In the table below, please find the data from course evaluations for courses taught at VCU. [NOTE: all scores range from 1-5, with 5 being the highest possible score.]
| MEAN | MEDIAN | ||||
| 2007 | FALL | ADMS 611 | The instructor was well prepared for this course. | 4.5 | 5 |
| School Law | The instructor presented course material in an organized and informative manner. | 4.4 | 4.5 | ||
| The instructor?s choice of instructional materials facilitated my learning in this course. | 3.8 | 4 | |||
| The instructor?s teaching techniques helped me learn the material in this course. | 3.6 | 3.5 | |||
| The instructor was available outside of the classroom. | 4.3 | 4 | |||
| The instructor encouraged discussion, participation and questions in the course. | 4.6 | 5 | |||
| The instructor treated students with courtesy and respect. | 4.6 | 5 | |||
| The instructor clearly presented evaluative criteria for assessing my work. | 3.7 | 4 | |||
| The instructor graded and returned students? written work in a timely manner. | 3.2 | 3 | |||
| The course helped me understand what will be expected of me as a professional. | 3.9 | 4 | |||
| As a result of this course, my knowledge and skills were increased in the subject matter. | 4.1 | 4 | |||
| 2007 | FALL | ADMS 611 | The instructor was well prepared for this course. | 4.8 | 4 |
| School Law | The instructor presented course material in an organized and informative manner. | 4.2 | 4 | ||
| The instructor?s choice of instructional materials facilitated my learning in this course. | 3.5 | 4 | |||
| The instructor?s teaching techniques helped me learn the material in this course. | 3.5 | 4 | |||
| The instructor was available outside of the classroom. | 3.6 | 4 | |||
| The instructor encouraged discussion, participation and questions in the course. | 4.5 | 5 | |||
| The instructor treated students with courtesy and respect. | 4.3 | 5 | |||
| The instructor clearly presented evaluative criteria for assessing my work. | 3.8 | 4 | |||
| The instructor graded and returned students? written work in a timely manner. | 2.9 | 3 | |||
| The course helped me understand what will be expected of me as a professional. | 3.5 | 3 | |||
| As a result of this course, my knowledge and skills were increased in the subject matter. | 4.2 | 4 | |||
| 2008 | SPRING | ADMS 611 | The instructor was well prepared for this course. | 4.3 | 4.5 |
| School Law | The instructor presented course material in an organized and informative manner. | 3.9 | 4 | ||
| The instructor?s choice of instructional materials facilitated my learning in this course. | 3.6 | 4 | |||
| The instructor?s teaching techniques helped me learn the material in this course. | 3.2 | 3.5 | |||
| The instructor was available outside of the classroom. | 3.3 | 3 | |||
| The instructor encouraged discussion, participation and questions in the course. | 4.2 | 4 | |||
| The instructor treated students with courtesy and respect. | 3.9 | 4 | |||
| The instructor clearly presented evaluative criteria for assessing my work. | 3.1 | 3.5 | |||
| The instructor graded and returned students? written work in a timely manner. | 2 | 2 | |||
| The course helped me understand what will be expected of me as a professional. | 3.4 | 3.5 | |||
| As a result of this course, my knowledge and skills were increased in the subject matter. | 3.8 | 4 | |||
| 2008 | SPRING | EDUS 710 | The instructor was well prepared for this course. | 4.6 | 5 |
| Educational Research Design | The instructor presented course material in an organized and informative manner. | 4.5 | 5 | ||
| The instructor?s choice of instructional materials facilitated my learning in this course. | 4.3 | 5 | |||
| The instructor?s teaching techniques helped me learn the material in this course. | 4.2 | 5 | |||
| The instructor was available outside of the classroom. | 3.9 | 4 | |||
| The instructor encouraged discussion, participation and questions in the course. | 4.7 | 5 | |||
| The instructor treated students with courtesy and respect. | 4.8 | 5 | |||
| The instructor clearly presented evaluative criteria for assessing my work. | 3.8 | 4 | |||
| The instructor graded and returned students? written work in a timely manner. | 2.9 | 3 | |||
| The course helped me understand what will be expected of me as a professional. | 4.4 | 5 | |||
| As a result of this course, my knowledge and skills were increased in the subject matter. | 4.5 | 5 | |||
| 2008 | FALL | EDUS 710 | The instructor was well prepared for this course. | 4.8 | 5 |
| The instructor presented course material in an organized and informative manner. | 4.1 | 4 | |||
| The instructor?s choice of instructional materials facilitated my learning in this course. | 3.6 | 4 | |||
| The instructor?s teaching techniques helped me learn the material in this course. | 3.4 | 4 | |||
| The instructor was available outside of the classroom. | 3.5 | 4 | |||
| The instructor encouraged discussion, participation and questions in the course. | 4.5 | 5 | |||
