next in a continuing series.... I have stopped using the College "student evaluation of teaching." To paraphrase Jerry Harvey, these anonymous questionnaires invite students to cultivate the "skills" of passivity, non-risk taking, which lead interpersonal incompetence and irresponsibility in relationships. Below are some of the questions followed by the reasons that I find them useless, misleading, ill-formed,.. A "---" is used to mark off sections. The questions have an implied pedagogy and epistemology, to wit: --- The instructions state: "This form provides the chance to express anonymously your opinions regarding this course. Please block out the number that best expresses your view where..." Shouldn't it say something like "This form requests that you to evaluate the quality of instruction in this course. Please block out the number that assesses the instruction in this course where 0 = not applicable ; 1 = objective not completed; .... 4 = objective completed" This is asking for opinions and views, not any sort of performance using a standard. There are no specific objective measurements associated with values on the forms. I could never use "opinions" and "view[s]" to evaluate students. "Agreement" is not a measure. --- 1. "Clearly laid out the course objectives." I let my students have input into the course objectives. If there is something that everybody wants to learn about, I put it in. [Yes, this is ultimately controlled by me; nonetheless, the class does have input.] I also have pretty much the same objectives for every course: COURSE OBJECTIVE: To learn techniques to produce software for real machines that is reliable, efficient, economical, and timely. DEPARTMENT OBJECTIVE: To produce graduates who can author high quality solutions to real problems, communicate effectively with people as well as machines, and adapt in a rapidly changing technological environment. PERSONAL OBJECTIVE: To develop an interest in further learning and provide a basis of concepts and skills that will facilitate further learning and thinking. This item is also ambiguous. When I say "objectives" I think of outcomes, skills, etc., as above. When students hear "objectives" they think "What do I need to do to get the grade I want?" And since our catalog says that "an unusual degree of intellectual initiative" must be displayed get an "A" it seems I -can't- lay out the objectives (in the student sense) that this item evidently asks for. (In my seminar a student asked "How do I show an unusual degree of intellectual initiative?" Before I could speak another blurted "Well, if he has to tell you, then it's not initiative...") --- 2. "Presented the course materials clearly." 5. "Was well prepared for each class." Well, I saunter into class and ask 'Any questions?' or 'What were we talking about last class?' or 'What do you want to talk about?' Usually, there are any number of things to talk about: the current project; the current class topic; the details of a tool; etc. I have to be ready to go in any of 3 (or more) directions. Sometimes the questions are really interesting and the entire class is devoted to its answer. I know where the class has been and where I want to take it, but I view a lecture as a living thing, and so it must be adapted to the current context. I will not not answer a question because it is not what I wanted to talk about. On the other hand, I just don't answer questions, but rather use them as springboards to try to involve the students in developing the tools to find, and sometimes create, their own answers. This is what scientists do. This does not deliver a high number of truths per hour; it is however, a climate for learning. Does discovering truth require clear presentation? I think not; finding truth is a messy job. (If you don't like my use of the word "truth," replace it with "knowledge.") --- 6. "Summarized or emphasized major points in lectures or discussions." This implies that summary is my job; I explicitly state in my syllabi that it is not: My classes build upon the readings; you must have them done prior to class. I expect you to review your notes before class, to generate questions, and after class, to make sure that you understood the presentation. I occasionally lecture without writing on the blackboard; you are responsible for all technical content that I discuss in class or that I direct you to learn outside of class. In summary, I expect you to ENGAGE this material; I cannot be responsible for the outcome if you do not. --- 7. Showed genuine respect and concern for students. How is "genuine" measured? "Respect and concern" may be in opposition. And frankly, while I am concerned about students who disrespect the entire educational process, it is most probably not the kind of concern that this question asks about. And I don't respect people who don't respect their education. What we have here is the classic one-way street: I may be disrespected as a faculty member, but to appropriately return that disrespect is somehow wrong? --- 13. Overall I would rate the effectiveness of the instructor of this course as This one is perhaps the most problematic. Paraphrasing Jerry Harvey: many teachers have on their desks, if not in their hearts the following maxim. "If the student hasn't learned, the teacher hasn't taught." Well, if this is the case, then it logically follows that if the student -has- learned then the teacher has taught, and then the students are nothing but instruments to measure the effectiveness of teaching (I call these "teachometers.") This denies the humanity of the people in our classrooms. I don't share my professional experience with inanimate teachometers. I deal with human beings. An 'effective' classroom experience is result of symbiosis of learner and guide, and as such cannot be divorced from the learner and laid completely at the feet of the instructor. What is really at the heart of this is the ultimate lie of "education:" the capacity to learn and grow lies with somebody else.