Resources

Student course evaluations can be fraught. Many of my friends don’t even look at theirs, either because it’s so stressful/shameful or because they don’t think there’s anything to be learned in them. Course evaluations are, after all, only one (admittedly limited and often problematic) data point.I do look at course evals, and I tell students I look at them. I think it’s important to consider what the students—that is, the primary audience of and for our teaching—actually experience. That doesn’t mean students get the final say. That doesn’t mean we have to make every change they desire. But it does mean that I want to know how they experienced the course, and it’s a bit hard for me to know without checking.But it’s not often that anything surprises me. It’s usually the same old, same old. This class is a lot of work. Too hard for a required course. Picky grader. Great prof. Class is fun. She really cares. I love our community. I’ve read it all before.But, last semester, I received something new, from a student in my upper-level Religion and Disability class:Emily Gravett assigned course materials that allowed me to critically think about my views on religion and disability. However, as someone who is Catholic the way she explained course material did not align with what all people of that religion believe…. The way she portrayed religious people made it appear as if religious people had it out for people with disabilities. This takes away why people are a part of a religion…. By what I read about this class I thought we were going to go in further in depth about the beliefs of religions. Instead, we read content from opinion–based sources that bashed everything about the religion. I think the way the content was addressed was very inconsiderate for people that belong to a religious group. If the whole class is about accepting others and taking in other points of view, why is every positive view of religion being bashed? Overall more theology should be incorporated with the course instead of throwing opinions out in lecture. Now, this was just one comment. None of the other students said anything like it and I did have other religious (including Christian) students in that class, just like in any class I teach. Certainly, instructors shouldn’t focus overly much on the one-offs or outliers in our course evaluations, especially the more negative ones. Yet I felt this student was expressing something important, which I wanted to take seriously—something perhaps other students had felt, but had not dared to express.It’s certainly never been my intention to make anyone feel badly about their religious convictions. I don’t set out to dissuade anyone from their identities or commitments, just in the same way I wouldn’t proselytize. It should also go without saying that I certainly don’t represent religions as (very bad) monoliths—this is a key concept of the course, that religions are diverse—but clearly this student experienced the course as being very critical and negative toward religions, perhaps specifically her own. And, I have to admit, she may not be wrong. Religions (on the whole, and in the specific) haven’t been great on disability—and this was what the course reflected. The Bible often treats disability as something to be fixed/cured to demonstrate God’s great power. Disability is understood as the result of bad karma by many Hindus. The choreography of Muslim daily prayer is rough or even prohibitive for some bodies. In this class, we read a piece in which a well-known disability scholar critiqued the pope—the head of this particular student’s religion—for singling out a disabled man for a blessing. My guess is that this was the day I lost her.So, what responsibility do I have to how religions are represented or come across? Do I need to couple every negative portrayal, example, or opinion with a positive one? Do I need to make sure I am presenting rosy or complimentary views of religion, regardless of topic? Do I need to be very selective or cautious with the critical pieces I assign? I admit there’s a lot I don’t know what to do about this student’s concern. Here’s what I’ve tried to implement in my current Race and Religion course (which faces some similar issues, given the way that Christianity has influenced conceptions of race, in this country and globally):Added a statement to the syllabus, which I read aloud in class, that clarifies that I don’t agree with or endorse every single piece I assignForecast that there will be some critiques of religions in this class—and acknowledge this may be (understandably) unsettling or even upsetting if you are a part of that religionReminded students that learning can be uncomfortable and that exposure to ideas that you disagree with is an important (an essential??) part of development and lifeIntroduced the notion of meta-cognition and asked them to reflect on certain activities or materials in terms of what they were thinking and feeling during themContinued to reiterate that religions aren’t just one “thing” and that, of course, for all the bad, there’s also quite a bit of goodAssigned pieces on religion being both/neither good or bad, such as Appiah’s TED Talk as well as material demonstrating a range or diversity within traditionsClarified that much of what we discuss in terms of religious people’s behavior is also just human behavior—that is, that it’s applicable to everyone; religious people are usually not different or specialEmphasized to students that it’s okay to stick with values, beliefs, or groups, including the religious, that are imperfect/critiqued (because nothing is perfect)Continued to offer caveats when leading a session that was more based on criticism, such as “of course reasonable people will disagree” or “this may be interpreted differently within the community” or “obviously this doesn’t represent the whole”Assigned more companion (or both-side) pieces for every topic (e.g., “what is Critical Race Theory?” as well as a critique of Critical Race Theory)But I am still grappling with this issue. The reality is that religions aren’t all good (whatever we even mean by this). Robert Orsi, one of my favorite scholars, who grew up Catholic and has written extensively about the study of religion, has written powerfully on just how disgusted he is by the history of Catholicism, that “in the long perspective of human history, religion has done more harm than good and that the good it does is inextricable from the harm.” I think I would be doing students themselves a harm if I pretended otherwise.

