FOR INFORMATION
S.95-35
I ?
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY TEACHING AND LEARNING
(SCUTL)
REPORT TO SENATE
?
MAY 1995
NUMBER OF MEETINGS
SCUTL, a new Senate Committee formed in 1994 after the adoption of the SCIMO Report,
got off to a slow start. Time delays were incurred due to a tied vote that required an
additional ballot for two members, and to difficulties in finding a secretary to assist with
setting up meetings, distributing materials, etc. (a position eventually filled by Flo McCallum
of the Registrar's Office). The Committee began meeting in late November
1994.
However,
SCUTL has met eight times since then, making it a rather active Senate Committee.
O
ACTIVITIES OVER THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1994 TO APRIL 1995
Initial meetings dealt with philosophical issues regarding teaching and learning, so that the
committee members could arrive at a consensus about the Committee's mandate and
direction. Two (interrelated) fundamental principles emerged from these discussions:
(1)
that
there is no "one way" to teach effectively, i.e., diversity in teaching was endorsed; and (2)
that SCUTL should not be, nor perceived to be, a body that will tell people how to teach
better. Regarding (2),
the Committee members felt that a "didactic" approach would alienate
some members of the university community, particularly those already sceptical of the need
for and/or effectiveness of this Committee.
Realizing that the Committee could deal
with just about anything that goes on at the
University, a decision was reached to.
focus on one thing at a time - and do it well. The first
task that SCUTL decided to embark upon was the development of a standardized teaching
evaluation form.
In an initial step, the Chair contacted all teaching units on campus to ascertain what types
?
of evaluation were being used. Of 27 units approached, 22 responded (representing the
?
Faculties of Education and Business Administration, all departments in the Faculty of?
Science, and most teaching units in the Faculties of Applied Sciences and Arts). We found
?
considerable diversity in current practices. Of the 22 units, 14 use the "standard" university
?
I .
blue form; of these 14, 9 use an additional unit-specific form. Eight units, including the
?
Faculty of Education and nearly one-half of departments/programmes in the Faculty of Arts
use
With
their
the assistance
own evaluation
of Dr.
forms
Walter
only.
Wattamaniuk
?
and Sue Roppel of Analytical Studies, who
&
gave
a
very useful presentation at one Committee meeting, and with the research-based
knowledge of Drs. Peter Coleman and Gary Poole (both of SCUTL), an instrument has been
developed for testing purposes only. SEE ATTACHED. The Committee had hoped to
administer the pilot test in the last weeks of the
95-1
semester, but that turned out to be too
ambitious.
This results of the pilot test will be used for statistical analysis - checks on reliability and
validity of questions, factor analysis, etc. It is anticipated that the final form will be
significantly shorter that the attached one, i.e., redundancies are built into the attached for
statistical analytical purposes.
IMMEDIATE PLANS
SCUTL plans to administer a first pilot test at the end of the summer semester, to tenured and
tenure-stream faculty members only. The results of the statistical analysis will
pave the way
for a larger testing of the instrument in the
95-3
semester, on both
CFL and Sessional
Instructors. Issues to be dealt with in the next few months include: working
out a way to
guarantee anonymity and
confidentiality of data; the actual administration (the ways and
means) of the evaluation form; liaising with TSSU, given that Sessional Instructors will be
included in the second test phase; and beginning to organize a Symposium on teaching
evaluation for the university teaching community at large.
OTHER BUSINESS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
In addition to our principle focus --
the development of a standardized teaching evaluation
form -- SCUTL
received memoranda asking us to consider three other issues: (1) criteria
used to select our Excellence in Teaching Award winners;
(2) the creation of a teaching
award for Sessional Instructors and Teaching Assistants; and (3) the reliability and validity
of participation grades in seminars and tutorials. Each of these issues was discussed by the
Committee; however, any action will be taken only after the bulk of the work on the
evaluation forms has been completed.
Submitted by:
Ellen M. Gee, Chair, SCUTL
L ]l
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
CENTRE FOR UNIVERSITY TEACHING
BURNABY, B.C.
CANADA V5A 1S6
(qJ
?
Telephone: (604) 291-3910
FAX: (604) 291-5496
E-Mail: Gary_Poole@SFU.CA
Student
Assessment
of Instruction Survey
PILOT VERSION, SPRING, 1995
As part of its continuing efforts to help instructors to provide the best possible
teaching for students, the university is testing a new Student Assessment of
Instruction Survey which it
is
hoped will be more comprehensive and hence more
helpful. Please be assured that ALL your answers on this assessment are thought to
be important.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. If you have any thoughts that
you would like to share about the evaluation of teaching at SFU, please feel free to
send an e-mail message to
Gary_Poole@sfu.ca
.
Ellen Gee, Chir
?
Gary Poole, Director
Senate Committee on University
?
Centre for University Teaching
Teaching and Learning
S
03.
Student Assessment of Instruction Survey
?
PILOT VERSION, SPRING, 1995
COURSE
?
INSTRUCTOR
PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH STATEMENT IN THIS SECTION BY CHOOSING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
A.
ALWAYS
B.
OFTEN
C.
SOMETIMES
D.
RARELY
E.
NEVER
F.
DO NOT KNOW
C. ?
STATEMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS COURSE
CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE BUBBLE ON YOUR ANSWER FORM FOR EACH.
1.
The instructor prepared well for class.
2.
The instructor was open to students' questions in class.
3.
The instructor appeared bored when teaching this class.
4.
The instructor's contributions to the class were interesting.
S. The instructor demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the subject matter.
6.
The instructor seemed genuinely interested in teaching.
7.
The instructor explained material clearly.
S. The instructors organization was valuable for my learning.
9.
The instructor stimulated my intellectual curiosity.
10.
Students asked questions in class.
11.
The instructor showed enthusiasm for the material being taught.
12.
1 was confused by the instructor's explanations of course material.
13.
It was evident that the instructor had prepared well.
14.
The instructor presented the material in an interesting way.
15.
The instructor's material was well-organized.
16.
The instructor demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the subject matter.
17.
1 felt that the instructor was not interested in the material for this course.
18.
The instructor had reasonable expectations for assignment completion.
19.
The instructor helped me to develop a better understanding of course material.
20.
The instructor provided prompt feedback on the course assignments.
21.1 found it difficult to be attentive in class.
22.
The instructor did not seem to have the background required to teach this course.
23.
Because of the instructor's teaching, I spent time thinking about concepts relevant to this course.
24.
The instructor specified the criteria for evaluating student assignments.
25.
The organization of class material made sense to me.
26.
The instructor provided helpful feedback on course assignments.
27.
1 was impressed by the amount of knowledge related to the course that the instructor demonstrated.
28.
GIVE
D = FAIR,
THIS
E
INSTRUCTOR
= POOR, F = NOT
AN
APPLICABLE
OVERALL RATING
TO THIS
AS
COURSE)
LECTURER, (A = EXCELLENT, II = GOOD, C ADEQUATE,
29.
GIVE
B -
GOOD,
THIS INSTRUCTOR
C = ADEQUATE.
AN
D
OVERALL
FAIR,
E
RATING
=
POOR,
AS
F NOT
SEMINAR
APPLICABLE
FACILITATOR/LEADER,
TO THIS COURSE)
(A EXCELLENT,
30.
GIVE
D = FAIR,
THIS
E
INSTRUCTOR
= POOR)
A
GENERAL OVERALL RATING,
(A =
EXCELLENT, B = GOOD, C = ADEQUATE,
ABOUT THE CLASS:
31.
In the class in which you responded to this survey there were usually (pick one)
A.
Between I and 20 students;
B.
Between 21 and 40 students;
C.
