Amoateng, Faculty Senate Chair

At the end of every semester, biology senior James Trice spends a few minutes in each of his classes filling in the bubbles of the N.C. Central University Student Rating of Instruction form.

It is a chance for him to evaluate the instruction he received.

“It is a good way for students to have a say on how professors have performed in their classes, so I have always taken the opportunity to say what I think,” said Trice.

“The form does not, however, give us the chance to say the weaknesses and strengths of a professor. It would benefit more if there was a box where we would write extra comments.”

Trice also worries that some students do not take the Student Rating of Instruction seriously and that they use it as a weapon to discredit professors.

“It all depends on whether you like the teacher or not. If you don’t like him well, you just don’t give him a good rating,” he said.

In fact, the university relies heavily on student evaluations when they decide to renew contracts and give tenure to faculty.

But many instructors think the evaluation instrument needs to be improved.

Faculty senate chair Kofi Amoateng said that it is good for students to rate faculty but “the system needs some fine tuning.”

“Some faculty are not happy with the system because they think it’s a popularity contest and students give a bad rating to some professors because they give them bad grades,” said Amoateng. “To some students it’s ‘scratch my back and I will scratch your back.’ Some, however, take it seriously and give an accurate evaluation.”

Amoateng also said that the form does not give students the chance to write everything they think about instruction, since it only limits students to bubble in answers to predetermined questions provided.

“Most questions are too old and should be replaced with more contemporary questions,” he said.

Karin Beckett, a statistical research assistant in the research and evaluation department, said that research has shown that the questions are relevant in rating instruction.

“Reliability, validity and item analysis has been done on the questions and there is nothing wrong with the questions,” said Beckett.

Beckett said the form should be improved to cater for changes at the university for it to be more effective.

“The university has been using the same form for the past 10 years and things have been changing but the form has not changed,” said Beckett.

“ The goals of the university have changed and technology has also changed. We now have blackboard and there is use of e-mails in classes,” she said.

Beckett said that there is also a need to accommodate open-ended questions and also to make the form available to students online.

Political science chair Jarvis Hall said the instrument is a good way for students to evaluate instructors, but the results need to be returned sooner to faculty.

“We need to get the evaluations at the end of the semester … not at the end of another semester,” said Hall.

Some students said that they don’t think some professors take the evaluation seriously, because they do not see improvements in their teaching effectiveness.

“I don’t see how it affects teachers,” said health education junior Travis Battle. “Some professors think that they are just obligated to teach us. Some just throw it at us. If you get it, you get it. If you don’t, you don’t.”

Just the kind of words that might appear on an open-ended question.