My Teaching Evaluations

Prof L. Weinstein

Physics Dept, Old Dominion University

Teaching evaluations can serve several purposes:

They provide feedback to professors so they can improve their teaching,
they provide feedback to the university so they can judge the teaching performance of the professors,
they provide information to the students about what other students thought of the professors.

Teaching evaluations provide an incomplete view of a teacher. The main measure of success should be how much the students learned, how much more they want to learn, and how much they will have retained 5 to 50 years later. This results from a complicated interaction between the teacher, the student and the material. The same teacher will get wildly different evaluations teaching:

a required course the students don't want to take,
an elective course the students choose to take,
a course that many students are unprepared for,
a course that students are thoroughly prepared for,
an easy course,
or a very difficult course.

Research in Student Evaluation of Faculty (SEF) shows how flawed a tool it is. See this paper (original link) (local copy) by Prof Michael Huemer at University of Colorado, Boulder.

At every other university I have been at, teaching evaluations were published to help students choose their courses and instructors. At Old Dominion University, teaching evaluations can only be released by permission of the evaluated faculty member.

Teaching evaluations should be public information

Here are my teaching evaluations for all of the courses I have taught:

Sem	Course	Name	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Phys Q10	Students Resp/Tot	Comments


Fall 07	120	Physics of the 21st century	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.5	5.0	4.3	5.0	4.1	3/5	click
Spr 07	309	Physics on the back of an envelope	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.1	3/7	click
Spr 07	413	Methods of Experimental Physics	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.1	1/7	click
Fall 06	120	Physics of the 21st century	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.1	2/8	click
Fall 06	453	Radiation and Optics	4.8	4.8	4.8	4.8	4.2	4.8	4.6	4.2	4.4	4.4	4.1	5/15	click
Spr 06	309	Physics on the back of an envelope	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.0	3/10	click
Spr 06	102	Elementary Physics II	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.8	4.8	4.6	4.3	4.4	4.0	33/53	click
Fall 05	120	21st Century Physics	5	3.5	5	4.5	5	5	na	5	4.5	4.5	3.7	2/17	click
Fall 05	101	Elementary Physics I	4.4	4.4	4.4	4.5	4.1	4.7	4.6	4.3	3.9	4.2	3.7	37/93	click
Spr 05	102	Elementary Physics II	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.7	3.9	29/53	Click
New	Eval	System (Max = 5)

IN THE FIRST WEEK OF CLASS, THE INSTRUCTOR PROVIDED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION THAT CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE COURSE CONTENT, ASSIGNMENTS, GRADING AND OTHER IMPORTANT POLICIES.
THE COURSE MATERIALS, EXAMS, PROJECTS AND/OR PAPERS IN THE CLASS REQUIRED ME TO THINK CRITICALLY.
THE INSTRUCTOR WELCOMED QUESTIONS AND OTHER CLASS PARTICIPATION.
THE INSTRUCTOR WAS ENTHUSIASTIC WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER.
THE INSTRUCTOR WAS AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AND HELPFUL DURING OFFICE HOURS.
THE INSTRUCTOR ARRIVED ON TIME FOR CLASS AND USED THE FULL CLASS PERIOD ALLOTED.
IN ORDER TO GET GOOD GRADES ON TESTS AND ASSIGNMENTS, I HAD TO KNOW THE COURSE MATERIALS OUTLINED IN THE SYLLABUS AND DISCUSSED IN CLASS.
THE INSTRUCTOR'S PRESENTATIONS WERE INFORMATIVE.
OVERALL, I HAVE LEARNED OR BENEFITED FROM THIS CLASS.
OVERALL, THE INSTRUCTOR IS AN EFFECTIVE TEACHER