Evaluations of faculty, both peer and student, can be a valuable part of the teaching landscape. Without doubt, faculty peers see strengths and weaknesses an individual instructor might not otherwise notice. Similarly, asking students about their experiences yields important insight into how learning happens--if one poses the right questions. Well-designed instruments interpreted with a critical eye by employers should be standard. For online instruction, however, particular downsides emerge that often prove dicey for faculty whose merit pay, tenure and promotion considerations, and, most especially, contract status depends, even if only in part, on the results. Online faculty must proactively design processes that handle the challenges of the online environment appropriately. While I have by no means mastered making evaluation of my online courses helpful, I do have observations about what I have tried and what I am planning to do to negotiate this required process more thoughtfully. When a peer evaluator lacks experience with online learning, or does not have familiarity with best practices for creating, mounting, and running an online course, the utility of the evaluation can come into question. Too often an idealized imagination of the traditional classroom remains the model by which a course is judged, rather than looking at the online experience for what it offers. If a university employs a given standard, like Quality Matters, for online course development, having peer evaluators look through that prism can be useful (https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric). The elements outlined provide clear criteria for assessment. Additionally, affording a faculty member the opportunity for peer evaluation from other online instructors or learning technology designers, even if they are not subject matter experts, can also be valuable. My university is now doing “teaching squares” for online instructors where we get together and work through one another’s courses. Seeing how other online faculty structure learning, and hearing feedback about my course format and assignments generated new ideas and helped me see where I needed to improve. Indeed, I would welcome a combination for peer evaluation that blended the insights of other online instructors with respect to the medium and what departmental colleagues would note about content. In the end, these options all stress one thing: that the purpose of peer evaluations ought to be to improve student outcomes by focusing on pedagogical practice. Regarding student evaluations, online instructors already know what studies demonstrate: online courses tend to yield lower ratings for faculty than face-to-face courses. This result likely stems, in part, from the lack of personal contact built up in weekly face-to-face meetings. Relationship mitigate against harshness in evaluation. But this also serves as a reminder that faculty presence, however it is accomplished in online classrooms, is important. While faculty members cannot completely alleviate the electronic remove, students still need to see faculty members in videos and engaged in discussion. They continue to want personal interactions, whether it be through email, text or video messaging, or phone calls. Structuring that contact into the course is vital. Returning work and inquiries promptly also proves important. The urgency of our online lives drives expectations here, so faculty must set up precise standards for communication and stick to them. Students might not be able to get an answer to a question posted at 2:00 a.m., for example, but it is not unreasonable to expect an answer to come within the next 12 hours in most cases. Many students evaluate faculty based on expectations about online courses and they often anticipate online options will be easier than face-to-face classes. Institutional messaging around online options can plant that idea. “Learn anytime, anywhere” our promotions might say, as if students can successfully navigate a class while strolling the aisles of the grocery store or pausing briefly between serving customers on the job.  Faculty, therefore, must establish detailed instructions for assignments and specific rubrics for grading that can help learners understand what they need to accomplish. Still, disappointments in this arena can lead to frustrations expressed via end of term evaluations. More helpful options might include evaluations geared to each assignment, perhaps even completed when the assignment is turned in. What did a student learn from completing that task? How did the assignment relate to the goals of the course? If faculty include these elements in their course design, it can alleviate problems along the way and serve to remind students at the close of a term about what they achieved. Likewise, making students partners in their own learning asks for a higher level of reflective awareness. Foregrounding why a student enrolled in a course, what the student wants to gain by completing it, and how it might relate to overall academic goals can be a great starting exercise because it makes students clarify expectations. Instructors get a snapshot of why students show up and the opportunity to engage in discussion of where faculty expectations may correspond to those of students, where they may differ, and why. Modifications, even if only mental, can happen through this exercise and students can come to see faculty as partners and guides in learning as opposed to obstacles. In the end, we must acknowledge that evaluations will remain a fact of faculty life. How to make them less punitive–not focused on faculty shortcomings or “consumer satisfaction” measures–and more formative, aimed to achieving educational purpose, should always be a goal for faculty and administrators. Adapting the evaluation form to the delivery method of a course is a part of that process.