University students in more than 12,000 classes graded their teachers in a new and improved way last semester.
The updated version of the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching's teacher evaluation form that students completed is more influential and detailed than ever, said CRLT Director Connie Cook.
Cook said the forms' usage has expanded since they were first introduced in 1975 to provide instructors with student feedback.
"Over the years as teaching has become increasingly important at the University, the forms have become one of the criteria for tenure, promotion and merit pay," Cook said. "Because it is difficult for administration and fellow faculty members to know the quality of a colleague's teaching, they often rely on student ratings to provide that information."
Cook said one of the major changes in the forms is the addition of questions that allow instructors to compare themselves to other teachers in their department who teach classes of similar sizes and levels.
The new forms more clearly identify whether the instructor being evaluated is the lecturer, discussion section leader or lab instructor.
Cook said the department began planning the changes three years ago when instructors expressed a need to make the forms more user-friendly and contain more meaningful data. CRLT representatives met with groups of faculty from the schools and colleges and consulted student groups including the Michigan Student Assembly, the Black Student Union and the University's Panhellenic Association.
Chemistry Prof. Thomas Dunn, who chairs the faculty's governing body, said the "grossness" of the questions on the forms in the past have not allowed for a fair evaluation of teaching.
"People are new, they're in a large class and don't have much contact with the professor and they tend to rank them low," Dunn said. "The latest intent is an improvement to compare things in the same categories."
Education Prof. Valerie Lee said the only difference she has seen in the forms is that the results have come more slowly than in past years.
"My own feeling is that if the University is serious about evaluating the way teachers are teaching, they'd better go way beyond the CRLT forms," Lee said.
While different schools, colleges and departments place varying amounts of weight on the evaluation results, nearly all of the assessments are used to evaluate teaching.
Chemistry chair Robert Kuczkowski said the forms are factors in ranking the quality of teaching and handing out awards in the department.
"The range of responses is so varied that sometimes you have difficulty finding patterns," Kuczkowski said. "You often wonder why some students thought you were the most wonderful teacher and others just couldn't stand you."
Dunn said students don't always evaluate lecturer's by appropriate criteria.
"It is possible for some people to play a bit on the theatrical aspect of lecturing and tend to neglect the content of the lecture," Dunn said. "I'm hoping that in the future we can find a way to have a better overall view of what people's teaching is like, not viewed narrowly in terms of classroom performance."
Cook said one of her concerns is a lack of student effort to fill out the forms.
"I think students don't realize how important these ratings are in regard to tenure, promotions and merit-based pay," Cook said. "It is important for students to take ratings forms very seriously because their results have an influence on the careers of their instructors."
First-year Music and LSA student Heidi Meisenhelder said students could put more effort into filling out the forms.
"If they gave them to me at the end of class, then I didn't really have time to think about it," Meisenhelder said. "But if they gave them to me at the beginning, then I put more thought into them."