The new grading scheme is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Sem	Course	Name	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	My Avg	Phys Avg	Students Resp/Total	Written Comments	inclass feedback
Old	Eval	System (Max = 6)
Fall 04	101	Elementary Physics I	4.6	4.5	5.5	4.9	4.6	4.3	4.7	4.7	4.5	67/105	Click	Click
Spr 04	102	Elementary Physics II	5.1	5.0	5.7	5.3	5.1	5.2	5.3	5.2	4.7	16/45	Click
Spr 04	309	Physics on the Back of an Envelope	5.3	5.5	6.0	5.3	5.8	6.0	5.0	5.6	4.7	4/9	Click
Spr 04	898	Research	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6		1/2
Fall 03	101	Elementary Physics I	4.9	4.9	5.6	5.2	4.7	4.3	5.1	5.0	4.6	38/101	Click
Spr 03	102	Elementary Physics II	5.1	4.9	5.5	5.3	5.1	5.1	5.3	5.2	5.0	23/39	Click
Spr 03	309	Physics on the Back of an Envelope	5.7	6.0	6.0	6.0	5.3	5.0	5.0	5.6	5.0	7/12	Click
Fall 02	101	Elementary Physics I	4.7	4.6	5.3	5.0	4.6	4.5	4.9	4.8	4.7	42/77	Click
Spr 02	309	Physics on the Back of an Envelope	5.1	4.9	5.9	5.1	4.9	5.0	4.7	5.1	5.1	7/15	Click
Spr 02	102	Elementary Physics II	4.9	5.0	5.1	5.0	4.9	4.6	5.0	4.9	5.1	20/37	Click
Fall 01	101	Elementary Physics I	4.6	4.4	5.4	4.7	4.4	4.2	4.6	4.6	4.7	46/78	Click
2000/	2001	On sabbatical
Spr 00	491	Investigating Modern Pseudoscience	5.6	5.9	5.6	5.7	5.7	5.4	5.6	5.7	5.1	7/11	Click
Spr 00	721/821	Graduate Quantum II	5.8	6.0	5.5	5.3	5.8	5.8	5.5	5.7	5.1	4/4	Click
Fall 99	621	Graduate Quantum I	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	5.6	NA	5.9	5.0	5/5	Click
Spr 99	721/821	Graduate Quantum II	5.7	5.3	6.0	5.7	5.3	5.3	5.3	5.5	4.9	3/3	NA
Fall 98	621	Graduate Quantum I	5.0	4.8	6.0	5.7	4.8	4.3	5.0	5.1	5.0	4/4	Click
Fall 98	231Rec	Univ Phys I Recitation	4.1	4.2	5.2	4.2	3.2	3.4	3.3	3.9	5.0	10/21	Click
Spr 98	232	Univ Phys II	4.7	4.3	5.4	5.0	4.5	4.4	4.9	4.6	4.9	15/24	Click
Fall 97	231	Univ Phys I	4.5	4.1	5.2	4.4	4.1	3.9	4.3	4.4	4.8	30/50	Click
Spr 97	232	Univ Phys II	4.8	4.8	5.6	4.7	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.7	4.8	16/24	NA
Spr 97	309	Physics on the Back of an Envelope	6.0	5.5	5.5	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	5.9	4.8	2/2	NA
Spr 97	493	Undergrad Research	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	4.8	1/1	NA
Fall 96	231	Univ Phys I	4.9	4.9	5.7	4.9	4.8	4.6	4.8	4.9	4.7	18/26	Click
Spr 96	309	Physics on the Back of an Envelope	5.6	5.3	5.8	5.4	5.5	5.3	5.1	5.4	4.7	8/8	NA
Spr 96	232	Univ Phys II	4.6	4.7	5.5	4.6	4.3	4.1	4.3	4.6	4.7	27/39	NA
Fall 95	231	Univ Phys I	4.9	5.0	5.7	5.1	4.8	4.6	4.9	5.0	4.6	21/33	NA
Fall 95	731...	Grad Seminar								5.1	4.6	18/18	NA
Spr 95	454/554	Thermal Physics	4.4	4.4	5.2	4.3	4.9	4.3	4.1	4.5	NA	9/10	NA
Fall 94	232	Univ Phys II	4.1	4.0	5.1	4.3	4.0	4.2	4.2	4.3	4.4	26/58	NA
Fall 94	731...	Grad Seminar								5.0	4.4	8/18	NA
Spr 94	454/554	Thermal Physics	4.8	4.7	5.2	4.9	4.7	4.2	4.8	4.7	NA	9/10	NA
Fall 93	231	Univ Phys I	4.5	4.6	5.5	4.7	4.4	4.2	4.7	4.7	NA	/30	NA
Fall 93	731...	Grad Seminar	4.6	4.6	5.2	4.7	4.4	4.2	4.6	4.6	NA	13/19	NA
Spr 93	454/554	Thermal Physics	5.1	4.8	5.8	5.3	4.8	4.5	5.0	5.0	NA	8/10	NA
Fall 92	731...	Grad Seminar								4.4	NA	8/17	NA

Univ Phys is University Physics, introductory physics with calculus.

Q1: Rate the overall effectiveness of the instructor
Q2: Rate the instructor's ability to communicate ideas clearly
Q3: Rate the instructor's consistency/punctuality meeting class and using allotted time
Q4: Rate the instructor's helpfulness/sensitivity/responsiveness to all students' needs
Q5: Rate the overall quality of the course
Q6: Rate how much you have learned or benefitted from the course
Q7: Rate this course on organization, structure, and clarity of requirements

All questions were on a scale of 1 to 6.

Obviously, questions 1, 5, and 6 are the only useful questions (which is a shame because I do great on question 3).

My comments on courses:

Small classes give great evaluations.
Required courses do not give great evaluations.
The response to Q6 (How much did you learn?) is always the lowest. Does that mean that I can teach better than the students can learn? Is the previous question meaningful?
Fall 1997 Physics 231: The first two weeks of this course were taught in a temporary lecture hall while the new oceanography/physics building was completed. The remainder was taught in a lecture hall with significant deficiencies (very noisy, poor acoustics, poor sightlines). The numerical evaluations clearly reflect these difficulties.
The Physics Department as a whole is clearly improving. The department mean has increased from 4.4 in 1994 to 5.1 in 2002. This means we have succeeded in hiring researchers who are also excellent teachers.
Spring 2002 Physics 102: Two students (10%) gave me 1's on almost every question as compared to the 80% who gave me 5's and 6's. This is the first time I have had a bimodal distribution. (One of those two students wrote a similar written comment.)
Fall 2003 Physics 101: This is the first year of on-line evaluations. The response rate seems down significantly. I have no idea whether the change in method skewed the results.
Spring 2004 Physics 102: Another bimodal distribution (although with a very small second peak). Clearly, only the students who care a lot bother to fill out the online evals.
Spring 2004 Physics 898: This is just plain silly. There's a reason research courses did not get course evaluations before.
Fall 2004 Physics 101: The in-class evaluations were significantly higher than the formal university evaluations. Perhaps the students who bother to come to class appreciate it more?

Back to my home page

Larry Weinstein

Last modified: Mon, 8 July 2002