At the end of each semester, students are asked to complete online course evaluations pertaining to each class they took. They inquire about class structure, use of technology and course material, organization of content and effectiveness of their professor’s teaching.
Previously, The Criterion investigated the who’s, how’s and why’s around each semester’s Student Course Evaluations. Who creates them, who uses the information collected and the role a student’s feedback plays in their education has remained unclear. Further investigation has helped to answer these questions and shed light on how faculty perceive student evaluations.
These evaluations are collected anonymously through Qualtrics, an online survey service. However, the Faculty Success Committee (FSC) has been reviewing this format and working on updates to the issuing website in an effort to improve the process, according to Faculty Senate President and Professor of Sociology Dr. Stephen Merino.
“They have gathered feedback from both students and faculty, and are currently working on a proposed new instrument that would differ somewhat from the current one. That will likely come Faculty Senate’s way this spring semester and we’ll see where it goes from there. Maybe in the fall, or in the fall of 2027, we may have a new form. Ultimately, any change would have to be approved by the Provost and President,” Merino said.
After student evaluations are collected, the data is analyzed by the Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Decision Support (IRPDS). The IRPDS conducts qualitative and quantitative analysis on the data and produces reports.
This information is shared to the individual faculty member, their respective department head and CMU’s Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Cher Hendricks. This data is one factor in decisions regarding faculty careers, such as granting tenure or giving promotions.
“Our employee handbook makes it clear that the priority for all faculty is teaching, and these course evaluations are one mechanism for evaluating teaching effectiveness. All faculty, regardless of whether they are on the tenure track or not, must include the quantitative data from their course evaluations on their annual evaluations, when they apply for tenure and when they apply for promotion. Annual evaluations also require providing specific comments from the qualitative portions of the evaluations as well as a plan for improvement,” Hendricks said.
This means that student evaluations are a big factor in improving each faculty’s skills and teaching abilities. However, they have simultaneously been under scrutiny for a perceived unfair impact on faculty members’ careers.
“There is a lot of anxiety among faculty about student course evaluations and how [the] data [is] utilized. There is a lot on the line,” Merino said. “Faculty often worry that the results could affect their chances at tenure or promotion. Faculty worry that students may not realize how important they are, or penalize them for things outside of their control. For instance, research shows that women and instructors of color often receive poorer course evaluations from students, likely because of bias and negative stereotypes. Faculty who teach difficult, required or unpopular courses may fear more negative evaluations despite teaching the content well.”
Even though the IRPDS and department heads primarily focus on how each faculty member can improve, and provide resources to facilitate improvement, there is always room for bias or pitfalls.
“Many faculty wish that less weight is given to student course evaluations, or that a more holistic approach is used that gave weight to other data as well,” Merino said.
Taking this issue into consideration, Hendricks explained that there are many avenues the school takes to ensure that student feedback is not the only factor that affects faculty membersʼ careers.
“In all cases, the goal of Academic Affairs is to support faculty success in the classroom. To that end, we provide resources such as the Center for Teaching and Learning, our AVP for Faculty Success and peer-to-peer mentoring programs,” Hendricks said.
After each professor sits down with their department head during their annual evaluation, professors are then expected to implement the appropriate changes to improve their classes for the following semester.
“If there is consistent student feedback related to an area of improvement, the faculty member should articulate how they will make changes. This is reviewed by the academic department head, and by me. When warranted, we ask a faculty member to revise their plan if it is not aligned with feedback. The expectation is that the plan will be put in place and that we see improvement by the next evaluation cycle,” Hendricks said.
