Charles Flint’s claim that a professor confronted him about a course evaluation disappoints us. Not only has a professor failed in his or her role as educator-he or she acted as a poor model for accepting criticism-but an entire system has failed.
Instructor evaluations offer students an active role in their education. And they offer professors the opportunity to view their teaching experience from the other side of the desk. At an institution that is founded upon the critique and analysis of knowledge-and therefore the improvement and development of knowledge-such evaluations should be appreciated.
Traditionally, the University offers students the opportunity to critique their instructors at the end of the semester. However, instructor evaluation methods differ among departments and even instructors. Some professors pass out paper evaluations on the day before finals. Others use internet-based forms, some on course Web sites, which are public, others on school-wide networks such as WebCT.
But while methods of instructor evaluation vary, their purpose remains the same: to provide an anonymous opportunity for a student to speak his or her mind, without impact to his or her grade or reputation, in order to assess a professor’s class performance and offer thanks, thumbs up and suggestions for improvement. Because methods of evaluation differ in their effectiveness, and the current hodge-podge of evaluation systems can lead to confusion-and, at worst, what is alleged to have happened to Flint-we propose that evaluation methods be standardized.
Evaluations should be anonymous, mandatory and online.
Anonymity is essential to the success of instructor evaluation. Because students fill out evaluations before professors release their grades for the semester, the evaluation system must enable students to offer critique without fear of affecting their grades.
Evaluations should also be mandatory. If evaluations are optional, then only those students with strong opinions-students with a bone to pick with a particular professor-will take the time and energy to fill them out. Optional evaluations produce one-sided results. Mandatory evaluations, however, offer truer insight into an instructor’s strengths and weaknesses.
An online system is an easy way to make evaluations both anonymous and mandatory. Such a system also allows students time to consider honestly their experiences with a professor, as they are allowed to submit their critique on their own time, from their own location, whenever they want. Evaluations should be administered on WebCT or another school-specific network that can be overseen by the University.
The way we, as a University, handle teacher evaluations should reflect our belief that they are essential to the quality of our academics.
Evaluations are an important means of conveying student sentiment, and professors should seriously consider both the praise and the criticism they receive. A professor cannot successfully pass on knowledge to students unless that professor is aware of how students receive his or her teaching techniques and course materials.
Similarly, students should not take for granted the evaluation system. Evaluations are not merely an outlet for student frustration. If students expect evaluations to be effective, they must put forth effort worthy of these expectations when critiquing their professors.
As both students and professors at a Jesuit university, we embark on a “pursuit of truth”-it’s in the first sentence of our mission statement. This quest for truth begins in our classrooms.
To keep students and professors honest, the instructor evaluation system must be reformed.