SoTL Journal Club (April 9, 2013)

Selected article for our discussion:

• Neath, I. (1996). How to improve your teaching evaluations without improving your teaching. Psychological Reports, 78(3), 1363-1372.

Some pointers for discussion:

1. Neath's begins the article with a discussion about the differences between formative and summative evaluations. How are both employed at UBC and how are the results used to inform practice?

2. [This question is borrowed from the CWSEI posting.] A number of Neath's suggested tips for improving teaching ratings are (intentionally) facetious (e.g., "be male"). Are any of his tips a worthwhile means of legitimately improving teaching?

3. Several of the tips Neath offers may convey information about student preferences in relation to class structure, content or design. How might these tips be used to inform how we develop a new course or approach a course redesign?

4. Neath criticizes the use of teaching evaluations as a measure of teaching effectiveness, what other measures might be more appropriate and how can they be employed in a large institution like UBC? What conditions, attitudes, environments, etc. would need to change for these to be effective?