Post-Instructional Evaluation Passes After Faculty Vote

Whether papers and tests are returned late, classes last longer than they should or homework assignments exceed the daily limit, students have their various reasons for wanting an anonymous review of both the teacher and the course. Responding to these concerns, on Monday, the Post-Instructional Evaluation (PIE) was passed by faculty to be implemented to the Academy curriculum.Student Council introduced PIE last year as a method to review teachers and courses at the end of each term. Students would anonymously complete the survey, which includes questions about the teacher and the course, and the responses would be sent to the department heads who correspond to the classes.Over the past few terms, PIE went through a series of discussions, amendments and votings by Student Council until it was approved this Monday during Faculty Meetings. Although several have expressed their doubts about PIE and its likelihood to succeed, most Exonians and faculty believe the program will be beneficial for the learning experience at Exeter. “The approval of PIE is important because previously, the modes of student feedback for teachers or department heads tended to be surrounded by a worry that the teacher might think worse of the student for providing negative feedback, and there also hasn't been a clear way for student to let faculty know what they are doing well,” StuCo Vice President Emily Lemmerman said.Upper Max Rerkpattanapipat believed that PIE would benefit both students and faculty. “It is usually the teachers that put in so much effort to tell each and every student how they're doing in the comments, but this is a good way for Exonians to do the same for faculty and I think most teachers will appreciate and keep the students comments in mind,” he said.Students and teachers noted the benefits of PIE that the METIC does not cover. “I voted and spoke in support of PIE, and I hope we will gradually move toward using PIE as a tool to help evaluate and mentor new teachers,” history instructor Giorgio Secondi said. “I spent twelve years of my career teaching college, where anonymous student evaluations are the norm, and I've always found them useful. They helped me understand students' needs better, reflect on my teaching and try new approaches that, over time, made me a better teacher.”Some, who are generally in support of the various aspects of PIE, acknowledged the potential downsides of the review. “I’m definitely glad that it is anonymous; however, everyone is subject to their own opinions about their teacher and some may have completely different opinions than others,” prep Alistair Matule said. “I think that because of this, it will be hard to get an accurate idea what the teacher should improve on.”Additionally, some questioned the impersonal nature of PIE and hoped for a more personal, communicative way of solving issues in the classroom. “I voted against PIE because I am more interested in finding a process that involves communication, talking to people and figuring out how to express your opinion for others as opposed to filling out bubbles anonymously,” English instructor Jane Cadwell said. “The concern is that students do not feel comfortable going to their teachers with accountability issues. They are afraid of some sort of retribution, so to me that is where we should be focusing: where we should be trying to open that up so students can feel comfortable.”Cadwell continued, observing the differences between PIE’s values and those of the Academy. “At Exeter, we are supposed to communicate face to face and discuss, but if they have a problem, PIE wants people to fill in a bubble anonymously. I do not see Exeter’s philosophy syncing with the method of PIE,” she said.Other teachers pointed to the overabundance of programs and pre-existent expectations and accountabilities for faculty as one of their reasons for voting against the proposal. “We have overloaded ourselves with plans so that the quantity of them has not enhanced the quality of the experience or the quality of our teaching,” Modern Languages instructor Mark Trafton said. “We demand that students be accountable, so students were looking to do the same for instructors. But with this proposal and other initiatives, there seems to be an unbalanced amount of accountability asked for faculty but less for other sectors of our population.”However, other faculty members took a different stance, seeing PIE as a means of balancing the accountability of students and the accountability of their instructors. “I believe that accountability is crucial; as teachers we hold students accountable for their behavior all the time—for doing their homework and participating in class, for checking in on time and observing study hours. In turn, we should be willing to be held accountable for doing our job,” Secondi said.Others, who voted against the proposal originally, aimed for a personal, discussion-oriented version of the evaluation. “I would have preferred a more human approach to solving this problem, for instance, something like electing a student Ombudsman/Ombudswoman, who would be the go-to person for students who have issues with teachers and who would have the authority and responsibility to speak to the department chairs or Dean of Faculty,” English instructor Michelle Dionne said. “That sort of approach has the value of fostering responsibility and developing people skills.”In addition, some viewed the METIC and PIE as too overlapping. “Quite frankly both just seem excessive. The METICs I receive from my students are more effective and reveal lots of areas where I can improve my teaching and improve the dynamics of the class, whereas I did not see PIE do any of that,” Trafton said, believing that the school should make a choice in terms of their method of evalution. “We could either decide between a METIC and a PIE, or hybridize the two.”