Interpretive and Critical Evaluation

we see knowledge about teaching as communicative and emancipatory in nature, we are led to view the evaluation of teaching as interpretive and critical processes. We have become quite familiar with the notion that we should be matching the kinds of techniques we use for the evaluation of learning with the nature of the expected learning outcomes. We use multiple-choice tests to assess the recognition and recall of facts; we use essays to evaluate the more complex synthesis and integration of ideas. Even though not all faculty are skilled at matching the tests they use to their teaching goals, there is an underlying sense of striving for fairness and, at the same time, a recognition that the evaluation of student learning is often subjective. It calls on our subject area expertise , our knowledge, and interpretation. We make judgments based on our perception of what constitutes good thinking and good work in the discipline. When it comes to evaluating teaching, we seem to have long been stuck in the rut of thinking that we need to attach numbers to our assessment in order to make it as objective as possible. Consequently, the use of student ratings has long dominated the evaluation of the teaching process. Of course, student ratings of instruction are in fact subjective perceptions based on students' knowledge about good teaching. But we remain reassured by the charts, frequencies, means, and standard deviations produced by this assessment technique. We have the illusion of objectivity. In this chapter, I suggest we rethink and critically examine some of our taken-for-granted assumptions about the evaluation of teaching. I propose a perspective that takes into account the nature of knowledge about teaching. First, I outline three kinds of knowledge, as described by Habermas (1971). I then argue that knowledge about teaching is primarily communicative and emancipatory in nature. This leads me to the interpretive and critical paradigms as ways of thinking about evaluating teaching. Finally, I suggest practical strategies for the evaluation of teaching—strategies congruent with the interpretive and critical paradigms.