Faculty Senate votes to adopt new course evaluation form
Faculty Senate voted 12-8 Tuesday to approve a new course evaluation form.
Andrew Brewick, of the Teaching and Advising Committee, presented to Faculty Senate with a revised teaching evaluation form aimed to improve the student feedback process.
“This is, to the best of our ability, to be an evaluative instrument,” Brewick said.
Senate members approved the form after adding an amendment to it and discussing concerns over question wording and intent. Tuesday was the third time a revision of the document came before the senate.
Student course evaluations assist instructors in improving their teaching, and assist administrators in advising professors and evaluating them for purposes such as tenure, promotion and salary. Course evalu- ations are available for students to fill out at the end of each semester.
On the new evaluation form approved Tuesday, the fourth question sparked debate among Faculty Senate members. The original question read, “Did you take advantage of available help outside the course by meeting in person or otherwise communicating (via email or through BbLearn) with the instructor?”
If the student were to answer “Yes,” the question was followed by an opportunity to rate the helpfulness of the communication.
Brewick said the purpose of the question was to gauge the student’s commitment to learning and the instructor’s accessibility.
Connor Kennelly, ASUI representative on Faculty Senate, said the question did not provide a sense of if the instructor was available for students.
Senate members amended the question to ask if students tried to take advantage of outside help. They also added an option for students to explain why they did not seek outside help if they answered “No.”
The first several questions on the evaluation form are directed toward the student’s performance in the class. Liz Brandt, Faculty Senate member from the College of Law, said she was concerned about students rating themselves at the beginning of the survey. Brewick assured Brandt the questions were ordered in such a way so students can go into the evaluation with context.
“We attempted to scalpel the instrument so the student gained some awareness of their own participation in the course before lodging some evaluative measure of the teaching,” Brewick said.
Brandt suggested moving the student performance questions to end of the evaluation, but the senate did not make the change.
Another question on the evaluation senate members were concerned about was a statement to which the student could rate the professor’s ability to set learning out- comes. The statement read, “The instructor expressed clear expectations for learning outcomes in this course.”
Michael Murphy, Faculty Senate member from the College of Letters, Arts and Social Sciences, said he does not necessarily favor using the term “learning outcomes” in the course evaluation form due to its vague connotation.
“Learning outcomes, unfortunately, has become a lightning rod,” Murphy said.
Senators discussed the clarity of the question and Don Crowley, faculty secretary, said “learning outcomes” is almost an insider term.
The senators did not vote for a revision of the question and left it as is.
Brewick acknowledged the evaluation form does not have the capacity to measure the complexity involved in teaching and evaluating professors and courses.
Despite the scrutiny, Murphy said the changes were needed.
“I think this is a step in the right direction,” Murphy said.
Katelyn Hilsenbeck can be reached at [email protected]