Evaluative Excerpts: Numerical Summaries
Loyola Marymount University (Fall 2019-Spring 2022)
My student evaluations from Loyola Marymount University (LMU) demonstrate my sustained commitment to excellence in teaching throughout my career. AY 2020-21 especially highlights the grit of my students, combined with my own, in navigating the physical, intellectual, and emotional turmoil brought on by Covid-19.
The following chart indicates my scores in four key categories, including my overall effectiveness, from Fall 2019 to Spring 2022. For semesters during which I taught two sections of the same course, I provide an average of the two scores for each category.
The scale is 0-5, with 5 being the top score.
| Fall 2019 | Spring 2020 | Fall 2020 | Spring 2021 | Fall 2021 | Spring 2022 | |
| Number of Students | 19 | 18 | 19 / 17 | 18 | 16 / 19 | 19/18 |
| Clarity of Learning Outcomes | 4.1 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 4.85 | 4.4 |
| Interactions w/ Students | 4.6 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 4.3 |
| Instructor Accessibility | 4.5 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 4.95 | 4.6 |
| Feedback Improved Learning | 4.2 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 4.95 | 4.3 |
| Overall rating | 4.07 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 4.4 |
My Fall 2019 evaluations fell below my standards: I came in at, or just below, average in all categories, with a 4.07 for overall teaching effectiveness. On the other hand, this was my first time teaching a new curriculum, at a new school, with a new student population, for the first time in over a decade. It was also my first experience teaching on the semester system, rather than quarters, the only rhythm I had known for 26 years. This left room for minor adjustments the following semester, which is part of the pleasure of teaching a course for the second time. Open-ended comments indicated students appreciated the many hours I devoted to one-on-one conferences with them and my general accessibility.
My second attempt at the course went more smoothly, despite our rapid transition to remote teaching in March of 2020. Never having taught an online course, I logged extensive hours preparing for the change. I was very proud of my students that semester for their resilience and adaptability, and my evaluations reflected that the feeling was mutual. I dedicated the summer of 2020 to rigorous preparation for a reimagined online version of my course. I discuss the details of my efforts in greater length under Teaching Related Activities and Committee Work. I was gratified that my scores met or surpassed the averages in all categories for all Rhetorical Arts courses taught for the entire online academic year. Moreover, I received perfect scores across all categories for Spring 2021.
Fall 2021 was an exciting semester as we returned to in-person teaching. I adjusted to FTF teaching again with enthusiasm, despite the “new normal” of teaching with masks on while maintaining social distance. I remained dedicated to giving this cohort of first-year students the best experience possible under the unprecedented circumstances they had faced since March of their Junior year in high school. This required a great deal of sensitivity to their emotional health and intellectual progress. My scores indicate that I contributed to successfully re-introducing them to the rhythm of in-person learning, as my scores were above average across all categories.
My numbers were down in Spring 2022. First and foremost, I acknowledge that I was more tired this spring than at any other time throughout my teaching career. It’s fair to say that my teaching was not as effective according to my standards. We spent the first two weeks of the semester online. This return to the virtual classroom may have been discouraging to some students. I also noticed more students this semester having difficulty concentrating and meeting deadlines. Based on my one-on-one interactions with them, there was a notable uptick in feeling lost, overwhelmed, stressed, anxious, and depressed. The class of 2025 lost many significant experiences in high school and has never known the college experience outside of a pandemic. They have endured exceptional difficulties that have undoubtedly affected their moods, motivation, and expectations about going to college; educators have been similarly affected, albeit for different reasons. Ultimately, I agree with Robert Zaretsky who argues
it is dangerous to generalize when there is only limited data — data, moreover, about an experience that we will need many years to fully measure….I wonder if we have the necessary perspective to make sense — or, at least, make a sensible narrative — about how our students experienced a plague that is not only not past but stretches into our future (The Chronicle).
Appendix H contains numerical summaries from each semester depicted in the table above.
Stanford University (Autumn 2007-Spring 2009)
My early student evaluations from Stanford University indicate a high level of satisfaction with my abilities, efforts, and practices in the classroom. My average ratings across sections consistently met or exceeded program standards during two of my earliest years teaching at Stanford.
