In many schools, particularly research schools, student evaluations matter little. As long as they are not outrageously bad, it is one's publications that get one to tenure. And once tenured, those evaluations can be outrageously bad and not much can be done about it. In fairness, many research schools are becoming increasingly concerned about teaching, as many teaching schools are becoming relatively less concerned, a subject addressed a few blogs ago. Yet most teaching schools do care about student evaluations, as they constitute a, if not the, major means of evaluating teaching. There are some schools that do make an effort to more thoroughly and comprehensively evaluate teaching, and this does seem to be the trend, typically by reviewing a teaching portfolio consisting of syllabi, teaching philosophies, methods, and materials, peer observations, student evaluations, and increasingly assessment and outcome evidence. But many teaching schools do rely heavily on student evaluations for decisions about tenure in particular.
This is rather odd in that student evaluations rarely are good measures of teaching effectiveness. Not only are the questions used in evaluations of questionable validity, but the responses are often biased and easily manipulated. For example, I actually once knew a guy who near the end of the semester would give a test and make sure the grades were high, then throw a party at his house for his students, and then give the student evaluations. In fact, there are many ways to influence if not manipulate student evaluations. The halo effect is powerful.
But at the heart of the matter is that student evaluations are not measuring teaching effectiveness, but rather student satisfaction. Sadly, to many students these are the same constructs, as many students, particularly less mature ones (in age or perspective) judge a class and its instructor by its entertainment value, or worse yet, by its ease. Instructors know this of course, and those that sell their souls for the sake of gaining high evaluations do not find it particularly difficult to pander. Just offer easy classes with easy grades, be animated with unsophisticated humor, accept any excuse for anything, and play (by that I mean, the gratuitous use of videos, stories, games, experiential exercises, etc.). Some instructors will even socialize with students (more on that soon). These and many other ploys will get many students to like you. Some panderers are sophisticated enough to understand that high grades may be noticed by department chairs, so an old trick is to create the impression that students have high grades, give the student evaluations, and then slam them with the final to lower final grades and escape the scrutiny of colleagues.
There's a lot more to this issue, and I don't mean to imply that student evaluations are useless or universally abused. They can have utility when they are just one part of teaching evaluation and are well conceived, well administered, and honestly answered. But in cases where they are not, fortunately the good students will want more than just entertainment, and increasingly, because of accreditation, the teacher-scholar model, continuous improvement, outcomes assessment, and more, departments are weeding out the panderers. Yet many still make it to tenure (and Rate My Professor) before being found out.
Labels: pandering instructors, Student Evaluations, tenure
I gave a talk to an emerging leaders group a while back and used this picture of the Gilligan's Island cast to spur discussion about leadership. It was amazing that a significant number of people did not know of the show, but more particularly whom they viewed as likely leaders from the visual cues. Most people picked Mr. Howell, because he appeared rich and therefore the boss. Yet so does Mrs. Howell, but much like the show, the women received no consideration of capability.
