Academy Reflects on Post-Instructional Evaluations

By ARYAN AGARWAL, JACK CASSIDY, MICHELLE CHOO, and ERIN HAN

Since their initiation in 2014, Post Instructional Evaluations (PIEs) have become a familiar practice that marks the end of each academic term for all Exonians. Proposed by the Student Council in 2013 and subsequently passed by a faculty vote, PIEs are meant to serve as a way for students to give anonymous and constructive feedback to their teachers. 

Over a decade since they were introduced, students and faculty assessed the efficacy and relevance of PIEs at the Academy today.

Dean of Academic Affairs and Student Council adviser Laura Marshall clarified the core objective of PIEs. “I was involved as co-adviser to Student Council when Student Council proposed PIEs to the faculty. Students wanted a way to give department chairs anonymous feedback on whether teachers were following school and departmental guidelines.”

She continued, justifying their mandatory nature. “StuCo recognized that this would work only if it is done as a census and not as a voluntary response sample. For example, in my own PIEs, I often have 10 students respond to say that we had a METIC, but two who say that we did not.  Clearly, we did and they were either absent or forgot. If it was a concern of theirs and not a concern of others, then the two with the concern would fill out the PIE and the other ten students would not. This would create a situation of inaccurate reporting. So, it is important to hear from all students.”

StuCo president Cam Khater added, “The original purpose of PIEs is not too nebulous. In addition to checkboxes like ‘conducting a METIC’ or giving adequate notice before major assignments, it’s to give feedback, whether that be praise or constructive suggestions about how to better run a learning environment.”

“It is not to make a personal complaint with your instructor. In my mind, any concerns should be addressed to the Deans or Instructor directly,” Khater added.

With the purpose of PIEs clear, there have recently been questions on whether the structure properly fulfills these needs of students and faculty. Though the administration and evaluation of PIEs is a responsibility of the Exeter administration, bodies like StuCo are heavily involved in refining the procedure. The Exonian gathered these organizers’ thoughts regarding the current system. 

Marshall reflected that “some students feel that PIEs are ‘evaluations’ and they are not. They are simply reports of accountability.  If there are other concerns, students should speak with either their adviser or their teacher or the department chair.” She stressed that “PIEs are not the place to anonymously criticize a teacher. Some faculty have stopped reading them because some students write inappropriate, inaccurate, and hurtful comments.”

On Marshall’s point, Khater said that “I think PIEs are very effective in their use currently, but still, there is room for clarity and further emphasis.” On improvements that StuCo is discussing, Khater informed that “we want to focus on rewording and perhaps providing examples of what should and should not be in the end comments and also the contacts for other classroom concerns that may not fit in this space.”

Student Council Policy Committee co-head Dylan Richardson said, “The word that prompted this initiative was that some members of the faculty felt these open comments allowed for students to hide behind anonymity and get away with saying unsavory and disrespectful things that were frankly not very helpful.” 

“Our goal will be to make sure every part of the PIE is standardized, useful, and tracked over time to give teachers a better visualization of the data the PIEs are meant to collect,” he added. “We will also have conversations with members of the faculty, the students, and the deans about the comment box.”

Richardson reflected on the upcoming challenges that StuCo may face, but did so with an optimistic tone. “The biggest challenge in this process of fixing the PIEs is going to be getting it through the administration and getting it passed. We have a pretty clear idea in StuCo of what we want for this whole initiative, but as our work last Spring on this initiative in partnership with the Executive Board showed, this is a long process that is not going to be a simple one, especially if we are looking to reform PIEs, METICs, and all the rest of our feedback all in one swoop. It is very possible we split this into smaller parts, but we’ll see what ends up happening.”

Exonians also shared their personal opinions on this fall term’s PIEs. Prep Avni Murarka reflected on her first time completing the PIEs, only a few weeks ago. “Especially in Exeter where there are so many teachers, PIEs are a great way to give feedback to the teachers.” 

Murarka added that she hopes future PIEs will feature more detailed questions that could put student feedback into context.

Lower Hugo Shinn believes that PIEs help collect a diverse range of feedback from students. He explained, “During METICs, which are more group-based, it would be a little more difficult to personalize your views, which may not be the exact same as [the consensus].”

However, as a potential area for reform, Shinn added, “Each [questionnaire] needs to be more personalized to every subject. Sometimes I get questions about my music conductor which, I don’t think, should fall under the same rubric that my math teacher should be following. They need different feedback.”

Though PIEs are received in varying ways by the Exeter community, it is clear that their roots lie in the unifying desire to foster stronger communication between teachers and students. As StuCo deliberates potential reforms, the priority remains to align PIEs as closely with this objective as possible.