Kenneth L. Marsi California State University, Long Beach Long Beach, California 90815
I
I
Studies on teaching evaluations in chemistry which have appeared in the recent literature' have not been specifically addressed to an assessment of the performance of teaching assistants. Because our program utilizes master's candidates as lahoratorv and quiz instructors (teaching assistants), we are concern~dthat-our teaching assistants compe. tently and have adequate opportunity to identify teaching problems in order that they may improve upon their teaching skills. In the past few years nearly half our master's graduates have gone in& teaching in high schools, community colleges, and four-year colleges. Consequently, we felt an increased obligation to help teaching assistants realize their full potential as teachers. order to accomplish this objective we have developed a special evaluation and counseling pro.
perform
vram
The distinctive feature of this program is a confidential mid-semester evaluation of teaching assistants by their students and immediate feed-bach of results to the teaching assistants themselves. It was hoped that the impact of evaluations on improvement of teaching performance would be enhanced if the teaching assistant returned to the students who identified any teaching problems. The teaching assistant would then have approximately seven weeks to ameliorate hislher performance before reevaluation a t the conclusion of the semester. This program has been positively received by teaching assistants. Teaching performance, as judged by undergraduate end-of-semester student evaluations and the teaching assistants themselves, has improved significantly. Mid-Semester Evaluation Form The department chairman met with all 15 teaching assistants and explored with them the concept of mid-semester evaluations. Since there was general agreement that the idea was worthwhile, the department chairman asked the teaching assistants to construct an evaluation form which would help them discover what they wanted to know about themselves as teachers. The form was developed by all teaching assistants acting as a committee under the leadership of a student chairman. The teaching assistants were assured that the results would he used only for the purposes of self-improvement and would not he shared with faculty other than the department chairman. They were also told that their stat& ;as teaching assi>rants would nut he affected nur would reappointment decisions he influenced by these evaluations since the Graduate Committee recommends reappointments and would not have access to these evaluations. Because end-ofsemester evaluations are mandatory and are used for purposes of reap~ointrnent,the teachina assistants thought mid-semester evaluations offered them a n opportunitito identify before final evaluations. and attempt to resolve any . problems . l'articipaticm in micl-semestrr evaluatims was voluntary; howcvrr, all 15 teach~ngilisiitanti elected to participate each semester (Fall 1976and Snrine" I!X:~'I'ahle 1 lists instructions and questions authored hy this committee. Ample space was
Md-Term Evaluation of Teaching Assistants provided for elaboration by quiz-laboratory students on each page of the two-page form.
Administration of Form Each teaching assistant selected an undergraduate student to administer the evaluation and to collect and return the, forms to the department office. No instructions were given other than those appearing on the form itself. ~ w e nmint ~ ute~ were allotted for completion of the form. ~~~i~~ ,~ ,it,.,.... hi l hi^^ ~ dssistants ~ t i ~ . ~ . ~~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~... =
~
Each teaching assistant was scheduled for a half-hour appointment with the department chairman. The checked responses to questions 1 , 2 , 3 and 6, previously tabulated, were given to the teaching assistant. When appropriate, the student was commended on strengths appearing in question 1. Any weaknesses detected by a significant number of students (question 2) were thoroughly explored with the teaching assistant and suggestions offered for remedying problems. The teaching assistants were not shown the completed evaluations submitted by students, hut salient and recurring comments were read to each teaching assistant and discussed. Assessment ol Teaching Improvement The mid-semester evaluation was administered to 46 classes during the Fall and Spring semesters of 1976-77. At the end of each semester the mandated standard departmental evalTable 1. Mld-Term Teaching Evaluation Inshuctions 10 students Your bumful comments on me following questions are designed to aid your teaching assistant maximize hislher performance as a teacher. Your in~tructorwill not see these evaluations.The chairman of the chemistry department will summarize your comments and discuss them with your lab instructor in order to help himiher gain a bener concept of himself/ herselfas a teacher. 1) What do you consider to be the specific strengths of this instructor? ( ) enthusiasm ( ) helpfulnesswhen students had difficulty ( ) well prepared lectures ( ) other Comments: 2) How miaht " this instructor imorave as a teacher? ( I develop a oener unoerstanmng of the subiect materrals can umersmm. rams man nweb ( I explain mncep~sso tha~he s~Jden~s presenting material ( ) be bener organized ( ) use blackboard more onen or more effectively ( ) other Comments: 31 Was the instructor available and haloful durino officehours? 41 What o r your general Impress on of thls lnstrmor as a leacner? 5, Add Ilona1 commenlz concern ng m e insnmor ~~
-
~
~~~~
~~
~
61 Would youchmse % s msnunor f a a h o a a t o ~ seclm n he M r e '
.
