The following piece is an opinion and does not reflect the views of The Eagle and its staff. All opinions are edited for grammar, style and argument structure and fact-checked, but the opinions are the writer’s own.
Students often use Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) to express their opinions about their experience in a course, usually near or at the end of the academic term. Professors rely on SETs to help improve future course offerings. However, when a SET defames or mischaracterizes a professor, the issue cannot always be resolved if the administration fails to intervene.
I have been affiliated with American University since 1998. My doctorate in mathematics education focused on the impact of college students’ cultural and historical awareness on their perceived mathematics self-efficacy, motivation and achievement. On the first day of class, I welcome all my students and tell them it is alright to agree and disagree, as everyone has value and something to offer.
One semester, two of my students submitted SETs that I saw as mischaracterizing the course and myself. I do not know why the students said what they said, and since SETs are anonymous, I could not reach out to them to hear more about their concerns and why they felt that way.
SETs that mischaracterize a professor or their course can potentially harm the professor or their reputation, especially if employers review them. So, how can SETs become more reliable? I offer two suggestions.
First, SETs should not be anonymous. Anonymity opens the door for evaluations that may mischaracterize professors and fail to afford professors redress to resolve the student’s concern. There are pros to having anonymous evaluations, such as students avoiding potential professorial retaliation, feeling uncomfortable addressing a professor, having had poor experiences with them and so forth. However, if a professor explicitly makes all their students aware that they have an open door and non-retaliation policy, then such student concerns might decrease.
Professors know that no student is required to like or agree with them. However, students should know not to mischaracterize one. But what if a student fails to realize that they are misrepresenting their professor? If their SET is anonymous, the professor cannot reach out to the student to resolve the concern.
Non-anonymous SETs are thus better: they can help engage students in greater self-reflection and critical thinking about their concerns and enable two-way communication with their professor to hopefully solve a problem. If a resolution is not attained, the student could escalate to higher authority.
Second, university administrations should offer SET training that teaches students how to write a constructive and substantive evaluation of teaching. SETs that state, for example, “The professor expected us to do the work ourselves,” or “The professor wrote a harsh email,” are non-substantive comments that don’t help professors understand what their students need from them.
Substantive reformulations that might help clarify things for a professor might be, “I know that my professor should not do all the work for me, but if they don’t show me how to do it the first time, how can I be expected to do it all by myself?” and “The professor wrote an email that hurt my feelings; I think that they should try to respect others’ feelings better,” respectively.
The University rightly prides itself on producing “changemakers.” Changemakers at AU learn how to think critically, communicate effectively, actively listen, offer substantive suggestions for constructive change and develop impactful solutions. Students should identify themselves with professors so that professors can reach out to them to better understand their feedback and hopefully resolve their concerns. Otherwise, professors may not understand the changes they may need to make.
We need to reflect on what the changemaker Eldridge Cleaver said years ago: “You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem.” The problem is that professors are unable to resolve concerns outlined in anonymous SETs. The problem will remain largely unsolved in learning-centered communities until professors can reach out to all SET writers and help improve education for everyone.
Whiting Wicker, PhD is an adjunct professor of mathematics and statistics in the College of Arts and Sciences.
This piece was edited by Quinn Volpe, Alana Parker and Abigail Turner. Copy editing done by Luna Jinks, Olivia Citarella, Emma Brown and Nicole Kariuki.
