My Teaching Evaluations

Prof L. Weinstein

Physics Dept, Old Dominion University

Teaching evaluations can serve several purposes:

They provide feedback to professors so they can improve their teaching,
they provide feedback to the university so they can judge the teaching performance of the professors,
they provide information to the students about what other students thought of the professors.

Teaching evaluations provide an incomplete view of a teacher. The main measure of success should be how much the students learned, how much more they want to learn, and how much they will have retained 5 to 50 years later. This results from a complicated interaction between the teacher, the student and the material. The same teacher will get wildly different evaluations teaching:

a required course the students don't want to take,
an elective course the students choose to take,
a course that many students are unprepared for,
a course that students are thoroughly prepared for,
an easy course,
a very difficult course,
in class, hybrid and on-line classes.

Research in Student Evaluation of Faculty (SEF) shows how flawed a tool it is. See this paper (original link) (local copy) by Prof Michael Huemer at University of Colorado, Boulder.

At every other university I have been at, teaching evaluations were published to help students choose their courses and instructors. At Old Dominion University, teaching evaluations can only be released by permission of the evaluated faculty member.

Teaching evaluations should be public information

Here are my teaching evaluations for all of the courses I have taught:

Semester
Course
Name
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Phys
Q10
Students
Resp/Tot
Comments

Fall 2023
452
Intro Quantum Mech

NA
0
none

Spring 2023

On Research Leave

Fall 2022
452
Intro Quantum Mech
5
5
4.33
4.5
5
5
5
5
5
4.67
NA
3/10
click
click

Spring 2022
603
Classical Mechanics
4.67
4.67
4.67
4.67
5
4.67
4.67
4.33
4.67
4.67
NA
3/9
click

Fall 2021
452
Intro Quantum Mech (in class)
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
NA
1/14
click

Spring 2021
603
Classical Mechanics (hybrid)
4.7
4.7
4.3
4.7
4.7
4.7
5
5
4.7
5
NA
3/7
click

Fall 2020
101
Conceptual Physics (hybrid - in class students)
4.8
4.8
3.8
4.5
4.5
4.8
4.7
4.8
4.5
4.5
NA
4/35
click

Fall 2020
101
Conceptual Physics (hybrid - online students)
4.4
4.4
3.1
4.4
4.0
4.4
3.6
4.7
4.0
3.7
NA
8/31
click

Spring 2020
102
Conceptual Physics
5
4.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NA
2/15
click

Fall 2019
101
Conceptual Physics
4.8
4.8
4.4
4.4
4.8
4.9
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.8
NA
9/92
click

Spring 2019
102
Conceptual Physics
4.5
5
4
4
4.5
5
5
5
4.5
4.5
NA
2/18
click

Spring 2019
309
Physics on the back of an envelope
5
5
4.5
4.5
4.8
4.8
4.5
4.8
4.5
4.8
NA
4/6
click

Fall 2018
101
Conceptual Physics
4.6
4.8
3.8
4.6
4.9
4.9
4.6
4.9
4.6
4.2
NA
14/109
click

Spring 2018
102
Conceptual Physics
5
4.8
4.9
4.9
5
5
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.8
NA
9/34
click

Spring 2018
309
Physics on the back of an envelope
5
4.5
4.8
4.5
5
5
4.8
5
4.8
4.5
NA
4/11
click

Fall 2017
101
Conceptual Physics
4.9
4.7
3.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.4
4.8
4.6
4.3
3.8
12/118
click

Spring 2017

On Research Leave

Fall 2016
425/525
Electricity and Magnetism I 5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
1/13
click

Spring 2016
453
Electricity and Magnetism II 5.0
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.0
4.6
4.8
4.4
4.6
3.9
5/9
click

Fall 2015
425/525
Electricity and Magnetism I
5.0
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.8
5.0
4.0
5/18
click

Spring 2015
453
Electricity and Magnetism II
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
3.9
5/12
click

Fall 2014
425
Electricity and Magnetism I
4.8
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.5
4.5
4.5
3.9
4/19
click

Spring 2014
102
Conceptual Physics 4.6
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.1
8/24
click

Fall 2013
101
Conceptual Physics 4.7
4.8
4.1
4.5
4.7
4.7
4.4
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.1
35/111
click

Spring 2013
102
Conceptual Physics
5
4.8
4.9
4.9
5
5
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.2
9/34
click

309
Physics on the back of an envelope 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.2
3/9
click

Fall 2012
101
Conceptual Physics 4.3
4.5
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.0
19/109
click

Spring 2012
102
Conceptual Physics 4.6
4.2
3.6
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.2
4.6
4.4
3.9
4.0
11/34
click

309
Physics on the back of an envelope 4
4.8
4.8
4.8
5
5
5
4.8
4.6
4.8
4.0
5/11
click

Fall 2011
101
Conceptual Physics
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.7
4.8
4.4
4.8
4.1
4.5
4.0
23/112
click