Table 2. Questionstor End-of-SemesterEvaluation Siebring, B. H., and Schaff, M. E., J. CHEM. EDUC., 51, 150 (1974)and references contained therein; Schaff, M. E., and Siebring, R~ R.. J. CHEM. EDIIC.. 51.152 (19741: Cornwell. C. D.. J. CHEM.
574 1 Journal of Chemical Education
1. Did the instructor show enthusiasm for the course? 2. Does the instructor meek cleark?
Yes
~
~
uation for quiz-laboratory sections was given t o sections taught by teaching assistants and full-time faculty. T h e questions appearing on the questionnaire are shown in Table
that they were improved and the remainder stated the studentteacher relationships were unaffected. The students knew I was trying to improve, and thus they responded favorably. The evaluations were never mentioned again. I loaked at them as aprogress report, and I appreciated constructive criticism of my teaching technique. T h e x were a few jokes-usually bad-but the student-teacher relationship was unaffected.
2. For each question a 1-5 numerical response was possible When summaries for responses for ( I = excellent.. 5 = poor). . the 1976-77 academic year were compared with thbse for the ~ r e v i o u sacademic year in which mid-semester evaluations h e r e not employed,;t was seen t h a t a n average improvement of 15% occurred in every category in Tahle 2. However, i t should he pointed out t h a t the teaching assistants for the two years which were compared were not all the same. For the 1976-77 academic year, teaching assistants received slightly higher ratings than t h e faculty. T o the auestion. "Do vou feel vour teachine effectiveness improved & a result of n k e m e s t e r evaluation?" (see Tahle 3). 1 3 out of 15 teaching assistants thought t h a t modest t o significant improvement of their teaching occurred. Two remarked that mid-semester evaluations had n o particular effect on the quality of their teaching. Teaching Assistants' Reaction to Mid-Semester Evaluation T o solicit ouinious from the teachine assistants concernine the valtte of mid-amwster evaluations, a qurstiunnaire written hv the department chairman (Tatde 3) wasct~mnlcedhv each gaching assistant a t the end i f the 197677 academic ye& and returned unsigned to the student committee chairman. These responses were given to the department chairman for review. Typical comments t o each question are summarized. Question I. Ten students indicated that theimage which they had of themselves was modified in some way. Some comments:
Question 5. There was eeneral aereement that the students tried thought that students tended h~he over-generow in rheir praise. Two felt that a few students made unkind or unfair remarks. tu i e honest and arrtiatr. &hough i,ur
Yes,I do think the responses were m general reasonably honest and accurate. At mid-semester mast students are not yet fed up with school and are more likely to take time out to respond honestly. However, if the evaluations were given out at the end of the semester. as is usuallv done.. manv students are likelv to be less patient and their responses less accurate. I wish they had been more specific and detailed in their responses. Yes,because I got some gaod and some bad criticismsfromthe same students. I think the students were quick to point out my strong points. If they would have taken the time to point out more of my weak mints. the evaluations would have been more beneficial to a
Quwlron 6 All teaching assistants hut one (''. . .they area waste of t m x . . .") thought the mld-semescer evaluation program should he continued. Yes, otherwise you don't know what you are doing that is good or bad until it's too late to correct. It points out things that the instructor thought were not necessary to do. hut that the students wanted and needed. I t gives the instructor an opportunity to impruve upon weaknesses in that U O I ) SPmCRIEI instead of discoverinpfaults at the end uf the semester, which is an injustice to [he students. Since my teaching assistant career involves only four semesters, it is difficult to become an effective teacher in such a short time. These evaluations help~. to wide a beginning instructor, particularly in the first semester of instruction. Yes,since I have received no formal education on how to conduct a class this evaluation was most useful. The evaluation is much more rffertrw than trial and error. Althcmgh I ask students individuallv fur mmmcnts, they cannoi be as frank and honest with me prrsmally as with unsigned evaluations. It is a definite plus in my experiences as a teacher.
