination and sufficient documentation by others, it is incumbent upon the individual to provide evidence that he or she exhibits all the characteristics listed as being required for superior teaching. Review by peers is a necessary ingredient in this process.
   
   
5. For promotion and tenure decisions a candidate must provide evidence of his/her effectiveness as a teacher. A qualitative judgment that the teaching is satisfactory or superior based on a thorough examination of relevant materials is required in all promotion and tenure decisions. Student evaluations, although required, are not sufficient for this purpose. Candidates may submit any evidence that they consider relevant to the review process; however, teaching will only be classified in one of the three categories. In the absence of other information, acceptable student evaluations will result in a judgment that teaching is satisfactory at other periodic personnel reviews.
   
   
6. It is the responsibility of departments to continually review the curriculum and course content to determine that current up-to-date material is taught.