First PIEs Completed, Community Responds

More than a year after the initial proposal from the Academy’s Student Council (StuCo), Post-Instructional Evaluation (PIE) was conducted for the first time after winter term. On Mar. 6, a student-wide email provided a link to the surveys and explained that students had six days to submit a response for each of their classes, with a dickey punishment for every incomplete PIE.

Max Freedman ‘14, who worked to conceive PIE, said that the idea arose when he and other StuCo Executive Board members noted “the dearth of opportunities to weigh in on how [a student] felt a term went without fearing retribution.”

Freedman explained that feedback mechanisms like PIE are useful in nearly all settings, mentioning a study from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations that showed an improvement in academic performance after students have had the opportunity to provide comprehensive, anonymous feedback to their teachers.

Alice Ju ‘14 also worked with StuCo in the initial stages of forming and presenting PIE. According to Ju, the purpose of PIE is to provide a “mandatory and regulated means of collecting feedback for teachers regarding how effective their courses or teaching styles are.”

Although classes hold METICS every term, there is no space for students to directly address the construction and success of the course itself. Ju also said she hoped that “by aggregating data over a number of terms, teachers or department heads are able to see if there’s a consistent trend of satisfaction or dissatisfaction and then address that.”

Senior and StuCo President Benj Cohen said that responses to PIE have been mainly positive. “I’ve heard that students really liked giving feedback to their teachers. I think it can be an empowering thing, actually,” he said. But he also addressed the necessity of making it the most useful and productive form of feedback possible, not just the most cathartic. “What I’ve been hearing that is more helpful to teachers is feedback that has an explanation, and is constructive,” Cohen added.

“I’ve heard that students really liked giving feedback to their teachers. I think it can be an empowering thing, actually,”

Director of Studies Laura Marshall said that once StuCo proposed PIE to the faculty, instructors decided that the questions to be asked were in need of further clarification and refinement before they came to a final vote. Principal Tom Hassan requested that Marshall and a small committee of faculty members work to edit and construct a final set of questions. After this was completed, the final questions were presented in faculty meetings and voted on.

Students opened the surveys to 19 questions, all of which worked to assess each particular class. They covered a range of topics, many centered around E-Book rules like homework length requirements or whether or not classes began and ended on time. Five bubbles were provided beneath each question, offering responses from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” All PIEs came in on time except for 37 students, according to Marshall. She, along with Dean of Students Melissa Mischke, decided these remaining would be exempt from punishment due to the fact that the concept is still quite new and foreign.

Classical Languages Department Chair Nicholas Unger not only described PIE itself as a “blunt instrument,” but also an “important first step.” He said that the questions work well in catching blatant issues for a teacher or course, but perhaps future assessments “could get more nuanced questions that might help improve one’s teaching, not just catch people that aren’t doing their job.”

After the time for submissions was closed and grades were submitted, each department chair received raw data from every class taught in their department. Individual instructors received the data from the classes they taught during the term.

Also following each question was a space for optional, additional comments. Department heads and instructors alike seemed to find these most helpful, though History Department Chair Bill Jordan estimated that only 10 percent of the responses he received included comments.

Math Department Chair Eric Bergofsky said that while the average responses—which didn’t include written comments—were “good enough to spot any problems,” written answers were more helpful, and he said that he didn’t receive as many as he would have liked.

In a meeting among department chairs, they discussed how to manage the data, and noted that many responses seemed rushed; some students answered questions for academic courses that pertained solely to athletics, for example. English Department Chair Lundy Smith chalked the hurried answers up to a lack of time to complete the surveys, their somewhat “tedious” nature and confusion that surrounded some questions.

Perhaps due to their haste, some students’ comments were overly harsh or callous. Many chairs noticed this and had hoped students would be careful, kind and constructive with their words. Jordan equated the mood of some comments to the confidence spurred by anonymity’s shield, which have been seen on campus in destructive ways such as Yik Yak last year.

“There are some tweaks that are necessary as we get ready for the next PIE,” Smith said. He also explained that time might be worked into the spring schedule for students to complete the surveys in class, which he hoped would garner more thoughtful responses with less stress for students. 

Jordan also said that students perhaps shouldn’t have been told that it would be a very short process. “It seems like it would take quite a while if you were writing responses or being truly thoughtful.”

Some were also confused regarding the expectations for how department chairs were supposed to use the data they received. “We were told to use our common sense and discretion, that there is no mathematical formula or tipping point where we have to talk to someone or do something,” Unger said. He said that if results are positive, “we can talk to the colleague and commend him or her” and if they were consistently more negative in an area, “it’s worth sitting that person down and discussing what might be going on.”

Modern Languages Department Chair Richard Schieber explained that he is not yet sure what to do with the feedback. Despite some confusion following the first execution of PIE, most chairs seemed excited to revise it for coming terms and see if and how any trends develop.

Marshall said that she wished the term “evaluation” was not in the title at all. She said that PIE aims to indicate opinions on issues of accountability, not evaluate teachers.

Students, however, responded with mixed sentiments. Smith said that his advisees found the process tedious and that general annoyance seemed a popular opinion.

Upper Julia Leatham said that because the responses were required and “forced,” they were neither authentic nor helpful. She proposed that if a student were to have a major complaint, he or she should be held responsible for voicing that complaint, rather than making it compulsory for every student to complete a PIE for every subject. Citing the thoughts of her friends, she added that “most people felt they were pointless,” and that they will not bring about change for a teacher.

Others disagreed. Upper Will Rau said that he, along with many of his dorm mates, were pleased with the process and saw the time it took to complete the surveys as a small sacrifice. “I think that the PIEs are a great way for students to submit their feedback in an anonymous, but informative and productive manner,” he said. 

Despite differing opinions and responses from various constituencies, PIE is approved for the spring term, athough the process will be changed to try and be more accommodating of students and helpful for teachers.