The ratings that my studentsgaveme made memoreconfident as a teacher. I found areas that needed correction. I realized I was not explaining things as well as I had imagined. Knowine that the students aonreciated mv efforts allowed me to .. feel more comfortable in the classroom and to enjoy my work. I found that some students did not appreciate my sarcasm when answering their questions. The students identified strong points that I didn't think I had. The evaluations gave me mare confidence. Some of those who felt their image of themselves as teachers was unchanged (five)said:
I could tell I was doing a good job by the way the students and I interacted. ~. I always felt 1 -,as a good instructor. 1 had a fair idea of what my strengths and wraknerses wpre, n l though the students spem to think more ot m y strengths than I. ~
~~
Question 7. There were no significant suggestionsfor change except for one comment proposing that questions be written to elicit graded responses from students (as in Tahle 2). Another offered: Explain more clearly to the student what a teaching assistant is and how these evaluations are to be used.
Question 2. Euery teaching assistant indicated that a conscious effort was made to overcome weakness pointed out by students. Everytime I anlkcd into the ulasaroom I reminded mysrlfufnome of rhe wraknerscs pointed out by students, and I tried tower. come them by being more prepared. I now use the blackboard more often. I try not to be sarcastic when answering questions. I started explaining the theory behind the experiments in more detail, which is what the students wanted. I am now making a serious effort to correct my weaknesses. I tried to improve my organization by preparing class material heforehand. Question 3. As mentioned earlier, 13 out of 15 teaching assistants noted improvement in their teaching and cited success in dealing with problems alluded to in Question 2. Two stated in effect that improvement comes with experience and that mid-semester evaluation was not especially useful in helping them improve their teaching effectiveness. Question 4. No teaching assistant thought that student-teacher relationships were impaired by mid-semester evaluations.Three said
Table 3. Questlonnalre Completed by Teaching Asststants 1. Was ywr imageof yourselfas a teacher modified in any way by h e comments 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
and ratings of ywr students? Explain. Subsequentto& review of your evaluations.did you make a comcious effort to overcame any weaknesses pointed out by your students? Explain. DO YOU feel your teaching effectiveness improved as a result of the midsemester evaluation? Did the evaluation improve or interfere with the rudent-teacherrelationship. or was this relationship unaffected? Explain. Aner you had time to think abad them, do youbelieve the student responses were in general reasa~blyhonest and accurate in evaluating ywr teaching? Explain. Are you in favw of continuing mi&semeJterevaluatims? Explain why a why not.
7 if you favor mew consnuance,how rnognl may be improved' any cmments ham your students about them7 If so, b e f l y 8 D 0 you what was the nature of the comments?
Volume 55, Number 9, September 1978 1 575
Qumfio,~8. Most reported no comments from students. Several thought i t was a good idea. A few students wondered how much of a pay raise we gat for good
evaluations! Vrojeet TEACH Staff, .I. CHEM. EDUC.. 53,209 (1976); Garland, J. K., J. CHEM. E D N , 54.216 (1917).
576 / Journal of Chemical Education
Conclusion -
Our results have been sufficiently encouraging that we plan to continue this program in conjunction with project TEACH ( 2 ) which we are initiating in our department,