The following chart indicates my scores in four key categories and my overall effectiveness, from Autumn 2007 to Spring 2009.
The scale is 0-5, with 5 being the top score.
| Autumn 2007 | Winter 2008 | Spring 2008 | Autumn 2008 | Winter 2009 | Spring 2009 | |
| Number of Respondents | 14/15 | 28/30 | 23/29 | 26/29 | 28/29 | 26/29 |
| Organization/Clarity | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.4 |
| Ability to Engage | 4.75 | 4.7 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.25 |
| Interactions w/ Students | 4.8 | 4.8 | 4.5 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.5 |
| Content and Evaluation | 4.6 | 4.65 | 4.2 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Overall rating | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.2 | 4.5 | 4.7 | 4.3 |
As of Autumn 2015, Stanford’s student evaluation procedures and feedback sheets shifted university-wide. This change allowed PWR to quantify student learning outcomes while also making it difficult to provide a reliable, side-by-side performance comparison across quarters. As a result, the following table differs from the one above regarding elements of evaluation and means.
My student evaluations from my later years at Stanford were at, or slightly above, average in most categories, although lower overall than a decade ago. Factors contributing to this trend may include: 1) having taught first-year students primarily in my early years versus working solely with sophomores/juniors during my later years, 2) a thematic shift towards the energy humanities and eco-composition, and 3) an evolving curriculum within PWR along with the steady development of more precise and exacting grading criteria on my part. Overall, I believe these numbers represent pedagogical development and a willingness to take more risks in the classroom. For example, as an early adopter of both CourseWork and Canvas, the change to Canvas after a decade of working with CourseWork was not a seamless process. From the student’s perspective, these technical challenges can come across as a lack of organization when, in fact, the instructor is putting in triple the effort to present a cohesive interface to the class. Once the new technology is “dialed in,” the semblance of order is restored. As seen in the “Organization” category below, my score rose dramatically over those first two years working with Canvas. Given that my “quality of instruction” scores remained high throughout my Stanford years, I feel my initiative as a teacher, researcher, and scholar contributed significantly to my overall growth and effectiveness as an instructor.
The scale below is 0-5, with 5 being the top score.
Stanford University (Autumn 2015-Spring 2017)
| Autumn 2015 | Winter 2016 | Spring 2016 | Autumn 2016 | Winter 2017 | Spring 2017 | |
| Number of Respondents | 21/26 | 23/28 | 13/15 | Medical leave | 14/15 | 11/14 |
| How much did you learn in this course? | 4.25 | 3.95 | 3.9 | — | 4.2 | 4.3 |
| Quality of Instruction | 4.45 | 4.45 | 4.2 | — | 4.4 | 4.7 |
| Organization | 4.25 | 4.3 | 3.7 | — | 3.9 | 4.4 |
| Overall rating | 4.1 | 4.1 | 3.9 | — | 4.3 | 4.3 |
Appendix I contains the full numerical summaries for all the courses represented in the tables above. It also includes two complete records of end-quarter student comments and a self-assessment of those responses.
The University of California, Irvine (Fall 2003-Spring 2005)
My student evaluations from UC Irvine indicate a high level of satisfaction with my abilities, efforts, and practices in the classroom. During 33 quarters teaching at UC Irvine, my overall ratings were consistently among the top 5-7% for all composition instructors.
The chart on the following page indicates my scores in five key categories and my overall effectiveness from Fall 2003 to Spring 2005 (see Appendix J for the complete summary and interpretation of data for individual courses taught at UCI).
The scale is 0-7, with 7 being the top score. Less than 5% of instructors achieve an overall rating of 6.7 or higher in the composition program at UC Irvine.
