“We have talked in the General Education Committee about trying to bring together students in four-month or eight-month increments—to bring students from a course back, debrief, and get a feel for [the ongoing quality of learning],” Harris said.

In the meantime, the College strongly encourages course instructors to give mid-term evaluations; the Bok Center offers a template to all instructors. Although Harris denied that the Q Guide itself would be administered mid-semester, he said that personalized evaluations given by instructors partway through a term would provide an opportunity for professors to ask more specific questions.

COMPLETE OVERHAUL?

But according to some faculty members, these small fixes fall short of the larger goal of devising a new and better school-wide system of teaching assessment.

“In many ways, you would need a committee of people who would be willing to invest several years to find out what constitutes best practice,” Winship said. “This is not a situation where we need a little marginal improvement.”

For all its flaws, the Q Guide will probably never be overhauled completely, according to Harris. And some faculty agree that it would be more expensive to make changes than leave it how it is.

“It’s easier just to assume the Q is doing a valid job of evaluating teaching effectiveness,” Winship said.

—Staff writer Radhika Jain can be reached at radhikajain@college.harvard.edu.

—Staff wrtier Kevin J. Wu can be reached at kwu@college.harvard.edu.