Motion US07/08-19 – Amend US07/08-7 regarding required course evaluations to include explanatory text on the uses of the evaluations

 

Sponsored by: Joint Senate-Academic Affairs Committee on On-Line Course Evaluation Implementation

 

For Senate Action: May 14, 2008

 

Moved to amend US07/08-7, passed March 12, 2008 to replace the Preamble and include the following text (new text shown in italics) to explain implementation and use of the required student course evaluations questions as follows:

 

Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning


Preamble:

This legislation defines expectations regarding student course evaluations at the University of Oregon, especially as they relate to annual faculty reviews and the promotion, tenure and post-tenure review process.

Certain aspects of teaching, such as the ability to create a positive learning environment, are appropriately and necessarily assessed through student evaluations. Evaluations provided by students can be effectively used by all faculty to gain insight into their teaching, and to identify ways to improve their classroom performance. Evaluative data provided by students include responses to both quantitative and qualitative questions.

 

It is important to emphasize that student evaluation of teaching is not the sole means by which faculty teaching performance is assessed. In particular, peer teaching evaluations are also a required component of every promotion & tenure case.


I. Student Evaluation of Teaching

1. The on-line questionnaire system will be used to evaluate all courses  with 5 or more students.

2. The following university-wide questions will be included at the beginning of the evaluation form:

Please share with us your basic perceptions of the course: 

 

            1. What was the quality of this course?            

             Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

 

            2. What was the quality of the instructorÕs teaching?  

             Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory 

           

            3. How well organized was this course?    

             Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

 

            4. How effective was the instructorÕs use of class time?            

            Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

 

            5. How available was the instructor for communication outside of class?             

            Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

 

            6. How clear were the guidelines for evaluating students' work in this course?    

            Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

 

            7. The amount that I learned in this course was:              

            Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

 

Please share with us your thoughts on the course:

 

            1.   Please comment on the instructorÕs strengths and areas for possible improvement.

 

            2.   Please comment on the strengths and areas of possible improvement for the course as a whole.

 

Please tell us a little bit about yourself:

 

            1. How often did you attend class?  

       90-100%    

       75-90%   

       50-75%   

       25 to 50%   

       Less than 25%   

       Does not apply

 

            2. How many hours per week did you spend on this course, other than time in class? 

       More than 10   

       8 to 10    

       6 to 8     

       4 to 6    

       2 to 4    

       Less than 2

 

            3. What grade do you expect in this course?   

       A

       B     

       C or P     

       D     

       F or N

 

á      Data from the first 7 questions are to be made centrally available to students.

 

á      Departments may include additional questions beyond these as they see fit.

 

3. Students shall be clearly informed, either verbally or through instructions on the on-line questionnaire, that results of their evaluation play an important role in faculty development, in future promotion and tenure decisions and in post-tenure reviews.

 

4. For the qualitative questions, the on-line forms must indicate that only electronically signed evaluations may be used in promotion/tenure and post-tenure reviews. (ORS 351.065 (f) (g)). In addition, the forms shall clearly state that the faculty member responsible for the course will have access to the written comments, but only after the grades for the course have been submitted.

 

5. A standard course evaluation report shall include the distribution of responses and the mean scores for each of the 7 quantitative university-wide questions. For comparison, the distribution of responses and mean scores from 1) classes of a similar size within the instructor's department; 2) classes of the same level within the instructor's department; and 3) all classes within the instructor's department will also be provided.

II. Procedure for Administration and Use of Student Evaluations.

1. All on-line course evaluations are to be conducted during dead week. Students will not have access to the system prior to or after this period.

2. After grades have been submitted, the faculty member shall be given access to both the quantitative and qualitative evaluations.

3. The department archives the standard course evaluation report and the qualitative evaluations in the personnel file of the faculty member for use in future faculty evaluations.

4. Quantitative evaluations should be analyzed using valid statistical measures and the most relevant comparator groups. Review of the written evaluations should be conducted by a comprehensive reading of the comments.


Passed at the 14 May 2008 UO Senate Meeting.
Web page spun on 15 May 2008 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises