Actual comments I’ve received on course evaluations, over two decades of teaching: “Professor Cramer can be so random; adhd much? And I don’t even know why she bothers writing on the board—no one can read it.”  “So.Much.Work for this class.”  “If you’re going to assign all of that reading, we should at least discuss it.”  “Keep her forever, Drake!” “This was my favorite class!” “Hawt.” “U dress so cute!” “Women with young children should be in the home.”

Yep – from the honest but hurtful, to the helpful critique – from the lovely (but vague) kudos to the inappropriate comments on my physical appearance and life choices – my end-of-semester evaluations from students have run the gamut.  And, yep: I’ve obsessed over the mean ones, the pointless ones, and the ones that boost my ego when it flags.

We know, from the ample literature on student evaluations of teaching, that they are absolutely flawed instruments.  We also know that we use them for developmental conversations with our chairs and colleagues, as evidence of teaching effectiveness in our tenure and promotion materials, and as a way to think about how we approach the same course, the second-third-fifteenth time around.

What should we do, then, with teaching evaluations?  How can we read them in a way that helps our pedagogy?  And, what other forms of evidence could we use to establish a record of excellent teaching?

Please join Deputy Provost Renée Cramer in a Center for Teaching Excellence conversation: What Do We Do With Student Evaluations? Our conversation on Friday, Feb. 25, from 11 a.m.–12 p.m. (lunch provided) in Howard Hall will explore how faculty can read, understand, and integrate what we learn from student evaluations of our teaching. We will also discuss the problems of relying on these kinds of evaluation, and talk about how we can, perhaps, better understand if we are meeting our goals and objectives in the courses we teach, than through sole reliance on a potentially problematic instrument.

— Renée Cramer, Deputy Provost