In March 2000, a sub-committee of the 101 Academic Standards Committee conducted a survey of UNR faculty regarding the current and potential usage of student teaching evaluations. Of approximately 750 possible, 211 surveys (28%) were returned. This proportion is only an estimate, due to incomplete data regarding the current number of faculty and number of surveys actually reaching their destinations.

This survey was initiated as an attempt to guide recommendations to the Faculty Senate regarding current and potential usage of student teaching evaluations at UNR. A focus on student evaluations of teaching is, in part, the result of the Teaching Excellence Initiative and a statement by the Board of Regents regarding student teaching evaluations. A brief discussion of these documents is provided below.

The Teaching Excellence Initiative states: "Annual performance evaluations of both tenured and untenured teaching faculty shall include an evaluation of teaching. (Sec 5.11.1 and Sec 5.12.1) This evaluation shall be informed by student evaluations of teaching effectiveness and by other means, such as: peer evaluations, portfolios, syllabus review, and learning outcomes". In addition, the Board of Regents recently published (memo Jan. 15^th, 1999) the following statement: "Every student in a University and Community College System of Nevada course shall have the opportunity to provide systematic feedback on the effectiveness of the teaching and the course".

The charge guiding our survey effort and recommendations is the following: "Work on creating a Policy Statement regarding the Purpose/Use of Student Evaluations of Teaching".

Almost half of the surveys returned (78) were completed by faculty working 16 or more years in higher education, with an approximately even distribution among other categories of length of employment (35, 1-4 years; 28, 5-8 years; 30, 9-12 years, and 30, 13-16 years.

The majority of surveys returned were from the college of Arts & Science. Representation from colleges is roughly equivalent to the overall percentage of surveys returned however there is some difficulty with these data, as mentioned earlier.

Almost half of the returned surveys (102) came from Tenured and Tenure-Track faculty (61 and 41, respectively). The next two largest groups of responses came from faculty that serve as both administrators and teaching faculty (40), and Non-Tenure Track faculty (33).

The majority of respondents indicated that a standardized form is used in their department (178, Yes; 20 No). All colleges have standardized forms for student teaching evaluations, however, there are some inconsistencies within colleges. For example some faculty in departments within the colleges of Arts & Science (50 Yes; 10 No), Engineering (11 Yes; 1 No), Mines (14 Yes; 1 No), Education (15, Yes; 3 No), and the Medical School (21 Yes; 3 No) indicated they did not use a standard student teaching evaluation form. Departments within colleges are not identified and analyzed in this report, as this was an effort to collect information regarding university trends.

A comparison group against which an individual teacher could examine relative performance, such as department averages, were provided for approximately 30% of respondents (68, Yes; 120 No). Again, there was considerable variability within colleges regarding this question. The number of faculty, by college, answering both Yes and No to the question "The overall department averages of student teaching evaluations are provided with the results of individual course averages of student teaching evaluations in my department" are provided in the table below: (Journalism had only 2 surveys returned)

Approximately 18% of faculty (40) respondents could customize their student teaching evaluation in some manner (40, Yes; 120, No). The colleges of Agriculture and Business Administration consistently report No ability to customize evaluations. Again, within the majority of colleges there appears to be variation within departments regarding customizing student teaching evaluations. The table below provides the number of faculty, by college, answering Yes or No to the question "I am currently able to customize my student teaching evaluation form with questions that I select".

Most respondents agree that their departments could improve the Student Teaching Evaluation process. Almost 75% of faculty Agree or Partially Agree (89, agree; 69 partially agree) with the statement "My department could improve the way that student teaching evaluations are conducted". This is in contrast with 14% of faculty who partially disagree (5) or disagree (26) with the same statement.

A major section of the survey contained questions that referred to the CURRENT USE of Student Teaching Evaluations in your respective department and the same questions that referred to POTENTIAL USES of Student Teaching Evaluations in the faculty person’s respective department.

Survey respondents were asked to indicate the Degree of Emphasis (5-point Likert Scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree) that is CURRENTLY PLACED on Student Teaching Evaluations according to certain statements. This information was then compared with the Degree of Emphasis faculty thought SHOULD BE PLACED according to the same statements.

The 11 statements regarding usage of Student Teaching Evaluations are provided below:

The data indicate that faculty are generally satisfied with the student teaching evaluation process (125 respondents indicated they agree (53) or partially agree (72) with the statement "I like the way my department currently conducts student teaching evaluations", compared to 71 respondents indicating they disagree (44) or partially disagree with the same statement). However, there is certainly room for improvement.

With respect to differences between current practices for using student teaching evaluation and how faculty would like to see them used, there are at least two conclusions to be drawn.

First, the respondents indicate too strong of an emphasis on using Student Teaching Evaluations for merit pay increases, tenure decisions, and promotion decisions.

Second, driven primarily from qualitative data in the comment section of the survey, there is correspondingly too little emphasis placed on developing and utilizing other ways of demonstrating and improving teaching effectiveness. Other methods of evaluating teaching effectiveness are peer-reviews, updating curriculum, updating texts and testing/assessment materials, teaching portfolios, merit review evaluations, demonstrating student learning gains. In addition, the validity of the content of many student teaching evaluations was questioned. For example, the Student Teaching Evaluation asks questions about student motivation and how much they liked the course versus questions that could more adequately assess the instructor and teaching effectiveness, such as their organization of lectures and their ability to meet course objectives.

The "policy" statement regarding student evaluations of teaching and how they should be used has all ready been written, as discussed above. However, what should follow this policy is a plan, process, and a clear description of desired, measurable outcomes associated with a multiple measure (teaching portfolio, student teaching evaluations, demonstrating student learning gain, etc.) assessment of teaching effectiveness.

The plan would address issues such as who will conduct the review of teaching effectiveness, which specific measures are most appropriate for the faculty and discipline being assessed, and how will faculty learn and develop other measures of teaching effectiveness?

The process would address issues such as how often teaching effectiveness reviews are conducted, who has access to the data on faculty, departments, and colleges, and who will prepare institutional reports in order to assess improvement, strengths, and weaknesses in teaching effectiveness and student satisfaction.

The measurable outcomes would address issues such as how to incorporate multiple measures of teaching effectiveness into an equitable evaluation system that would serve administrative purposes (assigning merit, tenure, etc.) and faculty purposes (improve teaching skills and increase learning in students).

Faculty Senate committees, such as the Academic Standards Committee (101) could review the plan, process, and outcomes on a periodic basis to keep both current with respect to measures of teaching effectiveness and general improvements in efficiency, quality, and validity of assessing teaching effectiveness.

Assessment Home

UNR Home