Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • David M. Lasley on Analysis of Simkin v. Blank

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • A.J. Sutter on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Weslie on First Amendment “Exceptions” and What the First Amendment Means (#2)

    • Gerard Magliocca on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Gerard Magliocca on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Gerard Magliocca on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Joe on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Gfd on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Gerard Magliocca on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Gerard Magliocca on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Mike on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Teaching Evaluations

posted by Sarah Lawsky

I have been wondering lately about teaching evaluations: how they are best structured and analyzed, disseminated, and used to make decisions, and, in the larger scheme, how differing interests should be weighed as we address these issues. I have no answers, but I have a lot of questions (they follow after the jump).

I would love to hear people’s thoughts on the answers to these questions, or suggestions for more questions to add to the list. Also, I’m sure there has been a tremendous amount of research on all of these subjects, but unfortunately I’m entirely ignorant of it, so among other comments, I’d be very curious if anyone had particular reading they would recommend on these subjects. It would also be great to hear how other law schools approach these issues now, and how other law schools arrived at their decisions about to address these issues.


Creating and Understanding Evaluations

What questions should be on teaching evaluations, and how should they be framed?

If we ask students to evaluate teachers on a numerical scale, what specific statistical concerns should we take into account when analyzing the raw evaluations numbers? For example, it has long been noted that there are problems with averaging ordinals. That is, on a scale of five (where five is the best), there may be a bigger gap in quality in the minds of students between someone who earns a four and someone who earns a three than between someone who earns a five and someone who earns a four. But if we simply average numerical scores, these differences have the same effect on the average, which is not good. (Side note: It makes me incredibly happy that there is a journal entitled Quality and Quantity. Yes please!) Or, to give another example, is there some particular way we should treat outliers when analyzing evaluations? (The answer might be no.)

Disseminating Evaluations

Should teaching evaluations be released publicly?

If so, which portions? The entire evaluation? Raw numbers? Averages? Written comments?

And if some or all of this information should be released, how should it be released? On a website available to the general public? On a website available only to members of the law school or university community? Or should it not be available electronically at all—for example, should the information be available only in, say, a book that sits in the registrar’s office? Or, on the other extreme, should the information be released in a downloadable spreadsheet, to make analysis easier?

Finally, how long should the public portions remain public? Permanently? Or for some limited amount of time?

Using Evaluations

How should evaluations be used in hiring and tenure and promotion decisions?

How should internal law-school evaluations be compared to external evaluations (e.g., when hiring lateral candidates)?

Do student evaluations show consistent bias against teachers of a particular gender, race, age, attractiveness, ability/disability, or any combination thereof? (I.e., do teachers with particular characteristics that seem not intrinsically related to teaching ability receive consistently lower numerical evaluations or consistently more negative comments?) How, if at all, should the use of evaluations for hiring or tenure and promotion decisions take this bias (if it exists) into account? (And should the answer to the bias question affect any questions in any of the other categories?)

Weighing Interests

Finally, the most important question of all: When making these decisions, how should we compare and weight net utility within and among affected groups, including students, faculty, and the institution of the law school itself?


 July 16, 2008 at 9:14 am   Posted in: Teaching   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (5)

  1. James Grimmelmann - July 16, 2008 at 9:52 am

    To me, the overriding principle is to have a clear understanding of who the intended audience for an instrument is. Is this a tool for the school to evaluate professors, for students to learn about professors they might take classes from, or for professors to improve their teaching? The more of these bases an instrument tries to cover, the less well it’ll do at any of them. For that reason, I can’t recommend highly enough the practice of using different evaluations for these different purposes. Three may be overkill, but I’ve found that two is quite reasonable:

    We hand out course evaluation forms near the end of the semester. They’re good, but they’ve got some, perhaps unavoidable, issues: First, by asking for numerical ratings, they put the class in an evaluative frame of mind: this was good, that was bad, let’s play Simon Cowell for a few minutes. The qualitative responses end up being a little thin. Second, due to the timing, it becomes impossible to ask questions about the exam, even though the exam is the focal point of the course (due to the cockamamie law-school grading system).

    I get around these issues by also sending my students a SurveyMonkey poll a little after the grades are in. The timing lets me ask things like whether the exam was fair. And the less evaluative nature of the instrument means I get longer, more helpful responses to questions like “What topics do you feel could have been taught better?” The answers have been very useful. For example, in my Copyright class, I’m going to completely revise the way I teach substantial similarity, My SurveyMonkey told me pretty strongly that that week was a disaster, a fact that was hidden in the noise of lesser concerns on the official school evaluation.

  2. Eric Goldman - July 16, 2008 at 11:03 am

    James, if it makes you feel any better, I think most copyright professors feel like they chunk the “substantial similarity” section. The law is way too squirrelly for anyone to teach it cleanly.

    Sarah, this is a terrific topic. Let me offer up a couple of marginally useful generalities:

    * there is an enormous amount of scholarly research on teaching evaluations–probably thousands of articles

    * at the law schools I’ve been affiliated with, precisely ZERO of the scholarly research is consulted in the design and implementation of teaching evaluations.

    I can’t solve your broad problem, but I’ve repeatedly blogged on literature about teaching evaluations, both in the law school context and beyond:

    http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2008/05/arthur_best_on.html

    http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2007/03/merritt_on_teac.html

    http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2007/05/student_evaluat.html

    http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2006/08/sexy_professors.html

    http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2006/03/i_need_to_get_t.html

    http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2007/04/law_professor_t.html

    http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2005/11/are_you_hot_or.html

    Regards, Eric.

  3. Jim G - July 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    “Should teaching evaluations be released publicly?”

    Yes, partially. The results (but not the individual survey responses) should be released to students, at a minimum.

    Students want information about professors—who is a good lecturer, who isn’t, who’s a tough grader, who they’ll learn from, who is old-school Socratic and who is more laid back, and so on. In the absence of official evaluations, students go to outside sources of information. Other students. Ratemyprofessors.com. Internet message boards. Bad information sources, most of them, but if that’s all a student can get, that’s where she’ll go.

    Course evaluations aren’t perfect, but they’re better than the available alternatives. An official report on student satisfaction with courses and professors is the best way to deal with sites where professors are rated by a handful of self-selected students.

  4. Anon. - July 17, 2008 at 10:44 am

    There is a lot of literature on evaluations. One of my favorites is this relatively recent one:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=963196&high=%20Deborah%20Merritt

  5. anon. - July 17, 2008 at 10:19 pm

    Professor Merritt’s Article (referenced above) appears in the St. John’s Law Review:

    82 St. John’s L. Rev. 235 (2008).

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress