Every year faculty at SFU produce a report, known as a CV Update, for their Departmental Tenure and Promotion Committees and for their Deans, in which they comment on their activities in three fields: teaching, scholarship (including publication), and administrative service to the university.
As a service to SFU students, I am publishing below an edited version of the section on Undergraduate Teaching from my CV Update of 2006. This includes an analysis of student course evaluations from that year. For other, often less appreciative, evaluations go to RateMyProfessors.com (or paste this address into your browser: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=10715), where my "Hotness Rating" is 0. You will find out from anonymous critics that I am "INSANELY HARSH" in marking essays and that I try to defend my "horrible teaching rating" on this website. (Thanks for the ad!) This student concludes: "STRONGLY AVOID HIM AT ALL COSTS."
Another student agreed: "This man is nerdy, quirky, and snobby. He thinks he knows a lot, he is sure of himself, but he is a lousy social scientist. More importantly, he doesn't know how to mark papers. Stay away from this man and his courses. He will ruin your good GPA." Other students on RateMyProfessors.com have preferred self-immolation to taking another class with me and recommended that I ought to be punched in the face. So you are warned!
But at the same website you can read a few dissenting opinions, such as this one: "Entertaining, engaging, challenging. A word to the wise: you CAN get a good mark in his class, but ONLY if you can write. I'm good at essay writing, and thus I got an A-; don't listen to those who say it isn't possible. This guy really makes you think, and that was what *I* thought university was for, don't know about the rest of you guys."
Interestingly enough, when students fill out SFU evaluations they rarely, if ever, stoop to destructive criticism or disingenuous statements. Why is that?
Since I took my regular research semester in 06-1 and began a year's study leave at the beginning of September 2006, I can report only on teaching activities in 06-2. In that semester, at the undergraduate level, I taught Hist. 321 (State and Society in Early Modern Europe) and Hist. 439 (Catholicism in Early Modern Europe).
Hist. 321 and 439 were well received. In Hist. 321, out of 22 valid responses, 82% of students rated the course as A or B, and 96% of students rated my teaching ability as A or B. Out of 21 valid responses, 86% of students rated tutorials as A or B, and 95% of students out of 19 valid responses rated my teaching ability in tutorial as A or B. In all four categories, a majority of students opted for A. My teaching ability (for lectures) earned the highest rating: 73% of students gave me an A. The results in Hist. 439 with 11 valid responses were higher: 91% of students evaluated the course as A or B, and 100% of students rated my teaching ability as A or B. In both categories, 73% of students opted for A.
Hist. 321 represents a merger of two older courses, now no longer in the calendar: Hist. 318 (Early Modern France) and Hist. 331 (Early Modern Germany). Since in Hist. 439 I was teaching a course that I had newly created-a first for me since I arrived at SFU in 1992-I chose to make one country the focus of Hist. 321, an option allowed by the calendar entry. Given that I had not taught early modern French history since 2002, I decided to concentrate on France.
One student wrote that I made him or her feel unworthy. Instead of "spurning" (sic) him or her on "to do better," I gave this evaluator no reason to overcome apathy. Although I am a "marvelous teacher," my assignments are "rotten." The workload of the course "is just too dense to so quickly reflect upon." I should have no place teaching at SFU or any other university since I am an instructor who "makes individuals suffer for the complaints he has with a system within which he has condescended to work." The student invoked the support of "fellow students" for his or her evaluation. At the same time he or she rated my attitude towards students as "2," one shy of excellent, and my teaching ability as B. The course, however, merited only a C.
If "fellow students" suffered, the evaluations do not point to a groundswell of lamentation or protest. True, some thought that the reading requirement-three books and some essays from a fourth-was too much or too challenging. This is, of course, a trope in evaluations of History courses. I believe the reading was appropriate for an upper-division course. When it became challenging, I changed tactics. One student commented: "realized the difficult nature of the final text and changed teaching style to help us." Another, who thought I demanded much of students, was able to see some value in being challenged. The student noted: "to (sic) much reading hurt ability of students to keep up but challenges you to get better" and "a very hard class, but necessary to the Dept." A third student, who described himself or herself as a "fan" of mine, wrote: "I like to be challenged."
