You open the evaluation report and go straight to the overall score. Of course you do. One number feels easier to understand than pages of tables and comments. But when you put that number in an annual review, the reader needs more than the score itself.
The book's sample annual package includes evaluation items, course sections, semesters, enrollment information, response counts, and a rating scale. That surrounding information matters. It helps a reviewer see what the numbers describe before deciding what they might mean.
Identify the measure before summarizing it.
Use the official item wording or an accurate label. A score about clarity of assignments isn't the same measure as a score about overall experience. If you summarize several items, explain what you're combining and follow any required institutional reporting method.
Include the scale and its direction. A value of four means little without knowing the available responses and their labels. Don't make a reader search through an attachment to discover whether a larger number indicates a more favorable response.
Check the transcription against the official report. Small errors in labels or decimal values can travel from one annual narrative into the next if you never return to the source.
Keep the course and response context visible.
Identify the course, section, and term, along with the response information your institution requires. Where you report a response rate, make sure the numerator and denominator match the official report and the relevant question. Some reports have different numbers of responses for different items.
A rating describes the responses received. It doesn't automatically tell you what every enrolled student thought. That distinction is especially useful when participation is limited or varies between sections.
Other relevant context may include course level, delivery format, or a substantial change in the offering. Provide context to help interpretation, not to invent explanations for every score you dislike.
Describe comparisons carefully.
If the same item increased between two terms, you can describe the observed difference. Before calling it a trend, check that you're comparing the same measure on the same scale and that the summary doesn't hide important variation across sections.
Don't call a small numerical difference meaningful simply because it points upward. And don't claim a course revision caused the change on the basis of these scores alone. The book's example connects revisions and later ratings, but a careful review narrative should distinguish sequence from demonstrated cause.
You can write plainly: the ratings changed after the revision, the reports provide one perspective on student experience, and additional evidence is needed to assess the learning outcome.
Use the scores as part of a broader teaching record.
Student evaluations can inform reflection alongside peer observations, course materials, and appropriate evidence of student work. These sources answer different questions. A favorable experience rating doesn't replace evidence for a claim about students' ability to apply a concept.
Follow requirements for complete reporting. Don't select only favorable items or quotes while leaving out material you're required to provide. A concise narrative can acknowledge a concern and explain a reasonable response without reproducing every comment in the opening paragraph.
For your next review, choose one score you plan to discuss. Check its label, scale, term, response information, and source. Then write one factual sentence describing it and one measured sentence about how it informed your teaching. That small check can turn a loose claim into a useful, readable account.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, chapter 15, pp. 245–249.
