Catherine Rawn

On this page, I share my student evaluations of teaching (SEoTs), as they are a primary way of evaluating teaching. Below this section, I share my general approach to evaluating teaching, which extends  beyond the typical, though limited SEoTs.

Undergraduate Student Evaluations of Teaching

UBC provides an official route through which students can evaluate teaching. Among other questions determined by individual faculties (e.g., Arts) and departments (e.g., Psychology), the teaching of all instructors  at UBC are evaluated on  six “University Module Items” or simply “UMIs.”  Average UMI scores from 1341 classes across 8 faculties were calculated in 2007 and reported to the Provost in 2008. I have listed those averages below, next to the full individual items that. All items are rated on a 5 point scale, where 5 = excellent, 4 = good, 3 = adequate, 2 = poor, 1 = very poor.

Psyc 217 Research Methods

Here are student evaluation data from my six sections of research methods across three academic years 2008-2011. On average, weighted by number of student responses (total sample size = 183, 55% total response rate), my scores are 4.30 (Clear expectations), 4.32 (Communicates content effectively), 4.31 (Inspires interest), 3.66 (Fair evaluations), 4.57 (Concern for students), 4.31 (Overall efficacy). With the notable exception of fair assessments (a continual challenge to which I respond here), my averages greatly exceed university-wide averages.

Introductory Psychology

I have taught students in Introductory Psychology each term for two years now. Notably, the content changes quite substantially from term 1 (where the focus is on the biological side) to term 2 (where the focus is on the social side). It’s not appropriate yet to calculate weighted averages, because you’ve probably already noticed the big outlier here: Psyc 100 Section 2 which I taught as a full-year course in 2010-2011. Many things changed in 2010-2011 relative to the way I taugh Intro in 2009-2010, including the very important fact that it was my second time teaching the course. As anyone who has taught a class before will tell you, the first time is always exhausting and overwhelming. I had a better master of the material, and was better prepared to let my enthusiasm for psychology shine through. Moreover, I was able to teach it as a unified, full-year course, rather than as two separate courses. Interacting with the same students three times a week for the whole year was a major factor in establishing a very close connection with them, which I believe enhanced teaching efficacy. I also switched textbooks to one I really like! For the most part I enjoy reading it, and students reported the same. One of the things I appreciate is the repeated reinforcement of core concepts from research methods, which sounds boring but we made it fun: 6 flags (of critical thinking) = more fun! I’m very much looking forward to teaching students in this course again. We had a great time! And new this year we have a team of students returning to act as Peer Tutors.

Psyc 208: Special Topics

Below, in the “Overall by year” subsection, you can compare the scores I received from students for this course in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. I took a huge risk developing this course in the first place. I had open reign, and chose to design a course with student learning in mind. I titled the course: “Psychology in your life: How social psychology can help you succeed” (see the syllabus on the “courses” page). Based on feedback from the first iteration, I made substantial changes in 2010-2011. I am pleased to report these changes were reflected in greatly improved student ratings.  

Overall, By Year

Here are student evaluation data from my four courses/sections from 2010-2011.

And here are student evaluation data from my six courses/sections 2009-2010. Please see my blog post highlighting some of my reflections on these numbers.

Some Student Comments from End-of-term Evaluations (2008-2009, Psyc 217 Research Methods)

The teacher was very constant in the way she thought, which was good (always lively and active) which stimulated our engagement despite the late hours of class. She was successfully able to improvise a class when the students were tired (7-9:30 pm) which worked because it pulled us back on track. She was more concerned about our understanding than any other professor I have had. She was also, very knowledgeable and relating her experiences with the classwork made me grasp the concepts more. She is an excpetional and excellent professor.

I really appreciated the creativity and enthusiasm professor Rawn put into all her classes. She was successful in making them interesting and accessible. However, the amount of extra assignments, above the readings, made it a very heavy course-load. Although, each one had a reasonable and good purpose, together, it made it a stressful course to take. Overall, I really enjoyed it.

Very good teacher, really wanted everyone to learn and made sure everyone understood. She made an effort to get to know her students, and to make the class as interesting as possible!

*Selection was based on comment representativeness and relative brevity. Contact me if you’re interested in viewing the full set.

My Approach to Evaluating Teaching

For me, teaching involves ongoing development that reflects my own and others’ assessments. I value feedback about my teaching and seek it regularly in multiple ways.

I seek anonymous feedback from my students…

• at the end of each lesson. Every class my learners have the chance to tell me what’s working for them and what isn’t clear. I use this feedback to determine what needs review during the next class, and how I can present the topic more effectively the following semester.
• at mid-semester. This formative feedback helps me to make changes that facilitate the learning of that specific group. For example, in my research methods course last year students expressed feeling overwhelmed by weekly reading responses. In response, as a class, we agreed to count reading responses as bonus points rather than as participation points.
• at the end of semester.This summative feedback helps me to reflect on the way I teach in general and in each specific courses, and helps me when re-designing my courses for the next iteration. I comb through the data, including both quantitative summaries (e.g., means, medians, modes), and qualitative responses (i.e., written comments). Based on feedback from research methods students this past semester, one of my goals for the fall is to integrate the CRP groups into in-class activities to promote group cohesion. Although many groups function effectively, group work can be a struggle for some. The Team-Based Learning approach suggests that using the CRP groupings for small group activities in class will help avoid some of those struggles.

I seek feedback from my colleagues.

• When I was a sessional instructor at Kwantlen, I had the privilege of gaining formal peer feedback from two established faculty members. This experience taught me the value of an experienced faculty member’s evaluation of my course approaches, including thoughtful suggestions and advice.
• I plan to seek feedback about my teaching at UBC, and am currently looking into formal mechanisms in place to do that (e.g., at TAG).