|
547
DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
REPORT FROM THE EDUCATIONAL
POLICY COMMITTEE CONCERNING "THE REPORT OF THE FACULTY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE
ON COURSE INSTRUCTOR SURVEYS: EVALUATING TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS AND EXCELLENCE" (D
82-101)
Wallace T. Fowler (aerospace engineering), on behalf
of the Educational Policy Committee, has filed the recommendations set
forth
below concerning "The Report from the Faculty Council ad hoc Committee
on Course Instructor Surveys: Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness and
Excellence" ( D
82-101).
The secretary has classified these recommendations as
general legislation. Notice is hereby given that these recommendations
will be presented to the Faculty Council for action at its meeting
on
May 8, 2000.
<signed>
John R. Durbin, Secretary
The Faculty Council
This legislation was posted on the Faculty Council
web site ( http://www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/)
on April 28, 2000. Paper copies
are available on request from the Office of the General Faculty, FAC
22, F9500. This document was revised after the date of circulation as
indicated
in the footnotes.
548
REPORT FROM THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY
COMMITTEE CONCERNING "THE REPORT OF THE FACULTY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE
ON COURSE INSTRUCTOR SURVEYS: EVALUATING TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS AND
EXCELLENCE" (D 82-101)
Background
The topics addressed in the report of the ad hoc
Committee on Course Instructor Surveys have been discussed for
many years. Specific reference is made to discussions on two occasions.
|
1.
|
In 1985-1986, the Kelley-Stice report
recommended the following concerning the course instructor survey
then in use:
| 1) |
Replace current sets of scaled items with four
free-response, open-ended items, plus smaller sets of scaled
items directed at different types of courses. |
| 2) |
Develop four or five scaled items for administrative
purposes and use across all classes and instructors, with participation
requirements being determined by the colleges or departments. |
| 3) |
Separate the Student Information System from
the Instructor and Administrator Information Systems to better
meet the needs of the students. |
The issue was then addressed in the April 14, 1986,
meeting of the University Council.
Excerpt from the minutes of the University Council
meeting of April 14, 198:
IV. Questions to the President
|
C.
|
Question Concerning the Status of Course-Instructor
Survey Legislation.
Reuben R. McDaniel, Jr. (management) had requested
a report on the status of the University Council recommendations
concerning the Course-Instructor Surveys – legislation
growing out of the "Kelley-Stice" and Faculty Senate recommendations.
President Cunningham reviewed the provisions of the recommendations
and the outcome of the pilot projects that had been conducted.
He further reported, "There has been a lot of discussion
about this with the deans. There has been a lot of discussion
with
individual faculty members. I do want to go on record as
saying, as I have many times, that I strongly believe in
evaluation
of faculty members in response to their teaching. It is an
important part of the promotion process. It should be, and
in many cases is, an important part of the salary adjustment
process.
"I am always concerned about how we use any
individual instrument. I am always concerned about the interpretation
of the percentages. I find the raw numbers much more useful
to me than the percentages alone. And while I think these
kinds of instruments can be misused very easily, I think
they
also provide a great deal of information to a lot of people.
"After saying all of that, I have decided
to turn down the Kelley-Stice report for a variety of reasons,
one of which is the financial consideration. A second one
is that I really do believe the system that is being used
in the colleges right now works probably quite well. It [might]
not work [much] better if it was modified significantly.
I
have asked the deans this morning to submit to Dr. Fonken
by May 15 a status report on exactly how they do monitor
and
evaluate teaching within their own colleges, and I will look
forward to seeing a summary of that report. So in that sense
I will turn this down.
" If the Faculty Senate chooses to bring it
back up, I will be more than happy to see what they do, and
be happy to review it again. But time has passed us by a
little
bit on this, and in that sense I am going to turn [these]
specific [recommendations] down. In no way does that ...
indicate
that I do not think they are important. In no way does it
indicate that I do not feel faculty members should use [these
instruments]. I always used them when I was teaching. In
the
college that I came from we had a mandated rule that you
use them. But I think that is best dealt with at the college
level,
not at the University level."
|
|
549
|
|
2.
|
The following legislation was approved
by the University Council on November 19, 1990 (D&P 13389):
"Teaching evaluations by students shall be required
by all faculty at The University of Texas at Austin effective Fall
1991."
The legislation was approved by the president
on June 26, 1991, with a note about the implementation in the spring
of 1992, rather than fall 1991, because of the late approval date.
|
Thus, we note that there was consideration of student
evaluations in 1986, followed by the enactment of legislation mandating
student evaluations in 1991. The requirement became effective in spring
1992.
Recommendations
The report of the ad hoc Committee on Course Instructor
Surveys (D 82-101) responded to seven charges. After study of the report,
the Educational Policy Committee (EPC) recommends the following:
Recommendation
1: It is recommended that all classes be
surveyed every semester, including summer, using either the Basic CIS
Form or the Expanded CIS Form.1
Rationale: Teaching evaluations by students are required
by all faculty at UT Austin and have been required since spring 1992.
The only open issues are the form and frequency of these evaluations.
This recommendation specifies the form and frequency of the required
student
evaluations.
For the results of student evaluations to be most useful,
it is desirable that they have some items in common. Nine common items
have been identified from earlier forms and have been used to create
a
Basic CIS Form.1
Recommendation 2: In addition to the Basic CIS
Form, the Expanded CIS Form, and supplemental CIS forms designed for specific
types of teaching methods, colleges and individual faculty are strongly
encouraged to develop and use additional methods of evaluation.1
Rationale: The primary vehicles for collecting information
about teaching are student surveys, alumni surveys, major retrospective
surveys, peer review of materials, self-report in the form of portfolios,
and mid-semester course adjustment data. To improve and maintain a high
quality teaching program, colleges and individual faculty should seek
feedback on teaching from many sources.
Recommendation 3: It is recommended that materials
be prepared to assist students in understanding the importance of (1)
giving helpful feedback and (2) understanding how to read the results
of the surveys.
Rationale: The statistical data from the course instructor
surveys is public information and will be released to the students. It
is critical that the students understand the information provided to
them.
Recommendation 4: In implementing the Basic CIS Form or
the Expanded CIS Form, the privacy of both students and faculty must
be respected and preserved.2
Rationale: Written comments on student evaluations are
not governed by the Open Records Act that governs access to and release
of answers to survey items. The written comments are offered and received
as part of a private communication between student and faculty.
1 Corrections made at the request of the Educational Policy Committee
on May 8, 2000.
2 Recommendation 4 was amended by the Faculty Council on May
8, 2000.
549a
Comment
The EPC examined the ad hoc committee recommendation
that information be made available to faculty concerning when and how
to ask for feedback. Much information of this type is already available
from the Center for Teaching Effectiveness. The EPC chooses not to act
on this recommendation because it appears to be a work in progress.
|
