Samuel A. Rebelsky
Version of 8 December 2006
This document can be found on the World Wide Web at
These notes were written under a previous faculty evaluation system. Our system has been revised somewhat. I have not yet had time to revise the notes.
Summary: At the end of each semester, you will find that most Grinnell faculty ask you to fill out at least one end-of-course evaluation, perhaps a standardized form, perhaps a form specialized to the course, perhaps both. Unfortunately, faculty do not always discuss the context or purpose of those forms. This document attempts to provide some of that background. It also reflects on some related issues, such as merit raises and how Grinnell evaluates faculty.
Some students (and some faculty members) seem to be under the impression that end-of-course evaluations are retyped. Tutorial evaluations are, in most cases. Other end-of-course evaluations are not. That means that if you have recognizable handwriting, your faculty member can probably tell you wrote the evaluation.
Should that matter? It should not. I believe most faculty are responsible enough that they do not let either negative or positive comments impact how they relate to students.
There are two reasons that faculty members ask students to fill out end-of-course evaluation forms. The first is that faculty use the forms to reflect on our courses. While we have a perspective on what worked and what failed to work in courses, we also expect to gain insight from our students' comments.
At some institutions, like Grinnell, in which the quality of teaching is emphasized, we use end-of-course evaluations for a second reason: as a mechanism for evaluating teaching. At such schools, faculty members' forms are reviewed and used in raise and promotion decisions.
Note that these two purposes are somewhat in conflict. If our primary goal is to improve our courses, we want you to emphasize the things that went wrong (with some notes as to what went right so that we keep doing those things). If our primary goal is to stay at the institution and get paid well for doing so, we want you to write good things.
How do we resolve this conflict? The best way is to give you two forms. It is also important that you know the purpose of each form.
Grinnell now has a standard end-of-course form which is used primarily for promotion decisions. How did we get to this state? End-of-course evaluations have a long and twisted history at Grinnell.
A few years before I came to Grinnell, the faculty (with some prompting from the board of trustees) voted to institute a merit raise system. That system was intended to emphasize teaching, but also to incorporate scholarship and service. Although the percentages vary from year to year, the basic idea was to make teaching about 50% of the merit score, scholarship about 33%, and service about 17%.
How are these components evaluated? Each faculty member writes an annual Faculty Activities Report (FAR). Department chairs read those reports and some associated documents and write recommendations to the budget committee. In the past, these FARs were reviewed annually.
Now, for tenured faculty (and, in essence, for junior faculty), every three years, each faculty member writes three reflective statements, one on teaching, one on scholarship, and one on service. Again, the department chair reviews and comments on these documents.
Afterwards, the Faculty Budget Committee reads a packet for each faculty
member--including FARs, curriculum vitae (CV), statements, and chair's
letter--and develops a numeric ranking between 0 and 5 for each of the
(A future version of this document will include the claimed
of thumb used in determining the numbers.)
A weighted sum of those components is then taken
and rounded to the nearest integer. These merit scores are translated
into raises. In the past few years, each point of merit has resulted
in $500 of raise. Most faculty end up with a merit score of 2 or 3.
Who is on the Budget committee? The chair of each division and the chair of the faculty. Do they enjoy spending their winter break reading all of these documents for approximately one-third of the faculty? More than they enjoyed reading them from all the faculty, I'm sure.
Since teaching is factored into raises, the college needs a way to evaluate such merit. When the merit raises were instituted, each department was asked to develop an end-of-course evaluation form.
That period was
interesting, to say the least. Almost every
form was different. Some forms were numeric, some were not. (As you
might guess, the Math/CS form was not numeric.) Forms that were numeric
used different scales. How did the budget committee come up with a
number for each faculty member? With difficulty. Did anything else
help? Each faculty member was asked to write a one-page reflection on each
course they taught. (I think the reflection was helpful for me. I am
unsure whether anyone else read them or whether my readers found the
reflections helpful.) We no longer do so.
A few years ago, the Executive Council reacted to the related problems
of (1) the dual nature of end-of-course evaluations and (2) the
inconsistency of the end-of-course data and suggested that Grinnell
come up with a standardized end-of-course form whose primary purpose
was evaluative. Some very smart people (who I respect very much) worked
hard to develop a form that could be used in many courses and to
validate the form (that is, to show that it is consistent, not
to show that the score it gives really says anything about our teaching).
The faculty were then asked to vote to have the form used in the
raise system. Someone asked
How will you deal with confidence
intervals? (For those of you who do not understand the question,
the result from a survey like this is consistent, but only somewhat
consistent. Hence, a score of, say 5.5, could really indicate a
real rating in a range, say between 5.3 and 5.7. If two confidence
intervals overlap, it is inappropriate to say that the two values
are significantly different. (Well, that is my understanding, which
is not completely informed.)) Responses from the budget committee
varied. One was something like
I don't know what confidence
intervals are. I don't really understand math or statistics. But I can tell
what the numbers mean. The faculty, sensibly, voted not to use
the end-of-course forms for annual merit raise evaluation. Since
the every-three-year process was introduced, we have not revisited
Some comments members of the budget committee have made since then
lead me to believe that we made the right decision. For example,
one member of the committee, noting that most of the scores are
between 5 and 6 on a six point scale, referred to
the Lake Wobegon
Effect. As you may know, in Lake Wobegon,
all the children
are above average. However, if 5 and 6 are
I mostly agree
I completely agree to
I learned a lot in the course,
I think you could reasonably expect that most Grinnell courses would
earn those numbers.
