Saturday, December 17, 2016
Student Evals: Reading between the check boxes
Student evals are in. This was my first quarter teaching at UCR, and even though I've been through this process before I was anxious to see how my prior skills translated to student engagement in a new environment. My evals were overwhelmingly positive, despite evals no longer being required for students to view grades. Most of my scores were a tick above the department average, especially "Overall, is an effective teacher" and "Motivates me to do my best" which I consider the most important. Good enough, right? Well, yes, if all student evals were for was a metric to decide who is allowed to continue teaching. Student evals are often skewed, and there are always outliers. Because of this, the numbers don't always means much; and comments tend to be extremely good or bad, as students in the middle tend not to take the time to type a response even if they fill out the checkboxes. I did see a slight drop for "Gives useful feedback on assignments and exams." The majority of students who responded gave me a "perfect" score, but a couple knocked of a point or two, and two gave that section the lowest score overall. Although I gave detailed comments on the first assignment and midterm, these anomalies suggest that for a handful of students there was a lack of clarity. I doubt I will be able to give more detailed comments in a class of the same size, but I'm actually not sure that would help. Reading between the lines (or rather, checkboxes), I suspect that what will allow me to help a few extra students is some form of general translation guide: here is what this type of comment means, and here are some strategies to address it. For many of my students, this is the first class that asks for analytical writing. Many have not finished their writing series, and some have not even begin. History absolutely requires this skill, but it cannot be learned in a vacuum.