| Fall 2003 | Winter 2004 | Spring 2004 | Fall 2004 | Winter 2005 | Spring 2005 | |
| Number of Students | 27 | 15 | 15 | 41 | 15 | 16 |
| Creative/Innovative | 6.95 | 7.0 | 6.8 | 6.65 | 6.2 | 6.8 |
| Listens/Responds | 6.95 | 7.0 | 6.9 | 6.8 | 7.0 | 6.9 |
| Clear Presentations | 6.75 | 7.0 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 6.6 | 6.8 |
| Effective Conferences | 6.65 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.45 | 5.9 | 6.5 |
| Arouses Curiosity | 6.0 | 6.6 | 6.4 | 6.0 | 5.3 | 6.3 |
| Overall rating | 6.85 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 6.75 | 6.6 | 6.9 |
Self-Evaluation of Numerical Summaries
At LMU, Stanford, and UC Irvine, I have routinely earned high scores for questions that rate punctuality, organization, and management of class time and a reasonable return time on exams and papers. These things are, in my opinion, the essential elements of responsible pedagogical practice. Although I certainly appreciate my students’ acknowledgment that I excel in these fundamental requirements, I take no special pride in these scores since I consider them necessary elements of good teaching. That I am proud of—and what takes effort on my part—are my scores in five areas that correspond to my understanding of effective teaching, as described in my teaching philosophy:
- The instructor uses creative or innovative teaching techniques or materials.
- The instructor listens and responds thoughtfully to student comments in class.
- The instructor explains the writing assignments clearly.
- Individual conferences with the instructor and written comments on papers help improve student writing.
- The instructor arouses curiosity about writing and stimulates students to be creative as they work on assignments.
One measure of my recognition of students as creators of knowledge would be that I thoughtfully listen and respond to my students’ comments in class and the various ways in which I support and encourage them to improve their writing skills during our conferences.
Strong evidence of my commitment to a student-centered approach in the classroom is demonstrated by the various creative and innovative teaching techniques I use. For example, when teaching my PWR 1 course at Stanford (If These Walls Could Talk: the Rhetoric of Places and Spaces), I took my first-year students outside on the first day of class to explore the “language” of their new home. We pondered how the campus architecture “argues” a dual message: On the one hand, both the structures and open spaces of the university reflect its memorializing aspects, as seen in its monumental scale, long corridors, and stately pillars. On the other hand, Stanford also provides a visibly sheltered and supportive environment, as represented by the system of arcades and courtyards which characterize the main quad. In this way, I connected early on with my students—intellectually, philosophically, and personally—as we shared our experiences of the university in the context of architectural and spatial rhetoric.
Another example of my commitment to creative teaching is my experience with Writing 39A at UC Irvine (Fundamentals of Composition). In this course, I always began the “Academic Discourse” unit by recognizing that the phrase, academic discourse, alone can be potentially intimidating to a small room of first-year college students in a beginning composition course. Rather than authoritatively defining the term for them and launching into a discussion of the prompt, I pitched this unit with a simple chart. I began by asking them to consider the audience, evidence, claims, language, and structure of various types of writing with which they were already familiar (such as a diary, a text message to a friend, a letter to a potential employer, a love poem, a blog post, or a newspaper). Invariably, even the quietest of students had something to contribute to the details of filling in the chart, and the small-group work fostered a sense of confidence and achievement among the students. By the end of this exercise, the students had successfully defined and conceptualized academic discourse as primarily another genre of writing with its own unique and vital characteristics.
My ability to create an engaging and highly interactive classroom shows in my clarity as an instructor, my innovative teaching techniques, my careful treatment of student responses and questions, and how I inspire my students’ curiosity and creativity throughout the writing process, both online and FTF.
Finally, although there are no specific measures on course evaluations for the fostering of a respectful learning environment, I feel that my ratings for overall effectiveness as an instructor at all three institutions are a strong indication that my students feel validated both in terms of the prior knowledge they bring to my classroom, as well as the contributions they make to the course overall.
Evaluative Excerpts: Summary of Student Comments
Loyola Marymount University, “RHET 1000: Writing and Speaking for Social Justice;” Fall 2020, Spring 2022
Appendix H, sections 2 and 3, contain a complete record of open-ended statements from both sections taught during Fall 2020 (our first full semester online) and Fall 2021 (our first semester back in person).
The racial diversity among Loyola Marymount University students In AY 2020-21 included 42.1% white, 24.6% Hispanic, and 10% Asian. In the fall of 2020, more than half of my students were business majors. The rest were in the School of Humanities and Fine Arts, with just three students in STEM majors. However, in Fall 2021, I had a total of 35 students across both sections representing 17 majors.
