Quantitative Reasoning for the Public Interest

Content Analysis of Student Evaluations of Faculty

We coded evaluations of faculty written by students during the 2003-4 academic year. Some were evaluations of 4 credit courses. Most were evaluations of teaching in 8-12 credit programs. In all we coded about 500 evaluations representing the work of about 18 faculty.

The evaluation coding categories were designed by the students. They were drawn from official College statements about Evergreen’s teaching/learning methods and from pre-reading a series of evaluations to determine the topics of most interest to their student authors.

Coding Summary

Comments which fit into each of the coding categories are summarized in the charts and tables below by the following four descriptors:

'Named' means that a comment was made which fit the category but the comment itself did not appear to pass any sort of judgement.

'Negative judgement' means that a comment was made and it was clearly negative.

'Ambiguous judgement' means that a comment was made and it seemed to be judgemental, but the coders could not be sure whether the judgement was positive or negative.

'Positive judgement' means that a comment was made and it was clearly positive.

Chart of Faculty Effort

FACULTY EFFORT

I. Responsiveness to students:
Total Mentions
Named

Negative judgement

Ambiguous judgement

Positive judgement
1. Guidance and advice about student future
28
5
23
2. Prompt and/or helpful feedback about student work
182
1
8
12
161
3. Adapts to student input about program activities/changes/options
68
1
2
2
63

 

II. Fostering Specific Intellectual and Cognitive Abilities:
Total Mentions
Named

Negative judgement

Ambiguous judgement

Positive judgement
4. Opportunities for communicating effectively –writing/speech
168
34
2
10
122
5. Opportunities for scientific/tech/ quantitative work
34
14
1
5
14
6. Opportunities for creative work
57
17
1
4
35
7. Opportunities for integrative/interdisciplinary thinking
75
12
1
9
53
8. Opportunities for independent, and/or critical thinking
120
19
10
91
9. Opportunities for collaborative work
87
20
2
13
52

 

III. Creating an Environment Conducive to Learning:
Total Mentions
Named

Negative judgement

Ambiguous judgement

Positive judgement
10. Safe and/or supportive environment
210
11
1
10
188
11. Openness, and/or civility, and/or engagement with differences
96
7
3
8
78
12. Effective seminar leadership/facilitation
202
4
11
18
169
13. Stimulating and/or challenging environment
196
6
6
14
170

 

IV. Professional Competence:
Total Mentions
Named

Negative judgement

Ambiguous judgement

Positive judgement
14. Subject matter expertise
184
9
4
14
157
15. Appropriate use of lecture/seminar/field/lab strategies
201
9
15
16
161
16. Effective presentations
205
5
7
12
181
17. Effective faculty team
95
1
5
6
83
18. Clear program/course objectives
92
8
15
5
64
19. Good choice of materials/texts/assignments
157
8
7
16
126

 

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

 
Total Mentions
Named

Negative judgement

Ambiguous judgement

Positive judgement
20. Effective learning of program material
175
8
2
14
151
21. Encounters with new subject matter
84
7
3
7
67
22. Encounters with new perspectives on self and identity
47
1
4
42
23. Changes/deepening of academic direction
29
2
5
22
24. Affirming an old or creating a new sense of purpose
15
4
11
25. His/her learning across significant differences
26
3
1
22
26.Taking responsibility for his/her own work
54
6
1
6
41
27.Taking action in response to the learning
23
2
21
28.Reflection on the personal consequences of the learning
71
4
1
7
59
29.Reflection on the social significance of the learning
45
3
7
35