Faculty Inventory
"Few professional men carry on their activities in seclusion comparable with that of the class room. There is frequently a tendency for the teacher, deprived of the stimulus that comes from suggestion and helpful criticism, not to show the expected professional growth. . . . A blanket statement such as is usually made--'He is a good teacher' or 'He is a poor teacher'--is worthless as a chart for improvement. . . . As contrasted with the casual appraisals now made, a respectable survey of a man's effectiveness as a teacher should be: 1) systematic; 2) impartial; 3) made from various angles, . . . 4) of known reliability, . . . 5) capable of showing the virtues and weaknesses of a man's teaching. . . ." Fortnight ago President Matthew Lyle Spencer of the University of Washington (Seattle) thus addressed himself in a letter to his faculty.
Soon the personnel of Washington's 14 colleges knew that President Spencer had more practical devices up his sleeve than the delivery of dicta. Lest the University grow sleepy with self-assurance, he had prepared a means of scrutinizing his curriculum, plumbing his pedagogs through the clear eyes of some 7,700 undergraduates. The faculty was to receive the stimulus by seeing themselves as students saw them.
President Spencer distributed some 30,000 questionnaires to undergraduates in each class at the university. In form the critique was composed of 25 questions to be applied to individual courses, instructors, methods of presentation. To each query there was a set of replies (from three to 17), complimentary, indifferent, derogatory, which the student might signify by a scratch of his pencil.
To win the confidence of the undergraduates, the questionnaire was described as "part of a widespread program for betterment of the University." To insure their honesty they were promised in boldface type: THE UNIVERSITY PLEDGES THAT NO PERSON WILL KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THE STUDENT WHO GIVES THIS INFORMATION. Wise to the ways of handling type, President Spencer, onetime Milwaukee newspaperman, onetime (1919-26) Director of the University's School of Journalism, repeated four times: TRY TO FORM AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ON EACH QUESTION. CONSIDER IT ENTIRELY APART FROM THE OTHERS.
He realized that "we are not starting this study altogether in the dark. Some very promising beginnings have been made in other universities." But the Spencerian method is potentially the most scorchingly abusive or sweetly flattering inquisition that an anxious faculty has ever faced.
Sample questions:
What is your feeling about the extent to which this course, as compared with your other courses, contributed to your education?
1) I feel that the course has been to a large extent a waste of my time.
2) In general, the course has not seemed to contribute much to my education.
3) The course has contributed in some respects so that the time spent was not wasted.
4) The course has done more than most courses in contributing to my education.
5) I consider this course one of the most helpful I have taken.
Remarks:
Did the instructor keep himself informed as to students' progress?
1) As a rule he knew little about the progress of the class.
2) Somewhat out of touch with the class in this respect.
3) Kept himself fairly well informed of student progress.
4) Followed the progress of the class very closely.
5) Knew exactly where we stood.
Remarks:
What is your impression of the general effectiveness of the instructor? So far as possible leave out of account the subject matter of the course and consider only the instructor.
1) In general weak and ineffective.
2) Somewhat less effective than the average teacher.
3) About average in effectiveness.
4) Considerably more effective than the average teacher.
5) An unusually fine teacher. Approaches the ideal teacher.
What are the outstanding merits or defects of the instructor?
Which of the following statements below characterize the lectures?
1) They were muddled and unsystematic.
2) They were about average in this respect.
3) They were clear and well organized.
4) They were difficult to hear.
5) They were easily heard.
6) They were frequently entirely obscure and over my head.
7) They were well adjusted to my ability.
8) They were too simple and elementary.
9) The instructor seemed out of touch with the class during his lectures.
10) The instructor was fairly well in touch with the class during lectures.
11) The instructor was unusually responsive to his class.
This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.