| TECHNICAL (A) | PERSONAL (B) |
| Scope | Attitude |
| Depth | Sympathetic |
| Organized | Empathetic |
| Relevant | Benevolent |
| Useful | Congenial |
| Applicable | Entertaining |
| Credible | Non-Judgmental |
| --------- | --------- |
| "Broccoli" | "Cotton Candy" |
The "Good Teacher" displays many of both types of characteristics. However, the Ratings tend to emphasize the "Cotton Candy" qualities, for the following reason:
A "Broccoli" teacher can be as dull as dirt, grumpy and grouchy, and still teach a good course.
A "Cotton Candy" teacher can be a great guy, very entertaining, a "pal for life", and still teach garbage.
Some Good Students [defined as: Those who are mature, conscientious, and serious about their studies, with a desire to learn. Poor Students are defined as: those who are immature, more concerned with "having a good time"(e.g. entertainment), and finding the path of least resistance, than with what they learn. There is obviously a continuum between these extremes which does not always correlate with grades.] tend to be more "keyed in" to the "Broccoli" teachers, and give more weight to these factors, so may rank them ahead of the "Cotton Candy" teachers. Average and Poor Students relate better to the "Cotton Candy" factors, and will rank these teachers ahead of the "Broccoli" teachers.
Since there are more Average and Poor Students, the "Cotton Candy" factors carry considerably more weight in Student Ratings than the "Broccoli" factors.
II. Effect of Grading on Teacher Ratings - Consider two teachers: Professor "A", who is considered a "Good Teacher", and professor "B", who is considered a "Poor Teacher". Either of these may be either "Hard" or "Easy" graders, with grade distributions like:
| Professor "A" | Professor "B" | ||
| ("Good") | ("Poor") | ||
| Hard | Easy | Hard | Easy |
| B | A | B | A |
| B | A | B | A |
| C | B | C | B |
| C | B | C | B |
| C | B | C | B |
Some students may rank the "Good, Hard" Prof higher than the "Poor, Easy" Prof. However, both Professors "A" and "B" will be ranked higher by virtually all of the students if they are "Easy" rather than "Hard". This is only human nature, since a student will always be happier with a "good" grade than a "bad" grade, other things being equal, and the happier the students, the higher the ratings. Thus, if a teacher desires to improve his ratings, easing up on grading standards will do it almost every time. (It is the rare teacher who doesn't realize this, even though he/she may not practice it.)
III. Case Study - The above has been verified by a former faculty member in engineering. This teacher was consistently rated "Poor" by his students, and this was forcefully brought to his attention by his department head. In order to influence the student ratings, he consciously altered his teaching style from a "Hard, Broccoli" approach, to an "Easy, Cotton Candy" approach. As a result, he received "Outstanding" ratings from his students. This is only one case, but there is no doubt that there is a great deal of general validity to the results.
"A good teacher is like a pit bull; he or she will never give up trying to transfer knowledge to students. Yet a pit bull teacher will receive lower marks on SET questionnaires, which measure student satisfaction."
- D. Larry Crumbley
Society for A Return to Academic Standards
Last Updated: 11 March 1997
