I should probably make it clear from the get go that I believe a large part of how well a student evaluates his or her professor/TA is directly related to whether or not they are satisfied with their grade. Students in the lower echelon tend to write the more negative reviews and vice versa. Where this theory is weak, however, is if the professor/TA did something that made a significant impact on the student during the semester. For example, last semester a student wrote that I should be reprimanded for saying "retarted" so much. Spelling errors and obvious lack of intelligence aside, this is a clear indication that I did something, in this case a negative something, that really stuck with the student. I don't really care about what that student said though; they're going to need to develop a little humor and fortitude to be able to live in the real world.
Roughly speaking, evaluations fall into one of four categories:
1.) Generic, good evaluations-----"OMG breakout was amazing!"
Great! Thank you! What did I do that was "toates adorbs?" I'm glad you thought breakout was great but please realize that this is the equivalent of saying that your favorite flavor ice cream is vanilla.
2.) Negative evaluations about things that I can't control. (TAs ONLY)
Students would be shocked, amazed, and probably a little less turned-on to realize how little power I have as a TA. Saying things like "I would have liked breakouts if they weren't so early" or "Why did we have to talk about those damn articles" assumes that I have quasi-deistic powers on par with the Vicar in Rome, I don't...yet.
3.) Ridiculous evaluations.
Saying things like "he's like a more scholarly version of He-man." These are great for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that they make me laugh, sometimes hard. They are also good because it lets the students flex their creative powers when talking about me...something my vicious ego just loves to melt and rub all over its chest.
4.) (and the rarest of the bunch) Genuine evaluations, either good or negative.
I wish that more students would write these. Despite the appearance, I am *not* perfect and genuinely need and want to know what was going well and what wasn't.
General thoughts about last semester's breakouts.
- I can't control the articles...I wish we didn't have to do them.
- It's extremely difficult to plan for a breakout wherein we have to do the aforementioned articles because 1.) I know that students don't like them, 2.) It makes me have to bring in my own outside stuff because of #1 in order to even be able to write Short Answers, 3.) this leaves significantly less time for more "fun" stuff.
- Overall, I didn't think they went that well. Students were far too quiet on the whole, and a few people dominated discussions sometimes. I realize that it's my job to reign them in, but I feel like no one would talk if they didn't and they often raised good points.
Now I'll categorize some of the more negative evals from last semester and write some responses to them.
"When he explains something he does it so that it is easy to understand. On the other hand, the article discussions didn't help me learn the content."
Category 2. This isn't a bad eval overall, but it highlights the fact that students often have mixed perceptions of performance based on things outside of my control. The professor said that we have to talk about articles in breakouts...so that's what I HAD to do, sorry about that.
"There was rarely any student involvement. Kind of felt like another lecture class."
Category 2 AND 4. First off, I said up front that I conduct most breakouts in a mixture of lecturing with the Socratic Method. I'll admit that there wasn't as much involvement as I would have liked, but this isn't entirely my fault. It's very difficult to plan breakout sessions, especially when three of mine were taken up by the hellacious two-part tests AND we HAD to discuss articles.
"Breakout was pointless in this course. The TA could have slept and I feel like I would get the same grade in the course. It was unhelpful going to breakout sessions."
Category 3. There is a lot wrong here. I actually am slightly sympathetic to the first sentence, but I feel like the rest of it means that the student didn't adequately utilize me as a resource. I'm there to answer questions, go over some new stuff, and, admittedly, to entertain. If the student felt like they were an A student, then great...but I have a feeling they weren't, which only furthers my point. If they had put forth a little effort to talk to me they might have gotten a better grade. Case in point, one student improved his test score from a 68 on the first test to a 91 on the final by coming in to office hours on a regular basis. Besides, around 45 people disagree with you.
"I feel like he's too close-minded and is not open to other opinions...it's hard to learn when you know you're only getting one side of the story." "I think that perhaps the instructor intimidated or alienated those with views separate from his own. He did not denounce others, but he was clearly condescending in the least serious of ways towards certain political entities."
Categories 2, 3, and 4. These two were weird and there's a lot going on here. If I intimidated and alienated people with different opinions then I think EVERYONE would be against me. I'm not sure whether or not I made my own opinions that well known, but I can assure that I'm not close-minded. I think that's where the Socratic part comes in that people don't really understand. If a student made a point that I thought needed to be fleshed-out or was flat out wrong, I would press them on it. This could have been misunderstood as hostility, but I'm not being mean. I'll admit that I condescended towards Sarah Palin on numerous occasions, but I never gave *ONE* side of the story. Besides, this is politics! Bias is a natural part of the game and there should be heated verbal exchanges. This doesn't absolve me of all culpability, however, because I'm in a position of authority so my position in the debate is inherently different. On a *very* slightly humorous note, I don't believe that one should be open-minded to *all* positions. What about those that are wrong?
(part of one) "I felt that he favored some students in breakout--not necessarily academically but personally."
Category 3. Of course I do! If you speak up in breakout, I like you. If you provide original thought, I like you. If you come to office hours, I like you. If you bullshit with me before class, I like you. I see nothing wrong with this. Wouldn't a person in the "real world" like another person more if they actually talked to them more or made some sort of an attempt to get to know them?
"I liked learning the material but it was too time consuming."
Category 3. This is funny.
That's it...until next time!
T
No comments:
Post a Comment