Policies on Student Evaluation of Teaching

Downloads

• Axess for Faculty brochure (pdf) with the instructions on page 7
• Frequently Asked Questions about Online Course Evaluations (pdf)
• Sample Course Evaluation (pdf) (i.e., what students see when they evaluate)
• Sample Section Evaluation (pdf)
• Evaluation means for 2006-07 are available online through the Online Course Evaluation system.

Top of page

Policy

The following policies were developed by the Committee on Academic Appraisal and Achievement (C-AAA) and were approved by the Senate of the Academic Council on October 30, 1997, superseding SenD#2526 dated May 12, 1983.

The evaluation of teaching has three major goals:

• Provide information to instructors about how effectively their teaching is encouraging student learning and to help them improve their teaching;
• Provide information to students to help them select courses wisely;
• Provide information about the overall quality of courses for administrative review (i.e., salary setting, promotion, curriculum development).

Evaluation of teaching should be carried out in a number of ways including evaluation by the instructors themselves, by peers, and by students. (See the Final Report of the C-AAA Subcommittee on the Evaluation and Improvement of Teaching, April 1995). The present document specifies only the required features of the Senate-mandated student evaluation of teaching.

1. Each time it is offered, every course must undergo student evaluation of teaching done by faculty, other instructors, and teaching assistants (understood to include all section leaders). Summary reports of such evaluations are sent to the evaluated faculty and teaching assistants. Exceptions to this requirement are:
   1. Courses of an individual/independent nature (e.g., independent study courses, special research projects, thesis, music studios, etc.);
   2. Activity courses.
2. The relevant department chairs, program heads, and deans also receive the evaluation summaries with the exception of first-time courses given on an experimental basis (so designated by the faculty member on a check-off box attached to the forms — see 4.d below).
3. The exact content and nature of any instrument used for course evaluation shall be determined by the Dean of each School in consultation with the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and representative faculty from that school. The Dean may also consult with the Provost and the Advisory Board.
4. In general, course evaluations should include:
   1. Demographic information on students in the class (e.g., year, area of study) and their reasons for enrolling in the class;
   2. Evaluative questions about the course and instruction addressing such topics as intellectual content, organization, motivation, interactions, procedures for assessing student work;
   3. A student portion designed by the ASSU or other authorized student organization to enable that group to assemble a student course guide;
   4. A form attached to the evaluations for faculty to check-off if a course is being taught on a first-time experimental basis.
5. The Dean of the school is responsible for informing instructors about the methods of administration, the uses of the results of the evaluation, and the importance of the evaluation process.
6. The uses to which the evaluations will be put should be stated clearly and simply on the evaluations themselves.
7. Evaluations should be conducted in such a way as to encourage a high rate of return and thoughtful responses from students. The instructor should provide ample time (15 minutes in class is the suggested minimum) for students to complete the evaluation.
8. The evaluations will be administered and collected in a manner that assures their confidentiality. They will be delivered in a timely fashion to the University or school office charged with tabulating them, where they will be summarized and presented in a manner that is easy to understand and interpret. The responses and evaluation summaries will be returned to their appropriate recipients (see 9 below) as quickly as possible, but certainly no later than two weeks after the start of the subsequent quarter.
9. Responses shall be reported according to the following guidelines:
   1. Faculty will receive (1) the original individual student responses to the evaluative questions, (2) evaluation summaries for their own courses, and (3) the evaluation summaries for the teaching assistants in those courses.
   2. Teaching assistants will receive (1) the original individual student responses to evaluative questions concerning the teaching assistant's performance and (2) evaluation summaries of those questions.
   3. Department chairs, program heads, and deans will receive only the evaluation summaries for the courses they oversee.
   4. The ASSU or other authorized student groups will receive the student-designed portions of the course evaluations. For each school, unless the Dean decides otherwise (see 10 below), the authorized student group will also receive from the Dean the evaluation summaries for faculty instructors. The student-designed portions of the evaluations will be available to the instructor following the composition of the course guide.
10. The Dean of each school, in consultation with representative faculty, may choose not to release part or all of the summary data from the faculty evaluations to the ASSU or other authorized student organization. Examples of what might be withheld include evaluation summaries for faculty in their first year of teaching, for teachers teaching courses to which students are assigned, or for classes with very small numbers of students. Such policies are subject to review from time to time by the Provost and the Advisory Board.

Top of page