~ JEACHING
PROFESSOR

 

Volume 2, Number 6

dune, 1988

 

Can Self-Evaluation
Improve Instruction?

Self-evaluation isn’t effective, says Peter Seldin.
Writing in the Spring 1982 issue of College Teaching,
Seldin says, “Self-analysis holds limited promise to im-
prove teaching. Some teachers are stumped on how to
evaluate classroom performance. Others can identify
teaching weaknesses but are at a loss as to how to
proceed from the identification to the correction. Still
others are taken in by the illusions of themselves as
superb teachers” (p. 71).

Seldin’s points have merit. Teaching requires a
huge investment of self, and such highly personal in-
volvement always threatens objectivily. But I find
myself disagreeing with his conclusions. Most of us
teach because we believe in the value of what we
have learned. We want to share that experience with
others. This underlying commitment to the teaching-
learning process is a foundation for the case that self-
evaluation can improve instruction. Seldin’s objections
do not constitute inherent impediments to self-evalua-
tion, but rather removable barriers.

First, Seldin says teachers are stumped on how to
evaluate classroom performance. True, but we can
“un-stump” teachers. All sorts of ways to evaluate
classroom performance exist. And we can show
teachers how to choose among and use them.

The beauty of self-evaluation is that, rather than
having the institution prescribe the method, you select
or even create methods of your own. Self-evaluation
lets you ask the questions about teaching that most in-
terest you. Because you make these key decisions,
you tend to look at the feedback more seriously, which
will probably increase its impact on your instruction.

Could instructors be stumped because they don’t
know the “right” or “best” way to self-evaluate? Sure,
because it has yet to be discovered. What’s right or
best depends on what the individual wants to find out.
Closed questions help to develop comprehensive in-
structional awareness (if you ask enough of them),
Open-ended questions identify ideas. Videotape helps
with the mechanics of presentation, and so on.

 

Instructors may be stumped about the mechanics of
evaluation, but what really dooms self-evaluation is
the notion some have that it’s always based just on in-
ternal feedback: the instructor’s impression of how it’s
all going. Wishful thinking isn’t the kind of self-evalua-
tion I’m talking about. Instructors cannot sit under a
tree, contemplate how they teach, and come up with
objective evaluations. But they can, with a very
mechanical and descriptive view in mind, and some
coaching on how to observe themselves, take intermit-
tent peeks at what’s going on in class and make some
valuable discoveries. (Our March 1987 issue offers ad-
vice on how to do this.)

But even that alone is not enough. To compensate
for one’s vested interest, one’s view of his instruction-
al self must always be held up against the bright light
of input from others. All instructors -- not some -- can,
with the help of others, cultivate the required objec-
tivity and evaluate their teaching.

Attacking Your Strengths

But then, Seldin says, they don’t know what to do
about the weaknesses. That’s another valid, but
answerable, objection. Most faculty teach without
training in teaching and with limited ideas about alter-
native approaches. But why can’t they ask peer
reviewers to suggest alternatives? It seems like a
natural part of the feedback process, but few of our
evaluation activities emphasize its importance.

Teaching can be improved in two ways: by remov-
ing weaknesses and by developing strengths. But,
strengths can’t be developed unless the instructor
knows they exist. Obviously, evaluation activities
ought to be designed so they discover strengths along
with weaknesses. While an instructor may not know
what to do about the weaknesses, perhaps he or she
can start by further emphasizing what works well
with students. Teaching will best be improved if the
weaknesses are removed and the strengths developed,
but beginning by working on the strengths will benefit
the instruction and encourage the instructor.

As for those who suffer delusions of grandeur about
themselves in the classroom, again, give Seldin the
point, but not the conclusion. Some faculty do teach

 

8