Wednesday, November 18, 1998
Promotions, tenures depend on accurate student evaluations
STUDENTS: Thoughtfully written comments may result in quality
teaching
By Shannan Rouss
Daily Bruin Contributor
In about two weeks when evaluations circulate through classes,
students will make their contribution to ensuring quality teaching
at UCLA.
In their haste, few students consider the impact evaluations
have on the faculty.
"There are two reasons for evaluations at UCLA Â for
promotion and tenure decisions, and for improving instruction,"
said Teresa Dawson-Muñoz, assistant director of the Office of
Instructional Development (OID).
Many students, however, have questions about the authority of
their responses.
Alicia Sherman, a fourth-year sociology student, recalled one
class in which "all the students complained to the TAs and they
agreed that the professor was unbearably boring.
"I know that a number of us expressed our dissatisfaction in the
evaluations, and the following quarter she was (still) the only one
teaching the complementary course," Sherman said.
Vijay Goel, a fourth-year physiological science student, is
unique  he is one of the few students who takes the time to
write comments on the evaluation form. Yet, he is discouraged by
the results of his efforts. "I am certain there are some professors
who won’t change no matter what," he said.
For the most part, it appears professors are immune to student
criticism, provided they’ve made other contributions.
"Despite the proclaimed policy of equal weighting for teaching
and research contributions, I think most personnel actions are
clearly weighted towards the latter," said Professor Jon Davidson,
past chair of the Academic Senate Committee on Teaching.
Tom Wortham, chair of the English Department, explained that
teaching is as important as research when assessing a professor’s
merit.
"You can get a good researcher who’s a bad teacher or you can
get a good researcher who’s a good teacher" when reviewing
candidates, he said.
Any time decisions affecting the faculty are made, student
evaluations are just one part of a comprehensive review
process.
According to some faculty members, factors such as grade
expectations, class size or student interest can bias evaluations,
often giving student opinion less credibility.
"I don’t like the evaluation system," said Kathryn Norberg, a
professor in the history department. "Smaller courses always
produce higher ratings."
Often, class popularity also directly affects a student’s
evaluation.
"The courses that are more accessible and basically deal with
sexier issues are getting higher scores independent of the
professors," said Robert Emerson, chair of the sociology
department.
Faculty claim another weakness of the student evaluation is its
simplistic ranking system, which employs vague terms like "poor"
and "excellent" to describe a course.
Although the back of the form is left open for comments, few
students take the time to express their opinions.
"Instructors often say they are disappointed students do not
write more comments," said Dawson-Muñoz.
Both Wortham and Emerson said a narrative component should be
part of the evaluation.
"A number doesn’t convey much, (and) it doesn’t put a lot of
responsibility on the student in terms of articulating a critique,"
Emerson said.
Peer evaluations are a supplementary method for assessing
professors. "In the history department, we don’t rely on the
(student) evaluations alone," said Norberg. A faculty committee
also reviews courses every few years.
Although Wortham admits student evaluations are limited, peer
evaluations are an insufficient alternative as well.
"Unless you have sat through the class, done all the work (and)
participated in discussion, you are not really as qualified as a
student," he said.
While Wortham argues students are qualified to judge the quality
of instruction, they can be misused to justify arbitrary
actions.
"Student evaluations are a loaded gun put in the hand of certain
administrators," said Jeff Smith, a lecturer in the writing
department. After 12 years at UCLA, Smith was not approved for
reappointment.
"They seize on some student saying something bad about you for
(his or her) own agenda," he said.
Smith said evaluations are biased to favor more liberal
graders.
"If angry students can get you fired, you are going to give
higher grades than you otherwise would," he added.
Dawson-Muñoz, however, disputed Smith’s assertions.
"National literature … suggests that there are no correlations
between teachers giving high grades and students giving them high
evaluations," she said.
Wortham also defended the accuracy of student evaluations. "If
it is the perception that students give higher marks to the more
generous graders, then it’s based upon myth and not reality," he
said.
"Two of the most demanding graders in the (English) department
get among the highest scores," he added.
Regarding a challenging organic chemistry course, Goel said, "A
lot of people failed, but she was an excellent teacher," proving
harder grading does not necessarily garner criticism.
Dawson-Muñoz said she hopes students will be mindful of
this when judging their professors.
"With a little patience, thoughtful students can often teach
instructors to teach better, just as thoughtful instructors can
teach students to learn more effectively," she said.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]