101: in class survey

4.3

4.2
4.4
4.0
4.4

57/112

2010/2011

On Research Leave

Spr 2010 232 University Physics II
(taught using SCALE-UP) 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.2 26/93 click

Spr 2010 309 Physics on the back of an envelope
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.2 5/8 click

Fall 2009 231 University Physics I
(taught using SCALE-UP) 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.0 4.3 4.2 3.9 21/93 click

Spr 2009
232 University Physics II
(taught using SCALE-UP) 4.7 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.0 12/37 click

Spr 2009
309
Physics on the back of an envelope
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2/5 click

Fall 2008
231
University Physics
(taught using SCALE-UP) 4.56
4.67
4.67
4.56
4.37
4.89
4.22
3.89
4.22
4.44
4.15
9/37
std
in class comments
in class clickers

Spr 08
309
Physics on the back of an envelope
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.0
5.0
4.8
5.0
4.8
5.0
4.1
6/10
click

Spr 08
413
Methods of Experimental Physics
4.67
4.67
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.67
5.0
5.0
4.67
4.67
4.1
3/8
click

Fall 07
120
Physics of the 21st century
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.3
5.0
4.1
3/5
click

Spr 07
309
Physics on the back of an envelope
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.1
3/7
click

Spr 07
413
Methods of Experimental Physics
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.1
1/7
click

Fall 06
120
Physics of the 21st century
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.1
2/8
click

Fall 06
453
Radiation and Optics
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.2
4.8
4.6
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.1
5/15
click

Spr 06
309
Physics on the back of an envelope
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
3/10
click

Spr 06
102
Elementary Physics II
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.8
4.8
4.6
4.3
4.4
4.0
33/53
click

Fall 05
120
21st Century Physics
5
3.5
5
4.5
5
5
na
5
4.5
4.5
3.7
2/17
click

Fall 05
101
Elementary Physics I
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.1
4.7
4.6
4.3
3.9
4.2
3.7
37/93
click

Spr 05
102
Elementary Physics II
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.7
3.9
29/53
Click

New
Eval
System (Max = 5)

IN THE FIRST WEEK OF CLASS, THE INSTRUCTOR PROVIDED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION THAT CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE COURSE CONTENT, ASSIGNMENTS, GRADING AND OTHER IMPORTANT POLICIES.
THE COURSE MATERIALS, EXAMS, PROJECTS AND/OR PAPERS IN THE CLASS REQUIRED ME TO THINK CRITICALLY.
THE INSTRUCTOR WELCOMED QUESTIONS AND OTHER CLASS PARTICIPATION.
THE INSTRUCTOR WAS ENTHUSIASTIC WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER.
THE INSTRUCTOR WAS AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AND HELPFUL DURING OFFICE HOURS.
THE INSTRUCTOR ARRIVED ON TIME FOR CLASS AND USED THE FULL CLASS PERIOD ALLOTED.
IN ORDER TO GET GOOD GRADES ON TESTS AND ASSIGNMENTS, I HAD TO KNOW THE COURSE MATERIALS OUTLINED IN THE SYLLABUS AND DISCUSSED IN CLASS.
THE INSTRUCTOR'S PRESENTATIONS WERE INFORMATIVE.
OVERALL, I HAVE LEARNED OR BENEFITED FROM THIS CLASS.
OVERALL, THE INSTRUCTOR IS AN EFFECTIVE TEACHER

The new grading scheme is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Sem Course Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 My

Avg

Phys

Avg

Students

Resp/Total

Written

Comments

inclass
feedback

Old
Eval System (Max = 6)

Fall 04
101
Elementary Physics I
4.6
4.5
5.5
4.9
4.6
4.3
4.7
4.7
4.5
67/105
Click
Click

Spr 04
102
Elementary Physics II
5.1
5.0
5.7
5.3
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.2
4.7
16/45
Click

Spr 04
309
Physics on the Back of an Envelope
5.3
5.5
6.0
5.3
5.8
6.0
5.0
5.6
4.7
4/9
Click

Spr 04
898
Research
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

1/2

Fall 03
101
Elementary Physics I
4.9
4.9
5.6
5.2
4.7
4.3
5.1
5.0
4.6
38/101
Click

Spr 03
102
Elementary Physics II
5.1
4.9
5.5
5.3
5.1
5.1
5.3
5.2
5.0
23/39
Click

Spr 03
309
Physics on the Back of an Envelope
5.7
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.3
5.0
5.0
5.6
5.0
7/12
Click

Fall 02 101 Elementary Physics I 4.7 4.6 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.5 4.9 4.8 4.7 42/77 Click

Spr 02 309 Physics on the Back of an Envelope 5.1 4.9 5.9 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.7 5.1 5.1 7/15 Click

Spr 02 102 Elementary Physics II 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.6 5.0 4.9 5.1 20/37 Click

Fall 01 101 Elementary Physics I 4.6 4.4 5.4 4.7 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.7 46/78 Click

