UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ(November 2001)

Committee On Educational Policy

Advisory Guidelines on Writing Undergraduate
Performance (Narrative) Evaluations

---

1. Introduction
2. Senate regulations regarding performance evaluation
3. Examples of performance evaluation
4. Who reads performance evaluations?
5. Consistency and thoroughness
6. What is and is not acceptable content?
7. Mapping adjectives to grades
8. The coursework description field
9. The question of timeliness
10. Closing remarks

 

 

For help designing your evaluations, for questions,
or to learn about using a software approach to write evaluations,
please contact Rebecca Peet, Evaluations Consultant at
459-1573 or rpeet@ucsc.edu.

---

1. Introduction

In the year 2000, UCSC adopted a revised student evaluation
system that added mandatory letter grades, previously a student's
option, to the existing performance evaluation system. This revision
established a parallel system of letter grades and GPAs at UCSC.
It did not replace written performance evaluations nor did it modify
that system or its scope. Written performance evaluations continue
to anchor a system that encourages students and instructors to get
to know one another, that allows instructors to acknowledge and
document the full range of student achievement, and that can provide
much more information than do conventional transcripts.

Almost from the founding of the campus, UCSC has used written
performance evaluations to evaluate student performance, rather
than relying solely on conventional letter grades. This practice
reflects our conviction that the results of higher education cannot be
adequately summarized in a single, one-dimensional measure,
namely an A, B, C, D or F. Our performance evaluation system has
proven valuable to students and the faculty and is viewed in
retrospect by many of our alumni as one of UCSC's most valuable
features.

Research indicates that students' understanding is promoted by
environments that prioritize learning goals and evaluate performance
in ways that are closely tied to processes of learning and
instruction (see the National Academy of Sciences report: "How
People Learn," 1999). Viewing a situation as an opportunity for
learning¡Vas opposed to merely a validation of ability¡Vinduces
students to choose more challenging tasks, persevere in the face of
difficulties, perceive instructors and peers as resources rather than
as potential obstacles, and develop long-term interest.

According to many UCSC students and graduates, this form of
assessment can help students distinguish their strong and weak
areas and detect patterns in their performance across quarters. It
can focus their efforts on improvement, encourage them to go
beyond expectations, and help them learn to collaborate, creating
an intellectual culture in which students with different talents and
perspectives learn to respect differences rather than compete with
one another along a single dimension of performance.

In order for the performance evaluation system to flourish, it is
important for instructors to understand the system and to find ways
of writing evaluations that work for them in their courses. The
performance evaluation system acknowledges the tremendous variations
of classroom environments, evaluation strategies, and logistic
concerns from course to course across our campus. The performance
evaluation system presents a set of tools that are flexible, individual,
and powerful. It does not impose stylistic uniformity, nor
does it mandate uniform expectations of instructors. Rather, it offers
each instructor the means to evaluate students as best fits the
course and the student. This guide details the performance evaluation
system at UCSC and provides helpful tips, some recommendations,
and a catalog of sample student evaluations. The latter are
intended to document the rich variety of written evaluation possible
within the performance evaluation system and to offer ideas and
templates for evaluation writers.

2. Senate regulations regarding performance evaluation

9.2.1 At the end of the term, each instructor teaching a creditgranting
course shall prepare a written evaluation for each student
who receives a grade of P, A, B, C, or D in his or her class. The
narrative evaluation must evaluate the quality and characteristics of
the student's performance in the class.

9.2.2 Evaluations are to be filed with the Registrar and the student's
college at the time of filing the end-of-term course reports or no later
than 15 working days after the close of the term.

With the exception of excluding clearly inappropriate material, the
only requirement on evaluations' content set by Senate regulations
is that they describe the "quality and characteristics of the student's
work." No list of characteristics is provided, nor is there any expectation
determining length, thoroughness, or specific content. The
decision on how best to describe the quality and characteristics of
student work is yours. You may decide to write highly individual
evaluations of each student. You may decide to use a spreadsheet
macro to transform your grade sheets into descriptive text or to
drive menus and grids. Performance evaluations may simply state
the grade received, they may go further and contextualize the grade
awarded the student, or they may be more synthetic. It is left to the
instructor of record to decide what form of evaluation is most efficient,
effective, and appropriate for your course and your students.

3. Examples of performance evaluation

To demonstrate the flexibility and power of performance evaluations,
we offer the following examples. The course title is in bold face;
course descriptions are in italic face. A longer list of sample evaluations
can be found in the appendix, available online at:
http://senate.ucsc.edu/cep/.
________________________________________________________________

Example #1:
Elementary Latin
The first quarter of Latin forms and syntax, using the Smith and Jones textbook.
Evaluation based on class participation, quizzes, midterm and final examinations.
Grasp of Forms: Very Good
Grasp of Syntax: Good
Skill in Translating: Very Good
General Comments: Ms. Slug worked hard and the results were obvious. She
needs only to tighten her knowledge of syntax a bit more. This was a B performance.
________________________________________________________________

Example #2:
Introductory American Politics
Ms. Slug produced good work in the class by the end of the quarter. Her work
showed marked improvement on both the short essays and the midterm and
final exams. Her early essays were adequate, but did not always show a grasp
of the material; her final essay, however, was of excellent quality, well argued
and smartly written. Her midterm was quite an uneven effort. She easily
passed the first half of the exam but failed to complete the essay portion. On
the final, by far the most difficult exercise, Ms. Slug acquitted herself nicely. She
demonstrated a competent grasp of the material necessary for an understanding
of American political development. Aside from some minor conceptual confusion
at the outset, the paper was a fine synthesis of course materials. Ms. Slug
attended and participated in sections regularly, and gave a fine oral presentation
of a chapter in Shell’s Time of Illusion.
________________________________________________________________

Example #3:
Introductory Physics
Overall Grade: B+
Performance on comprehensive final: Very good.
Performance on midterm exams: Very good.
Performance on homework: Excellent
________________________________________________________________

Example #4:
Dante's Divine Comedy in Translation
Large lecture class (120 students) with weekly discussion section. Students
read Dante's Vita Nuova and the Divine Comedy (Inferno, Purgatorio and selected
canti from Paradiso.); selected lyrics from French and Italian courtly poetry;
Books I-VI of Virgil's Aeneid. Two papers and afinal exam were required.
Ms. Slug did satisfactory work in this course. She attended the required number
of sections, but consistently arrived late to class and often missed material that
could have benefited her greatly. Ms. Slug's written work was satisfactory overall.
In her first paper, she raised some interesting and important points, and
showed promising potential, but the paper was limited by the omission of an
interpretive thesis position.
In her second paper, Ms. Slug offered a competent discussion of the figures of
Ulysses and Guido da Montefeltro (Inferno 26-27) in terms of their similarity to
Dante's own role as a political leader and poetic prophet. Although Ms. Slug did
not consult any of the reserve book list critical essays on this canto, and thus
did not present a clearly articulated interpretive thesis, she demonstrated understanding
and control of the major issues of the episode. Ms. Slug's final exam
was quite good--clearly the strongest work she turned in all quarter.
Overall, Ms. Slug did passing work this quarter.
________________________________________________________________

Example #5:
Calculus
Evaluations were based on the midterm (30%), a comprehensive final examination
(40%) and 5 homework assignments (30%). Textbook: Jones and Smith,
fourth edition.
Midterm: C
Final Exam: B
Homework: B
Overall Grade: B-
________________________________________________________________

Example #6:
Introduction to Human Evolution
This is a large lecture course accompanied by weekly lab-discussion sections.
Evaluation is based on midterm and final essay exams, participation in weekly
sections, and a term paper.
Ms. Slug’s midterm showed a fair understanding of the issues but confusion
about some concepts. Ms. Slug followed up by rewriting the problem areas on
her test and working diligently to clear up these minor confusions. She
improved her class performance by writing a very good final exam. Ms. Slug
wrote a thoughtful term paper on primate communication. Ms. Slug was a dedicated
member of her weekly discussion section, and contributed many good
ideas and insights into the matters being discussed. Overall, Ms. Slug’s mastery
of the material presented in this class was good–a B.
________________________________________________________________

Example #7:
Computer Organization
Introductory assembly language and computer architecture. Weekly programming
assignments in MIPS (simulator) and HC11 (standalone microcontroller kit)
assembly languages. 4 graded and 6 checked off programming assignments.
Overall score composed of final (30%), weekly quizzes (35%), checked programs
(10%), and graded programs (25%).
89 students with 78 taking final
Score Rank Min Max Ave SD
Graded Labs: 55 73 2 100 72 21
Chckd Labs: 62 76 20 100 82 18
Quizzes: 38 79 16 93 63 16
Final: 49 73 39 100 67 13
Overall: 48 78 7 97 66 20
Ms. Slug was a regular contributor to class. She occasionally received reduced
scores on programming assignments due to the checkoff policy and not carefully
reading assignment requirements. Even taking this into account, her final and
quiz performances were poor.
Overall class performance: poor (D)
________________________________________________________________

Example #8:
Physical Geology
Introductory course using Jones and Jones, 4th edition. Students assessed on
three exams (50%), four homework assignments (35%) and section participation
and project (15%). 95 students completed the course. There were 15 A's, 30
B's, 30 C's and 10 D's assigned.
Ms. Slug received scores of 100, 77, 88 and 74 on the four homework assignments
(relative to class averages of 92, 86, 91 and 95, respectively). Compared
to her peers, this is good work. She tended to do well with interpretation and
synthesis, but struggled with more quantitative (numerical) questions. On the
three exams, Ms. Slug earned scores of 77, 71 and 77 (relative to class averages
of 71, 77 and 74) placing her right at the class average. Again, problems
with quantitative questions, especially calculator exercises, were apparent. Her
section project was a nicely researched and well-organized introduction to the
geologic history of the Pinnacles National Monument. Overall, Ms. Slug's work
was average.
________________________________________________________________

Example #9:
Introductory Writing
In this introductory writing class, Ms. Slug attended class regularly, contributing
frequently and usefully to discussions. She satisfactorily completed five of six
assigned essays, with revisions. After a somewhat uneven start to the quarter,
Ms. Slug made substantial progress in explaining her ideas more clearly and
coherently, adding greater depth to her analyses, and improving the accuracy of
her proof reading and use of sources. Her final essay in a series of papers on
the Napster controversy was particularly well done. When she adds discipline
and careful revision to her considerable stylistic flair, Ms. Slug's essays are
interesting and effective.
______________________________________________________________

Example #10:
Beginning Sculpture
Sculpting techniques in ceramics, issues and concepts related to the body and
its representation, approaches to the artistic process, the relationship of contemporary
art to studio practice.
Ms. Slug's sculpting skills in this course were very good, her glazing and conceptual
skills were good. Her fish sculpture showed very good use of texture
and visually interesting form. A suggestion is that she take more risks with
sculpture by working on more challenging forms and concepts. Ms. Slug was
active in class discussions and participated in firing the kiln.
______________________________________________________________

Example #11:
Chemistry: Independent Study
Ms. Slug completed her second quarter of independent research this quarter.
She continued to do an outstanding job in the isolation of sesterterpenes from
an Indo-Pacific marine sponge. The required reports, while terse, were submitted
in a timely fashion and contained appropriate details on the progress of work
in the laboratory. She also gave a very nice oral presentation at our most recent
evening seminar event.
______________________________________________________________

As is clear from the above, performance evaluations may take many
forms, allowing you to find the mode of evaluation that works best
for you in your courses.



4. Who reads performance evaluations?

Performance evaluations written for all courses in which a student
receives a P, A, B, C, or D become part of the student's permanent
transcript and reach a large and diverse audience. In addition to
the student, performance evaluations will be reviewed by college
academic staff, by the student’s department, and by anyone to
whom a student opts to send the complete official transcript (grades
and evaluations), including fellowship and scholarship review
panels, graduate and professional school admissions committees
and potential employers. Of this audience, only the student has had
access to instructor feedback, comments, and scores provided
during the quarter—forms of "real-time" evaluation that should not
be deferred to an end of quarter written evaluation. Bearing the
audience in mind, performance evaluations should provide the
necessary context to be understood by readers who were not in the
course, don’t have access to course materials or syllabi, and may
not be familiar with narrative evaluation generally. In other words,
you should write evaluations under the assumption that your audience
lies outside UC Santa Cruz. Because outside readers may be
overwhelmed by volume, we recommend that, except in extraordinary
circumstances, each evaluation you write be succinct and less
than 150 words in length.

Evaluations are not edited or proofread by anyone but you, but their
audience is global. Please adhere to appropriate (proper) grammar
and stylistic practices. What you write reflects on UCSC as a
whole. See http://pio.ucsc.edu/style_guide.html for the official campus
style guide.

5. Consistency and thoroughness

The majority of performance evaluations generated at UCSC
document performance in courses of 50 or more students. In courses
of this size it is often difficult, if not impossible, to come to know
each student personally. Some students will make the effort to
establish a fuller relation with you; others will not. As a result, you
will find that the level of commentary you are able to provide in performance
evaluations will vary from student to student. This raises
an important question: should you restrict yourself to indicators of
student performance that are universally shared by students (such
as test scores, evaluations of written work, etc.) or can your evaluations
vary? This is for you to decide: Senate regulations afford you
complete authority in determining the degree of consistency and
thoroughness of performance evaluation. In making this determination,
however, there are a number of factors you may wish to consider.
Do you wish to acknowledge student effort at developing a
fuller line of communication with you? Have you strayed from evaluating
performance to commenting on personality? Will your comments
be understood by the student and other readers? Regardless
of class size, remember that it is the quality of the evaluation that is
important, not its length.

