Evaluative Argumentative Sample Essays

							                 How are students evaluated (papers, exams, participation, service
                 learning, etc)?
Christ College - 90% formal argumentative essays, 10% discussion.
VALPO




St. Catherine      papers and participation. no exams.




Columbia U - Lit   midterm, final, class participation, and papers (minimum of 15
Hum                pages; number of papers is left to instructors’ discretion




Columbia U -       midterm, final, class participation, and papers (minimum of 15
CC                 pages; number of papers is left to instructors’ discretion)
Lawrence U       papers, essay-based midterm and final exam. (Participation also
                 seems like it would be a grading category)




Lynchburg Col.   essays, lead at least one class discussion during the semester, and
                 participate in weekly class discussions. They are graded in each of
                 these areas as well as on their comprehensive written examinations.



Manhattan Col. - Three papers, three tests, oral and written class work
Global
Influences on
US Society
Manhattan Col. - Students receive a minimum of two exams, and a minimum of        9
Classical        pages of academic writing
Influences on
Western
Culture
Mercer U.        Students are evaluated on class participation, most professors
                 require a one-page “daily” on the reading for each class period, and
                 there are several essays during the semester, with one final essay,
                 which spans the texts of the semester


NYU              Guidelines call for midterm, final, 2-3 papers, and frequent, short
                 writing assignments

Rhodes Col.      Participation and Attendance (20% of final grade), Testing (55% of
                 final grade) broken down into: 2 one-hour tests (15% each) Final
                 exam (2 1/2 hours) (25%) Writing Portfolio (25% of final grade)
                 that includes Two Critical Response papers (5% each) One Thesis
                 Development paper (15%
Rockford Col.     Individual instructor discretion. Students are evaluated within the
                  course by each individual faculty member in the same way he or she
                  uses evaluation in all other classes, the main difference being that
                  there is an effort to try to grade earlier and more often. This is a
                  general guideline and not legislated

Samford U.        We faculty have agreed to require “about 15 pages of polished
                  academic prose” per semester. This can be divided however the
                  instructor wishes: 4 essays of c.4 pp each, 3 essays of c.5 pp each,
                  one 10 pp paper and a short essay, etc. Each course also has a
                  midterm and a final exam. Many faculty include a student
                  presentation within a small group (4-5 students will have one class
                  period for their presentation) which counts 10% of the grade. Daily
                  quizzes and writing assignments may count another 10-20 %.

Skidmore Col.     Students submit three papers during the semester and one term long
                  LS 1 Problem analysis project. They also are evaluated more
                  subjectively on their class participation in the seminar discussion
                  and seminar work. See
                  http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/ls1/grading.html

St. Bonaventure Students are evaluated on the basis of a common 15-page total
U.              writing assignment, an oral presentation and a common
                examination essay. Most sections include participation as a
                significant portion of student grades.
St. Mary's Col. Our rule is 50% class participation (includes preparation and is
(CA)            sometimes tested by quizzes) and 50% on the three or four essays.
                Almost no one gives a written exam on the texts read
Temple U.        The Program requires that evaluation be based on three papers of 3-
                 4 pages each, a mid-term exam, a final exam, and meaningful class
                 participation. (Some variation is allowed after consultation with the
                 Director




UNC-Asheville    Papers, exams, participation, service learning. Check sample syllabi
                 available at the web page

U. of Richmond   All sections have midterm & final exam that require discursive,
                 analytical responses. All have at least 2 or 3 essays in textual
                 analysis per semester, totaling at least 3,000 words. Evaluation
                 includes participation in discussion, no service learning
U. of Sciences - Students are evaluated on the basis of their performance on papers,
Philly           examinations, and class participation. Service learning has not yet
                 become a part of this program


Villanova U.     Mostly papers, then discussion, a few are given blue book exams

Wabash           Students are evaluated as follows: 37.5 % based on student’s quality
                 and quantity of participation in class discussion, as assessed by
                 section instructor. 37.5% based on student’s written work, as
                 assessed by section instructor. 25% based on a final examination,
                 which is graded by section instructor and one other section instructor
Whitman Col.   The bulk of grading falls on the papers, but participation in
               discussion and performance on final examinations is also important.
               Each instructor determines the evaluation instruments to be used in
               his or her section. Many of our instructors place a significant weight
               on daily work, i.e. brief written assignments completed for each
               class meeting
How do the students evaluate the course?

12-page course evaluation form in which we ask them to comment
on everything from the physical environment of the classrooms, the
quality of their instructor’s leadership, which texts they liked and
disliked, and what the course contributed to their own intellectual
and personal development.
course evaluation form and a final reflective paper that evaluates the
course and their learning




course evaluation forms in two parts: 1) a bubble sheet with 21
questions based on the University’s 15 question formula but
modified to reflect the Core experience, and 2) a written evaluation
sheet that asks students to evaluate the written assignments, and the
responses and comments they receive on them, in the context of the
course as a whole; to comment on their instructor’s teaching style,
its best aspects, and ways it could be improved; to comment on
which readings were most and/or least valuable; to comment on
outside events (such as museum, theatre, and opera trips, class
dinners or other events) and outside resources (such as computer
resources); and to provide any additional comments.
course evaluation forms in two parts: 1) a bubble sheet with 21
questions based on the University’s 15 question formula but
modified to reflect the Core experience, and 2) a written evaluation
sheet that asks students to evaluate the written assignments, and the
responses and comments they receive on them, in the context of the
course as a whole; to comment on their instructor’s teaching style,
its best aspects, and ways it could be improved; to comment on
which readings were most and/or least valuable; to comment on
outside events (such as museum, theatre, and opera trips, class
dinners or other events) and outside resources (such as computer
resources); and to provide any additional comments.
 students evaluation form given at the end of each term. Students
evaluate their own learning, their own effort, the effectiveness of
their instructor in a number of areas, the effectiveness of the
lectures, and the utility of the particular works studied.




national survey – IDEAS – for student evaluation. The course also
adds questions specific to the course goals




End of semester course and teacher evaluations and a senior exit
survey on the entire core. Most teachers also ask for mid-semester
feedback
Course and teacher evaluations are distributed at the end of the
course


course evaluations at the end of each semester




As a required course, not surprisingly a touch lower than the overall
average of College courses, but very strong overall--not least
because of the faculty selection process
formal evaluation tool at the end of each semester (written
evaluation form); informal tools may be used throughout the
semester by individual colloquium leaders
The students evaluate the course using the same tool they use to
evaluate all other courses in the curriculum. In addition, we use a
pre- and post-test Likert scale asking them to self-report on
academic skills


course evaluation at the end of the semester, at the beginning of a
class period. The instructor leaves the room, and a designated
student returns the forms to the core office




student evaluation form at the end of the semester (See attachment).
This open-ended evaluation form invites them to comment on the
contribution of their classmates as well as their own contributions to
the course, the quality and value of the course materials, and the
seminar leaders

Students complete a standard evaluation of instruction for each
section


A course and instructor evaluation is administered through the
Provost’s office for rank and tenure and general evaluative purposes.
The questions are hand-tailored for the seminar program and allow
room for written comments to three questions. Students also deliver
their opinions on the texts on a end-of-year questionnaire. Many
instructors have devised their own mid-term evaluations to assist in
piloting the class to harbor
There is a standard university-wide evaluation at the end of the
semester. Program leadership and the Program
Adviser/Ombudsman routinely handle student complaints and
concerns throughout the semester




course evaluations each semester. Faculty also take informal surveys
of students responses to a variety of teaching and curriculum issues

Student evaluations at the end of the year & a longer survey sent
annually to a random sample of students


All students, every semester, must complete an evaluation of the
course using a standard form. Many instructors, also, have an
optional mid-term evaluation of the course. A few teachers meet
with students privately to discuss the course

Through the University wide student-teacher evaluation forms

Students fill out a written evaluation at the end of each semester, or,
more recently, at mid-term and again at the end. We have
experimented (and intend to more in future) with an on-line
evaluation administered through Blackboard. In addition, in a small
institution like ours, students’ oral comments about the course are
regularly reported back to the co-directors and revision committees
by instructors of sections
Students use our standary course evaluation form which we use for
all courses at the college. Individual instructors may, in addition,
distribute their own course evaluation forms as they see fit
What are done with student evaluations of the course?