2000/ 2001 On sabbatical

Spr 00 491 Investigating Modern Pseudoscience 5.6 5.9 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.1 7/11 Click

Spr 00 721/821 Graduate Quantum II 5.8 6.0 5.5 5.3 5.8 5.8 5.5 5.7 5.1 4/4 Click

Fall 99 621 Graduate Quantum I 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 NA 5.9 5.0 5/5 Click

Spr 99 721/821 Graduate Quantum II 5.7 5.3 6.0 5.7 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.5 4.9 3/3 NA

Fall 98 621 Graduate Quantum I 5.0 4.8 6.0 5.7 4.8 4.3 5.0 5.1 5.0 4/4 Click

Fall 98 231Rec Univ Phys I Recitation 4.1 4.2 5.2 4.2 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.9 5.0 10/21 Click

Spr 98 232 Univ Phys II 4.7 4.3 5.4 5.0 4.5 4.4 4.9 4.6 4.9

15/24

Click

Fall 97 231 Univ Phys I 4.5 4.1 5.2 4.4 4.1 3.9 4.3 4.4 4.8

30/50

Click

Spr 97 232 Univ Phys II 4.8 4.8 5.6 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.7 4.8

16/24

Spr 97 309 Physics on the Back of an Envelope 6.0 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.9 4.8

2/2

Spr 97 493 Undergrad Research 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.8

1/1

Fall 96 231 Univ Phys I 4.9 4.9 5.7 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.9 4.7

18/26

Click

Spr 96 309 Physics on the Back of an Envelope 5.6 5.3 5.8 5.4 5.5 5.3 5.1 5.4 4.7

8/8

Spr 96 232 Univ Phys II 4.6 4.7 5.5 4.6 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.7

27/39

Fall 95 231 Univ Phys I 4.9 5.0 5.7 5.1 4.8 4.6 4.9 5.0 4.6

21/33

Fall 95 731... Grad Seminar

5.1 4.6

18/18

Spr 95 454/554 Thermal Physics 4.4 4.4 5.2 4.3 4.9 4.3 4.1 4.5 NA 9/10 NA

Fall 94 232 Univ Phys II 4.1 4.0 5.1 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 26/58 NA

Fall 94 731... Grad Seminar

5.0 4.4 8/18 NA

Spr 94 454/554 Thermal Physics 4.8 4.7 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.8 4.7 NA 9/10 NA

Fall 93 231 Univ Phys I 4.5 4.6 5.5 4.7 4.4 4.2 4.7 4.7 NA /30 NA

Fall 93 731... Grad Seminar 4.6 4.6 5.2 4.7 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.6 NA 13/19 NA

Spr 93 454/554 Thermal Physics 5.1 4.8 5.8 5.3 4.8 4.5 5.0 5.0 NA 8/10 NA

Fall 92 731... Grad Seminar

4.4 NA 8/17 NA

Univ Phys is University Physics, introductory physics with calculus.

Q1: Rate the overall effectiveness of the instructor
Q2: Rate the instructor's ability to communicate ideas clearly
Q3: Rate the instructor's consistency/punctuality meeting class and using allotted time
Q4: Rate the instructor's helpfulness/sensitivity/responsiveness to all students' needs
Q5: Rate the overall quality of the course
Q6: Rate how much you have learned or benefitted from the course
Q7: Rate this course on organization, structure, and clarity of requirements

All questions were on a scale of 1 to 6.

Obviously, questions 1, 5, and 6 are the only useful questions (which is a shame because I do great on question 3).

My comments on courses:

Small classes give great evaluations.
Required courses do not give great evaluations.
The response to Q6 (How much did you learn?) is always the lowest. Does that mean that I can teach better than the students can learn? Is the previous question meaningful?
Fall 1997 Physics 231: The first two weeks of this course were taught in a temporary lecture hall while the new oceanography/physics building was completed. The remainder was taught in a lecture hall with significant deficiencies (very noisy, poor acoustics, poor sightlines). The numerical evaluations clearly reflect these difficulties.
The Physics Department as a whole is clearly improving. The department mean has increased from 4.4 in 1994 to 5.1 in 2002. This means we have succeeded in hiring researchers who are also excellent teachers.
Spring 2002 Physics 102: Two students (10%) gave me 1's on almost every question as compared to the 80% who gave me 5's and 6's. This is the first time I have had a bimodal distribution. (One of those two students wrote a similar written comment.)
Fall 2003 Physics 101: This is the first year of on-line evaluations. The response rate seems down significantly. I have no idea whether the change in method skewed the results.
Spring 2004 Physics 102: Another bimodal distribution (although with a very small second peak). Clearly, only the students who care a lot bother to fill out the online evals.
Spring 2004 Physics 898: This is just plain silly. There's a reason research courses did not get course evaluations before.
Fall 2004 Physics 101: The in-class evaluations were significantly higher than the formal university evaluations. Perhaps the students who bother to come to class appreciate it more?

Back to my home page

Larry Weinstein

Last modified: Mon, 8 July 2002