| The instructor treated students with courtesy and respect. | 4.7 | 5 | |||
| The instructor clearly presented evaluative criteria for assessing my work. | 4.2 | 4 | |||
| The instructor graded and returned students? written work in a timely manner. | 3.3 | 3.5 | |||
| The course helped me understand what will be expected of me as a professional. | 4.4 | 4.5 | |||
| As a result of this course, my knowledge and skills were increased in the subject matter. | 4.3 | 4 | |||
| 2008 | FALL | EDUS 890 | The instructor was well prepared for this course. | 5 | 5 |
| The instructor presented course material in an organized and informative manner. | 4.9 | 5 | |||
| The instructor?s choice of instructional materials facilitated my learning in this course. | 4.9 | 5 | |||
| The instructor?s teaching techniques helped me learn the material in this course. | 5 | 5 | |||
| The instructor was available outside of the classroom. | 5 | 5 | |||
| The instructor encouraged discussion, participation and questions in the course. | 5 | 5 | |||
| The instructor treated students with courtesy and respect. | 5 | 5 | |||
| The instructor clearly presented evaluative criteria for assessing my work. | 4.9 | 5 | |||
| The instructor graded and returned students? written work in a timely manner. | 4.8 | 5 | |||
| The course helped me understand what will be expected of me as a professional. | 4.9 | 5 | |||
| As a result of this course, my knowledge and skills were increased in the subject matter. | 5 | 5 |
.
Academic year 2007-08 was a unique challenge for me as a professor. The opportunity to join the faculty at VCU came at an unusually late date relative to the typical academic hiring cycle. As a result, much of the fall semester was spent not only adjusting to a new job, but also dealing with the tedious aspects of moving to a new state with my wife and young child. As a result, a few of the scores from courses that year are not as high as I might otherwise expect; particularly those related to my availability outside of the class and the timeliness of my grading of assignments. That said, I do believe I fostered the sort of active, meaningful learning I strive to cultivate for my students. As one VCU student wrote on the end-of-semester evaluation form:
“I am very proud of my teacher’s ability to help me rise to the challenge of legal “semi-expert.”…He was very open and made me think! He brought the group together with lessons, no matter how controversial…Great Job!”
The scores on my course evaluations at VCU have risen steadily since then to the point where I would expect them to be.
For each course in which six or more students are enrolled, Hofstra University requires the use of Course and Teacher Ratings (CTR) which consist of multiple choice items (quantitative data) and a separate form for students to write about the course and the teacher in a more open-ended format (qualitative data). The 21 items on the quantitative portion of the CTR comprise four scales: Overall evaluation of instructor and course, Workload/Difficulty, Grading/Feedback Quality, and Interaction/Encouragement. All scales are scored on a range of one to five; for all but the workload/difficulty scale, lower scores (closer to one) represent better ratings. By Hofstra’s standards, for the workload/difficulty scale, the optimal score is a three.
The next table lists the courses for which CTR data were accumulated and analyzed during my time at Hofstra. The scores in the last two columns represent the averages for the main scale: Overall Evaluation of Instructor and Course. While the scores have never been anything but above average, it is quite clear that the scores in my earliest semesters were not as “good” (close to one) as the more recent scores. It is also worth noting that of the four scores over 1.5, three were from an undergraduate class. I do not know if undergraduates tend to evaluate instructors differently than graduate students, but I do know that the learning experiences I created for undergraduates felt qualitatively different for me as an instructor.
| BECKER | PROGRAM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | FALL | EADM 280P | Politics of Education | 2 | 1.9 |
| 2002 | FALL | FDED 111 | Politics of Education | 1.7 | 2.1 |
| 2003 | SPRING | EADM 321 | Intro. to doctoral studies | 1.4 | 1.8 |
| 2003 | FALL | FDED 111 | Politics of Education | 2.1 | 1.7 |
| 2004 | SPRING | EADM 321 | Intro. to doctoral studies | 1.3 | 1.4 |
| 2004 | FALL | FDED 111 | Politics of Education | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| 2005 | SPRING | EADM 321 | Intro. to doctoral studies | 1.2 | (missing) |
| 2005 | FALL | EADM 357 | Applied Educational Research | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| 2006 | JANUARY | EADM 281L | Web-Surveys for School Leaders | 1.1 | 1.3 |
| 2006 | SPRING | EADM 358 | Applied Educational Research | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| 2006 | FALL | EADM 244 | School Law | 1.2 | 1.9 |
| 2007 | SPRING | EADM 321 | Intro. to doctoral studies | 1.3 | 1.3 |