Paper Authors

Abstract

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Session 3242

Two More Ways to Evaluate Teaching Performance

Craig W. Somerton, Gaile D. Griffore Department of Mechanical Engineering, Michigan State University

Introduction

The search continues for effective ways to evaluate college teaching. Still, the most prevalent assessment tool is the student evaluation. The authors examined two additional tools to determine whether they might provide administrators with useful supplementary information for formative and summative evaluations. One is a student assessment of their learning using the course learning objectives, while the other looks at the number of students who drop the course. These tools still use students in the assessment process, but one tries to disassociate learning assessment from instructor personality assessment, and the other is based on student action (dropping the course) and not on student opinion. The investigation revealed that the course learning assessment can be a useful tool for evaluating teaching, but the student drop rate is not.

This paper continues by presenting the current student evaluation of teaching used in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University (MSU). The student self-assessment of course learning objectives is then discussed, including the correlation between the assessment of achieving the course learning objectives and the standard teaching evaluation. This is followed by an examination of the use of student drop rates as a tool to assess teaching. The paper concludes with observations about these assessment tools.

Student Evaluation of Teaching

At the end of each semester, students in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University (MSU) evaluate their teachers by completing the Student Instructional Rating System (SIRS) form, which asks them to respond to the following five questions:

1. The instructor was available and willing to help the student. 2. The instructor explained course material clearly. 3. The instructor was well prepared for classes and other related course activities. 4. The instructor organized the course well. 5. Rate the instructor on the following scale: 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

For the first four questions students are asked to respond with

Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Nor Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright  2001, American Society for Engineering Education

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Griffore, G., & Somerton, C. (2001, June), Two More Ways To Evaluate Teaching Performance Paper presented at 2001 Annual Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 10.18260/1-2--9923