6. What is and is not acceptable content?

Evaluations describe the quality and characteristics of student performance
in the class. Comments not germane to student performance
are not acceptable in performance evaluations. For example,
"Student A is very bright but did not commit sufficient effort to this
course" does not document performance and is, at best, conjecture.
It is better to let the student's work speak for itself, for example,
"Student A's work was mixed. Two papers were highly insightful
and superbly crafted while the other two were sloppily assembled
and cursory." Similarly, "Student B did not do well on the midterm
as the result of a severe case of flu" is not acceptable. You may
think that providing personal information (flu) puts a poor performance
into a more favorable context, but a potential employer might
not agree. We recommend substituting the phrase, "circumstances
beyond his/her control," in cases where you think such explanation
is absolutely necessary.

Student ability, health, physical or learning disabilities, religious and
political beliefs, and the like, are never considerations in student
assessment and have no place in performance evaluation.
Students have the right to initiate grievances for performance evaluations
that they feel are based on criteria other than academic performance
or that apply academic criteria in an arbitrary or capricious
way that does not reflect student performance in relation to course
requirements. The student grievance procedure can be found in
Appendix C in the Manual of the Santa Cruz Division Academic
Senate: http://senate.ucsc.edu/manual/scAppC.htm
The explicit mention of letter grades in performance evaluations is
permitted. Given the near universal character of letter grading systems,
inclusion of a letter grade or grades in an evaluation may provide
a compact and potentially precise summary of student performance.
However, letter grades are single-dimensional indicators of
student performance and are inherently limited. Furthermore, performance
evaluations can counteract the effects of grade inflation.
CEP recommends that you bear these considerations in mind when
using letter grades in written evaluations (see also section 8). CEP
further recommends that you respect the decision of students who
have chosen to enroll on a P/NP basis by avoiding mention of a letter
grade in the performance evaluation.

7. Mapping adjectives to grades

The majority of students in a course will receive a letter grade at the
end of the quarter. At the end of the quarter, it is important that the
performance evaluation be consistent with the summary letter
grade. The following table will help you choose adjectives that are
consistent with the grade assigned. These rough correspondences
have emerged as the consensus of a large number of UCSC faculty
and are consistent with Systemwide regulations. The list is not
exhaustive, and many other descriptors are appropriate.

Grade	P/NP	Adjectives
A	P	Honors, superb, outstanding, excellent, top-notch
B	P	Very good, quite good, above average
C	P	Average, satisfactory, fairly good, passing
D*	NP	Below average, marginal
F	NP	Poor, inadequate, inferior, unsatisfactory

*At UCSC the grade of D results only in credit toward the requirement of 180 credit
hours for graduation; courses for which the student receives a grade of D do not
count toward major, minor, or college requirements or for general education. There is
no C-; students whose work is passing, but below C in quality receive a D. The
choice of adjectives in the evaluation should be consistent with the grade of D.

8. The coursework description field

The instructor may choose to write a brief description of the coursework
that the Registrar inserts at the beginning of each student's
evaluation. This is information about the classwork that is applicable
to all students in the class and does not vary from student to student.
Typical content includes the scope of the course, textbooks
used, a breakdown of assignments and exams, etc. In larger classes,
the coursework description is well used to document the basis of
student evaluation. You may wish to include the average grade or
median score for the class as a powerful hedge against grade inflation.
You should usually avoid simply quoting the catalog description
of the class which is available on the web.
The Committee on Educational Policy imposes a limit of 60 words
on coursework descriptions. Although this may seem restrictive, it
must be remembered that a student's transcript is an evaluation of
that student's work, not a series of expansive coursework descriptions
written by instructors with understandable pride.
CEP recommends that you revise your coursework description with
each offering of the course.

9. The question of timeliness

As the instructor of record, you are responsible for providing a performance
evaluation for every student receiving credit in your
course and for doing so in a timely fashion (see regulation 9.2.2
above). When evaluations are not written, students are deprived of
important feedback on their performance, they and their academic
advisors/preceptors are deprived of evaluations for academic standing
review, honors and awards, and student applications to graduate
programs and professional schools may be compromised.

10. Closing remarks

UCSC is unique in the University of California system, and amongst
major research universities in the nation, in providing written
performance evaluations to students – a key aspect of our
continuing commitment to undergraduate education. The continued
vitality of our performance evaluation system relies on the faculty's
willingness to use the system to their best advantage by authoring
evaluations that are accurate, meaningful, and readable, but which
do not unduly tax the instructor or require an alteration in her/his
pedagogy. Used properly, the written performance evaluation
system should not be a burden, but rather a tool in teaching.
Experiment, talk with colleagues, examine the many example
evaluations in this document and, most important, let the system
work for you and your students.