Between 41 and 100 students;
D.
Between 101 and 300 students;
E.
More than 300 students.
Cli
p
Proceed to page 2
on reverse side
64
ABOUT
YOU,
THE
RESPONDENT:
The following
questions
are used as a
means
of
examining
what kinds of students are in THIS class.
W
32.
What
grade do you anticipate
receiving
for
this course?
A. ?
ln the Arange
B.
?
In the Brange
C
?
In the Crange
D.
?
A D grade
E.
?
I do not anticipate passing this
course.
33.
Why
did
you take this course?
Choose
the
single
most important
reason.
A. ?
It was compulsory
B. ?
I
am
interested
in the
subject
C ?
No alternative
course
was available
D. ?
It
looked
like
an
easy
credit
E. ?
Other
reasons.
34.
How many
credit
hours have
you
successfully
completed
prior
to
this semester?
A. ?
Oto30 credit hours
B. ?
31 to 60
credit hours
C.
?
61 to 90
credit
hours
D.
?
91 to 120
credit
hours
E. ?
More than 120
credit hours
35.
How many
credit
hours
are
you
taking this
sernseter?
A. ?
less than
9
B.
?
9to12
C.
?
13to16
D.
?
17to20
E. ?
More than 20
36.
Gender.
?
A.
Female ?
B. Male
37. What is your cumulative grade point average at present?
A. ?
350
or over
B. ?
3.00
to 3.49
C. ?
2.50to2.99
D.
?
2.00
to 2.49
S.
?
below 2.00
F. ?
I do not have a cumulative grade
point
average.
38. How would you
best
characterize the learning
experience you
had in
this
class?
A. ?
I learned
something new
each
week.
B.
?
I
learned something new
every couple of
weeks.
C.
?
I learned some things of value.
D. ?
I learned very little.
E. ?
I learned nothing.
With
respect
to your learning experience, please explain your answer to question 38.
Do you have any comments
regarding this
new survey?
FINALLY,
What is your declared or intended major(s) or areas of concentration?
What
is your declared or intended minor(s)?
t^-
Senate Committees - October 1994
Page 37
22. ?
SENATE COMM1TEE ON UNIVERSITY TEACHING AND LEARNING
(SCTJTL)
Standing (Reporting
Category B)
Members
Conditions
Term
Expirv Date
Names
Member at-large
Chair - Elected by
2yrs
Sep 30/96
E. Gee
Senate
Faculty Member
Elected
2 yrs
Sep 30/96
C. Baneijee
Faculty Member
by
2 yrs
Sep 30/96
P. Coleman
Faculty Member
Senate
2 yrs
Sep
30/95
I. Gordon
Facuty Member
2yrs
Sep 30/95
A. Rawicz
Undergraduate Student
?
Elected by
?
1 yr ?
Sep 30/95 ?
K. Chan
Senate
Graduate Student
?
Elected by
?
1 yr ?
Sep 30/95
?
K. Giffen
Senate
Director, Centre for ?
Secretary, Ex-officio
?
G. Poole
University Teaching
?
(Voting)
Purpose:
2.1.
To
To
develop
assist departments
new standard
in the
teaching
development
survey
of
instruments
methods of
and
evaluating
to develop
teaching.a
policy
?
regarding the regular use
S
of teaching surveys by all course instructors.
3.
To undertake a periodic review of the programs of awards given for excellent teaching in the University.
4.
To receive periodic reports on programs developed and delivered by the Centre for University Teaching
and to provide advice on future activities of the Centre.
5.
To assist Departments and Faculties in implementing new teaching technologies and methods.
6.
To support the ongoing examination of all learning methods in order to continue to improve the
University's instructional quality and cost effectiveness.
7.
To explore means by which Sessional Instructors might be supported and guided in providing effective
teaching.
Reports annually to Senate in May
Membership and purpose approved by Senate June 6, 1994 (S.94-45)
0
