Wo AasakI ae dere uae aa ee ae cee nes!
So ea Uta tales UE aa cies cael ER

VOLUME XIII, NUMBER 25

© INNOVATION ABS TRACTS

 
    

Student Evaluations: Tools for Instructor Learning

Student evaluations of instructors and courses, long
performed on an informal basis at college and univer-
sity campuses across the nation, can be a positive tool
for assessing instructor performance. At the Wolfson
Campus of Miami-Dade Community College, we have
implemented a systematic method of evaluation, in
conjunction with the overall goal of the college-wide
Teaching /Learning project, to make teaching and
learning the most productive process it can be. Last fall
our campus once again administered the evaluation
instrument, encompassing a sample of 545 sections
offered by 394 instructors.

Since we have begun collecting data and providing
feedback to the faculty, there has been an increase in the
positive ratings that students give their instructors. For
example, between 1988 and 1990, the approval rating of
students for the item “Instructor motivates student
interest” improved from 87.5% to 89.1%; “Instructor
encourages questions/ participation” rose from 93.0% to
94.1%. These kinds of evaluations, when performed on
a consistent basis, provide instructors with firsthand
knowledge of how their students perceive their teach-
ing and the course, enabling them to concentrate on
areas which may need improvement.

It should be noted that the results are regarded by
the campus as perceptions by the students rather than
as absolute judgments. Negative student response to an
item does not necessarily mean that the teaching
method or course needs extensive change, but it usually
signifies that the instructor needs to devote time to
assessing his/her performance in this area. In some
instances, better communication with students is all that
is required to increase their understanding and appre-
ciation of the teaching goals and methodology.

The evaluation addresses instructor preparation, as
well as general course content. We are particularly
interested in improving the responses to questions
about required writing in all courses. [Since we are
strongly urging all faculty to include writing assign-
ments in their courses, we have instituted the use of
collateral readers to mark writing assignments for
deviations from edited American English. The assign-
ments are then returned to the faculty member, who
grades the content. As the use of the collateral readers

becomes more familiar to instructors, we hope to see all
courses include writing assignments. ]

A detailed breakdown of the evaluation results over
the past three years at the Wolfson Campus is included
on page 2. While there is overall improvement in
instructor and course rankings, some items have shown
no improvement and some have declined. We believe
that these are exceptions which can be expected;
however, we plan in the future to conduct statistical
analyses to identify those which items may be of
statistical significance in further analyzing the results.

Eduardo J. Padron, President, Wolfson Campus

For further information, contact the author at Miami-
Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus, 300 N.E.
2nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33132-2297.

 

 

 

 

PLAN NOW TO ATTEND NISOD’s
FOURTEENTH INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON
TEACHING EXCELLENCE AND
CONFERENCE OF
ADMINISTRATORS.

 

May 24-27, 1992
Austin, Texas

For more information, write or call: Suanne
Roueche, NISOD, The University of Texas at
Austin, EDB 348, Austin, TX 78712-1293,
(512) 471-7545.

 

 

 

 

 

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (NISOD)
Community College Leadership Program, Department of Educational Administration
College of Education, The University of Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712

NF