To consider the actual complexity of teaching, to consider its several contexts, checklists and surveys are insufficient. Situational Evaluation of Teaching on Campus Robert E. Stake, Edith J. Cisneros-Cohernour The current state of the art of formal evaluation of college teaching is sim- plistic and inconsequential. Faculty work is a complex enterprise, but most assessment procedures are insensitive to its broad responsibility and situ- ationality. An effective evaluation of teaching requires the study of institu- tional goals, classroom environments, administrative organization and operations, curricular content, student achievement, and the impact of pro- grams on state and society (Shulman, 1986; Cave, Hanney, Kogan, and Trav- ett, 1988). Teaching can be judged properly only in the context of these other factors, and if no effort is made to study them, the evaluation of teach- ing probably will be invalid. We support multiple evaluative efforts. Thus, we deemphasize instruc- tor traits and styles and even student outcomes, and instead emphasize instructor duties, calling for personal judgment of the evaluator, and urging consideration of the instructor as a member of a faculty team. Finally, we oppose using evaluation to standardize campus teaching. Hazards Many professors (as with people in all other kinds of work) consider evalua- tion a threat, and with reason. Whether the evaluation is valid or invalid, they may get hurt. The evaluation will inevitably be less sensitive to their aims and talents than anyone would like. It will be more attuned to campus institutional aims and structures (Meyer, Scott, and Deal, 1981), and to those quite imperfectly. More insidious, evaluation sometimes is used to har- ass or censor. What a professor has to say should not go unevaluated, but NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING, no. 83, Fall 2000 © Jossey-Bass, a Wiley company 51 5