The Freshman program coordinator reads them all,
summarizes the salient features, and presents them to the
faculty at the next planning meeting. Individual seminar
instructors also receive copies of the pages devoted to
evaluating their own performance.
The student evaluations are collected in the Core Office,
they are summarized and shared with the faculty member
teaching the course, they are reviewed by the Core
Director and portions of the responses are used for
assessment of the course.
The bubble sheets are outsourced and yield a statistical
printout, which is then kept, along with the written
evaluation sheets in the Core office. They become
available for instructors to see and copy after they hand in
their grades. Both statistical evaluations and written
commentary are also available to departments evaluating
faculty for tenure, promotion, and prizes; and to the Chairs
for evaluating first-time instructors




The bubble sheets are outsourced and yield a statistical
printout, which is then kept, along with the written
evaluation sheets in the Core office. They become
available for instructors to see and copy after they hand in
their grades. Both statistical evaluations and written
commentary are also available to departments evaluating
faculty for tenure, promotion, and prizes; and to the Chairs
for evaluating first-time instructors.
The office of institutional research compiles the data by
instructor and each instructor is given a summary of
her/his data compared to the university average, as well as
any written comments the students have made. The
Dean’s office uses these data to determine an annual
winner of a Freshman Studies teaching award. Data on
the effectiveness of various aspects of the course are
tracked over the years by the director and used to
determine the content of faculty development workshops,
etc. Data which speak to student perceptions of the works
studied are used by works committees when designing the
next year’s iteration of the course
Student evaluations are used in making decisions about
readings, inviting speakers back to campus, keeping or
dropping faculty members from the program, and in
selecting themes. In preparation of new editions of the
books, readings that have not been used are replaced by
others that will be more appealing.
They are read by the dean, the director of the core, the
coordinator of the course, and the individual teachers

The Director of the Core, the Dean of Arts and the Area
Coordinators (Classical Origins, Global Origins,
Humanities, Social Sciences) read the evaluations and
make notes if desired.
professors get copies of their evaluations. Chairs can ask
for them if necessary. Most professors use course
evaluations as part of their tenure, promotion, and post-
tenure packets. We hope that professors use their
evaluations constructively and change what needs
changing
Courses are evaluated with both quantitative and
qualitative surveys. Results are reviewed by program staff
and the faculty steering committee
The results are used in: annual faculty evaluation and
annual course evaluation at a week-long meeting of the
teaching staff in May (called the Douglass Seminar
We tally the results and report the outcomes to the general
faculty. The teaching team uses the results to think about
pedagogy, appropriateness of the text, difficulty of
assignments, reading load, etc. We have changed the text
because of assessment and we have cut down on the
length of reading assignments
The core office collates the quantitative responses. The
Assoc. Dean responsible for the Core then reads the
discursive comments before returning the individual
packets to the appropriate dept. chairs. The packets are
returned within six weeks of the completion of the course.
Salient problems then become the subject of discussion
among the faculty member, Assoc. Dean, and dept. chair.
Packets for untenured faculty remain in the core office,
but faculty may read them there
Every spring term the LS 1 director reads all of the
evaluations and offers a synthesized report of the major
attitudes expressed in the evaluations to our planning
subcommittee, the Readings and Format Committee.
Course evaluations are taken into account for tenure and
promotion cases
Questionnaires are processed through the dean’s office,
and faculty are given summaries and means.


Student evaluations of candidates for promotion and
tenure are photocopied and filed in the Provost’s office
where they are consulted by Rank and Tenure committee
members and the Provost and Vice-Provost. They then
come to my office along with the evaluations of part time
and adjunct instructors. They are filed and consulted as
need arises.
Program leadership reads these evaluations. We combine
these evaluations with two other important sources of
information: A breakdown of grading, section by section
A “course portfolio” for each section, including
significant samples of student work and a statement from
the teacher describing what he or she did to improve this
work. The Director meets annually (at least) with each
teacher to review these three items. We work closely with
the Measurement and Research office of the university in
developing reports on grades and evaluations. Our goal is
generally teacher improvement, not teacher censure

Evaluations are reviewed by the director of humanities.
Trends are reported to courses coordinators for faculty
discussion and consideration
Go to instructors, & chairs & in tenure/promotion
portfolios


All evaluations are read by the chair of the instructor’s
department and are part of that faculty member’s annual
evaluation. They support claims for promotion, tenure,
and merit raises. The instructors themselves use the
evaluation to improve their classes
They are studied by the Director and overseen by the
higher admin
Section instructors summarize the results in a page or two,
report on those results at a staff evaluation luncheon, and
then turn in both summary and evaluation forms to the co-
directors. At that point, the evaluations tend to disappear
into a black hole of oblivion; however, enough faculty
teach regularly enough so that the results of recent
evaluations tend to remain alive in oral tradition and find
their way into revision meetings as the course is revised
each year. Anecdote trumps statistics in this process, but
in a place as small as ours, that’s not necessarily a bad
thing.
Instructors read them. An instructor may use these forms
as part of the materials submitted to the Dean for the
evaluation of the instructor