|
Much like
Mary Gray and Barbara Bergmann, I view student evaluations with dislike
and embarrassment. Dislike because my experience, talent, and good will
are subjected to the scrutiny of nonpeers who might judge me on anything
and everything other than my teaching skills. Embarrassment because I
now play along with a system in which that sort of evaluation is deemed
a valid measure of ability and professionalism. Peer evaluations are
possibly less "inaccurate, misleading, and demeaning." Even
those, however, can be influenced by turf issues, differences in
ideology or teaching philosophy, or simply personality conflicts. Yet
most academics agree that some method to measure teaching effectiveness
is necessary.
Having
taught in French universities over a period of fifteen years, I can
relate how the situation is handled in that system. Instead of student
and peer evaluations, the Ministry of Higher Education relies on
in-class inspections by professionals who have received special training
and whose entire careers are devoted to that one task. These inspectors
are not personally acquainted with the teachers they evaluate;
consequently, they are unlikely to have agendas that go beyond their
professional duties. A professor is rarely evaluated twice in a row by
the same inspector, and one unfavorable rating does not affect promotion
or tenure. It takes at least two consecutive negative reports to call
attention to a teacher's possible lacunae. Before any sanction is even
considered, the teacher is offered professional or personal counseling,
further training, and even peer guidance as the situation may demand. On
the other hand, two consecutive evaluations above the baseline of
"competent" are rewarded by accelerated promotion and
corresponding pay raises. The bottom line is that nobody enjoys
performance scrutiny, and in-class inspections by professionals can be
excruciating to the point of nausea. However, having experienced both
ends of the spectrum-reports by professionals and evaluations by
students for whom the process might be nothing more substantial than a
popularity contest-I vastly prefer the former.
ANNETTE OLSEN-FAZI
(English)
Louisiana State University
at Alexandria
|
|