Teaching Portfolio

Evaluation of Teaching
Student evaluations are vital to my efforts to improve courses. I have used a twoprong approach to gaining student perceptions. I have regularly administered the Center for Instructional Improvement (CIRI) evaluations since my initial part-time lecturer appointment in 1978, and I routinely request anonymous written student assessments at the conclusion of courses. I was part of a pilot effort to test a new evaluation instrument, Student Response to Instruction Report, which is now utilized university-wide.
As a result of my emphasis on evaluation, I have longitudinal statistical and descriptive data. Note that all evaluations are consistently at the highest levels in all categories (see Appendix D). Illustrative of the very positive student evaluations is the following student ratings summary, which assesses my teaching since receiving associate professor rank.
Mean student ratings on 7-point scale: 1 (hopelessly inadequate) to 7 (unusually effective) Fall 1991 to spring 1996, N = 357 undergraduate students

6.52	Instructor is well organized	6.27	Instructor increased student motivation
6.53	Instructor welcomes participation	6.37	Instructor increased student learning
6.61	Instructor is enthusiastic	6.56	Instructor was well prepared
6.56	Instructor is well prepared for class	6.60	Students recommend course

Since fall 1996, I have used a new evaluation instrument, the Student Response to Instruction Report. Below are mean student ratings on a 5-point scale.
Mean student ratings on 5-point scale: 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always) Fall 1996 to spring 1998, N = 211 undergraduate students

4.98	Instructor was well prepared for class	4.86	Instructor provided useful feedback
4.95	Instructor explained course material clearly	4.88	Instructor stimulated useful participa’n
4.95	Instructor used class time well	4.93	Overall rating of instructor’s teaching
4.87	Instructor inspired interest in subject matter	4.93	Overall rating for course