As the quarter rolls to a close, it’s time to distribute teacher evaluation sheets.

Students and teachers alike have questioned the effectiveness of Student Evaluation of Instruction forms, which give students an opportunity to critique their instructors.

“Most teachers pass them out at the end of class, so I just hurry and fill them out. I really don’t take them seriously,” said Matt Ferncez, a junior in accounting.

Across campus, both students and teachers reiterate the ineffectiveness of these forms, though many are unaware of how they are processed and interpreted.

“I don’t think they make an impact on the way professors teach because I know students who do take the evaluations seriously, especially when evaluating bad professors,” Ferncez said. “Nothing seems to change though, since those bad professors are still here, continuing to teach poorly.”

According to the Student Evaluation of Instruction handbook, university rules require all students to be granted the opportunity to provide feedback concerning the quality of instruction they receive for every course.

“Ten general questions were created to capture characteristics of teaching common across every course, whether it be a chemistry lab or history recitation,” said Terri Childers, assistant registrar in the Office of Academic Affairs.

The SEI forms were standardized in 1994, only to be revised again in 2001 by the SEI oversight committee. Designed to assist personnel decisions, the forms primarily affect promotion, tenure and merit pay of instructors. Results from multiple instructors teaching a similar course may even be compared to determine award nominations.

“Many teaching awards have been based on results from SEI forms, even for TAs,” Childers said.

Data from SEI studies conclude that class size, along with students’ reasons for taking a course, bear the highest significance on SEI results. However, departments may replace the SEI with an evaluation method privy to the needs of a specific course, provided it remains consistent with SEI standards.

Once students complete the forms, they are sent to the Office of the University Registrar. After processing and evaluation, they are returned to the respective instructor or department, granted the department has fully adopted the SEI.

Evaluation committees monitor individual instructor’s SEI results, not only from the previous quarter, but for the duration of the instructor’s teaching service, hoping to notice progressively higher SEI scores.

“A lot of the results are either entirely good or really bad, so they are very hard to interpret. I have found though, that I get more applicable feedback from students’ written comments,” said Georgeta Mihai, a physics teaching assistant.

Besides SEI, instructors must undergo peer evaluation. Each department is responsible for administrating peer evaluations, with varying methods employed throughout the university.

“Senior colleagues in my department sit in on classes to check an instructor’s teaching style, but I know this method of evaluation isn’t performed in all departments,” said Becky Mansfield, associate professor of geography.

Jason Kraynak, a sophomore in business, said his high school principal inspected classes, but he has yet to witness teaching administrators attend his smaller Ohio State classes.

“They did it at public schools, so more administrators should visit my college courses. After all, I am paying plenty for my education,” Kraynak said.

A more personal evaluation tool, Feedback for Your Instruction, has been offered online to provide more personalized feedback for educators. Instructors can create personalized evaluation forms at the FYI Web site and distribute them at any time during the quarter.

“The purpose of FYI is to narrow in on specific areas of teaching that need improvement. They are tailored more to the individual character of a particular course, delivering feedback instructors can use to hone their teaching skills,” Childers said.