Dartmouth is moving toward instating an institution-wide course evaluation system to address the lack of standardization in teaching and course reviews, Dean of the Faculty Carol Folt announced recently.
The system will bring the current course review system, which does not require all faculty members to be evaluated and differs across departments, in line with similar schools that already have similar assessment infrastructures in place.
"[We're] way behind the curve. All of our sister institutions have been doing this for the longest time," English department chair Peter Travis said.
A lack of continuity among the department evaluation forms makes data difficult to interpret, classics department chair Jeremy Rutter said. Different questions, methods of distributing evaluations and the amount of time allowed to complete the forms are all factors that complicate any sort of comparisons between departments.
The College will also institute a standardized method for delivering evaluations, according to Rutter.
In a recent speech, College President James Wright pointed out that a standard evaluation form would allow departments to make more informed decisions when looking to grant tenure or renew teaching positions.
"Students have a right to expect accountability, and the alumni and trustees do as well," Rutter said.
English professors established a universal course evaluation system within their department this fall, but many other departments remain "helter-skelter," Travis said.
Sociology department chair Misagh Parsa said he uses his own evaluation form, which he brought with him from the University of Michigan when he started at Dartmouth 16 years ago.
Chairs cited several other benefits of a standardized form on evaluating the relative ease of a given class.
"Departments might be able to adjust the content or the difficulty of the course," chemistry department chair John Winn said.
Although the new official evaluations will not be made available to students, they will benefit indirectly from improved courses and professors, Rutter said.
Another reason for a standard form, according to Travis, is that the College is selling a product -- education -- and that product needs a standard by which it is evaluated.
Despite the gains from a standardized evaluation system, some professors are skeptical about the change.
Many professors use the forms for information about specific material, or to assess new methods, a process that could be weakened if the forms were made more general, Rutter said.
"The humanities have been a bit of a sticking point [in the discussions] when it comes to a questionnaire," Rutter said. "Whatever feedback we're going to get in numerical form isn't going to be very useful."
While the evaluation form itself is still being designed, a section for specific questions about each particular course will be a part of the system, according to the department chairs interviewed by The Dartmouth.
Rutter said he was told that each professor could stipulate three of his or her own questions on the form -- a number he feels is much too low. Rutter suggested that 10 questions might be sufficient flexibility.
Regarding to evaluating professors, Rutter said he wondered if assessments could do more than identify the most and least well-liked professors, leaving little information about professors evaluated in the middle-approval regions.
In spite of these concerns, Rutter said he feels a course evaluation is necessary, and that a useful one will eventually be designed.