The accolades constitute the most conspicuous and repeated element of the evaluations. Several students valued my "high enthusiasm" and found the class an enjoyable experience. I was "great at making lectures interesting and making sense of readings. Tons of enthusiasm that made class fun." I was "animated and eloquent." The student who called me an "excellent orator" also remarked: "good communication and very clear and concise lectures." In the same vein, another student observed: "lectures concise and witty and informative." To my surprise, several students commented on my sense of humour. I trust colleagues will not think that my lectures were barrels of laughs! One student wrote: "Dr. Pabel is a great lecturer and very funny-lectures often found me vibrating with suppressed hilarity." The same person defended me against the charge of being a "brutal marker." "Unlike certain other commentators," this student did not think my criticisms of written assignments were the result of my being "heinous." "He is extremely open to questions and suggestions," this student continued, "and advertises his office hours unceasingly. All-in-all, a great professor." One student appreciated my "very descriptive course outline" and commented: "the course website was extremely helpful. The reading questions were also a big help." Two students summed up their evaluations very briefly. One wrote: "It was a pleasure to have been taught by Professor Pabel." Another remarked: "Best teacher I've ever had. Made a boring topic interesting."
Evaluations of the tutorials in Hist. 321 were mixed. One student said the class was not long enough to cover all the material and concluded that I did not cover it adequately. Another felt that too much time was spent on "trivial issues," but "other than that, the class was perfect." A third student recommended that I be more assertive in directing tutorials. A fourth commented that I "sometimes spent too long on a particular topic, but not always to the detriment of the tutorial." A fifth observed: "too many questions posed to class and not enough formal lecture." Of course, a tutorial is not the proper forum for a "formal lecture." Two students requested power point presentations.
On the other hand, I was very "enthusiastic, interested in any questions we might have and very willing to elucidate any topics." Similarly, three separate students observed that tutorials enhanced their understanding of the course material: (1) "he explained readings in ways that we could understand them better as they were sometimes confusing;" (2) "tutorials helped to contextualize material, thus very helpful;" (3) "very interactive tutorial; I always felt that I understood more in tutorial, we had a chance to get to the nitty gritty of issues I found confusing." Another student maintained: "Excellent effort in coordinating website questions with tutorial. Enthusiastic; encourages questions."
My aim in Hist. 439 was to be comprehensive, that is to cover the entire early modern period, and at the same time to show students how fascinating the "Catholic side" of the Reformation era can be, a topic usually relegated to an afterthought in typical Reformation textbooks. This was the first time that I had taught the course, and I was pleased with how well it went and how well it was received.
The common complaint had to do with one of the assigned texts: A. D. Wright's The Early Modern Papacy: From the Council of Trent to the French Revolution, 1564-1789 (2000) in the Longman History of the Papacy series. Students did not like the book. I chose it because it dealt with a pre-eminent Catholic institution over the entire early modern period. The topics covered by the chapters made sense. But I did not have time to read it before the course began. Unfortunately, the book, obviously meant as a textbook, is dense and dull. I tried to make it more palatable by giving students some terminological help, encouraging them to concentrate on themes without getting bogged down in the many details, and recommending them to read the book not just as a source of information but as work of history subject to critical assessment. We managed to get through the book. The students whom I assigned to lead class discussions on the book did a good job, and their classmates participated well in the discussions. Nevertheless, I will look for a replacement when I next teach the course.
I could find only two other criticisms. My marking was too hard, believed one student, and I was "sometimes too challenging." The last comment came from a student who also wrote of me: "relates well, involves students, utilizes humor."
On the positive side, another student agreed with the last comment. I "encouraged participation, dealt with students in a fair manner." This student and another appreciated my interest in the course material. The latter wrote: "The readings were excellent, along with the class discussion." Two students agreed in their evaluation of the course. One noted: "This was an excellent and informative course." The other commented: "The course was interesting, informative and well-structured." He or she added a comment about me: "Hilmar is an excellent professor, who is an animated and informative lecturer and whose encouragement and feedback has helped me sharpen my writing skills."
This page was last updated on 30 December 2006
and has been visited
|
|