Student Course Evaluation Project:
CoPE Final Report (May 2004) (PDF)
Mandate from CoPE/Steering Committee (May 2004)
------------
Proposed New SCS Form (March 2005)
Updated/Edited New SCS Form (April 2005)
Proof Draft of New SCS Form (April 2006) (PDF)
Proposed New SCS Analysis System (March 2005) (PDF)
CoSCEP Committee
Broader issues associated with this discussion and these proposals
- How do we avoid the trap of letting teaching evaluation rely too heavily on numerical results (notwithstanding an 'improved' SCS form+reporting system)?
- Better education about limitations of interpretation of numerical results
- Better use of Blue sheets -- even if for individual faculty eyes only, encourage directed questions! We should include a sample of some of these on the website. Much more can be done with this. Some departments substitute 'mandatory' blue sheets for student interviews. For discussion: do we get more or less 'honest' answers this way?
- Increased or more formalized role for other evaluative tools such as senior exit interviews? Class visits?
- Is a web-based evaluation form feasible for Williams?
While this may be efficient in terms of collection and analysis of data, and would also in one sense 'regularize' the process, we have serious concerns. In fact, while this might eliminate differences in how faculty 'administer' the SCS form, it invites many other differing scenarios for how and under what circumstances the questionnaire is filled out (every course at once, with friends, at a party ... ). Instead, we favor working to regularize the in-class faculty administration process. - How would we regularize this form administration process?
We propose that faculty members distribute SCS forms in class. To liberate faculty members from figuring out 'what to say,' and make the process more uniform, we propose that a statement be read each semester, in each class, prior to students filling out forms. This text should also appear at the top of the SCS form, replacing the current paragraph. We feel that a short reminder of the function and importance of the forms (even if repeated four times in four classes, and repeated from semester to semester) is worthwhile. By making this a required act, the instructor can blame the 'rules' prior to reciting. Example text:The SCS form serves two important functions at Williams College. It plays an important role in evaluating teachers for reappointment and tenure, and it can help to improve the quality of instruction. Your serious and considered responses are essential. All data remains anonymous, and individual instructors receive numerical results only after grades are submitted. Blue Sheets are returned directly to the instructor, again, only after grades are submitted.
- How else can we further educate students about their responsibility?
Include brief discussion of SCS+blue sheet course evaluation system (and students' role in this) during FIRST DAYS. Can be included along with an honor code discussion, and even discussed in pre-frosh mailings concerning important Williams institutions. - In reporting SCS results, how should multisectioned courses be handled?
Make sure that if there are only two instructors, that the total course summary is not supplied to individual instructors, to avoid the ability to infer comparative scores. For N ≥ 3, it should be safe to include these scores (note that this has already been implemented). - What if a second faculty or staff member is teaching labs/field work for a given course? Do we need separate Collegeš form for this piece of course?
Some departments do have special supplemental forms to evaluate staff lab instructors, and to distinguish evaluation of lecture vs. lab portion of course. Our SCS form question on quality of lab instruction can be left intact, and will either refer to faculty teaching in lab or not, but relevance/interpretation of result will be clear to department. - Similarly, what is the optimal way to handle SCS process for 'team-taught' courses?
One could imagine a specialized form with some 'common' questions concerning the course as a whole, and others focused on intstructor 'A' and 'B.' But we think it is best to stick to the current practice of two parallel forms, and give students sufficient time to do both. Should certain questions on each form ideally be answered identically? Yes. Will there be differences even here? Probably. There might be an opportunity to use one of our proposed 'blank' questions to ask about how successfully the two (or more) instructors integrated. - Should the SCS form specifically address tutorials in some way?
We believe that existing questions already address many aspects of tutorial teaching effectively. We would suggest, again, the possible use of one of the 'blank' question to focus more specifically on tutorial teaching and learning. - Whatever new analysis/reporting system we enact, how do chairs and individual faculty interpret numbers appropriately?
We intend to include a document describing the rationale and meaning for the 'new' scheme. In particular, a discussion of the limits of what can be validly concluded from given data will play an important role.