I arrived late for the class because my new teaching schedule has an overlap. I’m going to try to arrange to leave early next month so I don’t miss the student presentation.

I was there for the evaluation of Dr. Toothami, for which I sat on the promotion committee. It was a very funny presentation and led to an active discussion around evaluation practices and protocols. We always have to be careful with how we communicate, especially when there are difficulties to address within the evaluation.

It reminded me of our crit sessions at art school. Instructors were very careful to lay the ground rules before each session to ensure the critique would serve as a learning space, promoting growth for the students who are both critiquing and being critiqued. We were always reminded to critique the work, not the artist, and to be specific and descriptive. It wasn’t enough to say I did like it or I didn’t like it.

It was useful having the time to brainstorm the criteria, so we had specific elements we were watching for. It did seem that the person of Dr. Toothami was criticized, as well has the teaching practices that were not seen as helpful to learning.