We have a standardized form. The faculty voted that the budget committee cannot use it. So, how is the form used and how does the budget committee evaluate teaching? The answers are not encouraging.
Right now, the primary use of the standardized end-of-course form is for tenure and promotion decisions. The hope is that we will see evolution in scores over a faculty member's time at Grinnell, which can then serve as a positive recommendation for tenure. For faculty not up for tenure, promotion, or renewal, the data are currently probably useful only in providing comparative data for those who are up for tenure, promotion, or renewal.
The Office of the Academic Dean claims that we can use the forms for development, but their use for development is limited to barometer-type notes.
Should you still take the forms seriously? You should certainly take them seriously for junior faculty, since the ratings can have a significant effect on the careers of junior faculty. It is probably a good idea if you take them seriously for all faculty, as we need good comparative data.
Given that the budget committee has even less data than it did before this endeavor, how do they currently evaluate teaching? Well ... for a number of years, the committees decided that because they lacked sufficient data, they had to give each faculty member the same score. give every faculty member the same teaching score. Does that mean that quality of teaching was not factored into raises? Yes. Is that bad? If we have merit raises, it is bad.
The current Faculty Budget Committee is doing a much better job of setting criteria for determining scores. (I will admit that I do not necessarily agree with the criteria, but I appreciate that there are criteria.)
Of course, there are faculty at Grinnell who believe that we don't really
need merit raises. (I'm usually on that side of the fence, even though I
usually get high merit scores.) Why? Some believe that merit raises
encourage faculty to compete with each other instead of working
cooperatively. Others believe that merit raises encourage faculty to
work on things that get them bigger raises rather than things that are
important. (For example, it is likely that my work to encourage more
women to major in CS fits in neither scholarship nor service nor teaching.
Similarly, my significant scholarly service for international organizations seems (e.g., reviewing) doesn't seem to count much.
I don't care. Others might.) Still others believe that the process is
insanely time-consuming for very little benefit. I believe that a system
that tells half the faculty
you're worse than average brings
However, in 2002 or 2003, the faculty voted to continue with merit raises. So, I guess we're stuck with them.
I will admit that I think end-of-course evaluations are a particularly
bad mechanism for evaluating faculty comparatively. Why? Well, it is
fairly easy to influence the results. It's also a silly time to ask
students to evaluate courses: at the time they're most stressed and
perhaps least reflective. There are currently no measures of their
accuracy (in terms of measuring quality of teaching). Numbers are
often hard to interpret. Students use the forms in interesting ways.
(For example, I've had a number of students give me low rankings with
a note that
I would have given him the highest ranking if he hadn't
given us so much work! Unfortunately, those comments don't appear
when the data are communicated to others.)
A simple change I'd make would be to ask for the evaluations a year or so after the course is over. After that time, the students are more likely to have seen the impact of what they've learned and are more likely to be able to reflect on the course as a whole. The Dean also regularly sends out a survey to alums about teaching when we're deciding on tenure and promotion, and I feel that that survey should be used more regularly.
I've also suggested that we get comparative data directly, by asking students to rank all their faculty at the end of each year. Another possibility would be to ask each student to list the best course or faculty member they had over the past year. Both of these systems have some flaws and need the details worked out, but I think they'd provide better data than our current system.
If we had lots and lots of money (hey, this is Grinnell), I'd hire two or three people whose profession is educational evaluation and ask them to visit each faculty member's classes for a week each semester and to do a one-hour meeting with each faculty member. I expect that such visits would provide excellent data and also give us some success at development.
John Stone hates the college's reliance on
numbers in evaluation. If you search around his Web
site, you're likely to find a nice essay on the topic at
http://www.cs.grinnell.edu/~stone/misc/scales.html. If you
talk to Mr. Stone more, you'll also learn things about the loss of
information going from textual answers to numerical answers.
David Lopatto dislikes the college's piecework approach to raises and other forms of funding. He has written a very nice essay on a humanistic approach to evaluating faculty. I suppose if you asked him nicely, he might give you a copy.
My primary concern is making my courses better. I'd prefer that you put lots and lots of helpful comments wherever you find it appropriate to put those comments (on the course-specific form, on the standardized form, in an electronic mail message).
Do I care how you rank me on the standardized form? Certainly. Do I want you to be honest? Even more certainly. Think carefully about the different questions and give whatever answer you think best.
All of the questions on the standardized form as you about
subject matter of the course. I used to give a long lecture about
that topic. For awhile, I stopped giving the lecture because I
worried that it biased the results, but that also seemed to bias results.
I now give a shorter lecture.
Sunday, 4 May 2003 [Samuel A. Rebelsky]
Monday, 5 May 2003 [Samuel A. Rebelsky]
Monday, 8 December 2003 [Samuel A. Rebelsky]
Friday, 12 May 2006 [Samuel A. Rebelsky]
Copyright © 2017 Samuel A. Rebelsky.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit
or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor,
San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
This page was generated by
Siteweaver on Fri Jan 13 13:48:48 2017.
The source to the page was last modified on Wed Aug 21 12:44:50 2013.
This page may be found at