Students filed these observations electronically and anonymously toward the end of the term in response to open-ended questions inviting them to comment on what they found most beneficial about the course and what would have made it more effective. I have organized the student remarks into three parts for ease of examination and comparison across results from LMU, Stanford, and UC Irvine: Strengths, Suggestions for Improvement, and a detailed Self-Assessment in response to these student comments.
I have refrained from correcting grammatical or syntactical errors and have reproduced symbols, punctuation, and capitalization precisely as they appeared on the original evaluations.
Stanford University, PWR 2 “A Planet on Edge: The Rhetoric of Sustainable Energy;” Winter 2007, Winter 2016
The statements in Appendix I, sections 2 and 4, are taken from student evaluations from one PWR 2 class taught during Winter 2007 and another during Winter 2016. These remarks are representative of the types of comments I received when teaching this course. PWR 2 is the second required writing course taken by Stanford undergraduates, typically during their second year.
Almost all the students enrolled in my two sections that term were non-humanities majors. Instead, these particular students primarily represented majors in engineering (43%), sciences (25%), and social sciences (21%). Not surprisingly, Stanford’s undergraduate population enters the university well-prepared to further develop their skills in writing, researching and presenting their findings during their academic careers. Most speak English as their primary language, although many are fluent in two or more languages.
These comments encompass the complete record of feedback received from each student across both sections that quarter. In other words, I have not omitted any statements for effect. Students filed these observations electronically and anonymously at the end of the term in response to an open-ended question inviting them to comment on the instructor’s effectiveness and attitude toward students.
I have refrained from correcting grammatical or syntactical errors and have reproduced symbols, punctuation, and capitalization precisely as they appeared on the original evaluations.
In Appendix I, sections 2 and 4, I have organized the student remarks into three parts for ease of examination: Strengths, Suggestions for Improvement, and a detailed Self-Assessment in response to these student comments.
UC Irvine, Writing 39B “Expository Writing,” Spring 2001
The statements in Appendix J, section 2, are taken from student evaluations from a Writing 39B composition class taught during Spring 2001 and represent the types of comments I received when teaching composition at UCI. Writing 39B is typically the first required writing course taken by entering first-year students at UC Irvine. Almost all of the students in this class were science and social science majors. In contrast, most humanities undergraduate students take the Humanities Core Course as an alternative to the lower division writing sequence. During my years at UC Irvine, the undergraduate student population consisted of over 50% Asian or Asian-Americans and 25% Caucasians. Moreover, many students spoke English as a second language.
These comments encompass the complete record of feedback received from each student in the course that quarter. No statements have been omitted. Students initially handwrote these comments on the back of the numerical evaluation form given by the composition program in response to my request that they share what they had found helpful about my teaching practices and what they would suggest I change.
Again, I have refrained from correcting grammatical and syntactical errors and have reproduced symbols, punctuation, and capitalization precisely as they appeared on the original evaluations. In cases where ellipses are present, I have separated a student’s critique from their praise and placed those comments in the appropriate section below.
Appendix J, section 2, is also broken down into three parts: Strengths, Critiques, and a detailed Self-Assessment in response to this particular set of student comments.
Teaching Awards and Supervisor Reviews
Appendix K provides supporting documentation with appropriate explanatory notes for various teaching awards and supervisor reviews I received during my 13 years at Stanford University and 11 years of teaching at UC Irvine. The Appendix includes the following materials:
- Annual Review Letter; Stanford, Spring 2017
- Supervisor Classroom Visit; Marvin Diogenes; Stanford, Autumn 2010
- Sister Aloysia Alumnae Service in Education Award; Sisters of Notre Dame, October 2010
- Annual Review Letter; Stanford, Spring 2009
- Annual Review Letter; Stanford, Spring 2006
- Letter from former Director of Composition, John Hollowell; UC Irvine, 2004
- Composition Instructor Rankings; UC Irvine, 2000-2001
- Project Prometheus Letter of Excellence; UC Irvine, Spring 2001
- Humanities Associate Dean Teaching Award; UC Irvine, Spring 1996
- Contributions to A Student Guide to Writing at UCI and Welcome Week Teacher Training; UC Irvine, Fall 1994
- Class Visit Supervisor Review; UC Irvine, Fall 1993
- Evaluation of Graduate Student Presentation for English 398; UC Irvine, Fall 1993