Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45

SENATE 

To

.............. 

.

.......................................... 

Subed

REPORT - AD HOC SENATE COMMITTEE ON 

STUDENT EVALUATION OF FACULTY TEACHING, 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT 

From 

......

EVLUATTON OF TActJLTY rE7VCHTNG, 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGENDA AND RULES. 

Date ..........MAY 

?

983. 

At the July 5, 1982 meeting of Senate consideration was given to 

Paper S.82-78 "Student Teaching Assessments" which had been submitted by 

K. Rieckhoff, including a number of recommendations. At that meeting 

motion was approved "That Paper S.82-78 be referred to the Senate Committee 

on Agenda and Rules who will prepare a recommendation with the composition 

and terms of reference of an Ad Hoc Senate Committee for Senate consideration." 

SCAR made its recommendations to Senate at the October 4, 1982 meeting 

under Paper S.82-100 "Proposed Membership and Terms of Reference - Ad Hoc 

Senate Committee on Student Evaluation of Faculty Teaching". The report of 

the Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Student Evaluation of Faculty Teaching is 

provided herewith; the terms of reference for that Committee appear at the 

top of page 2 of the report. The recommendations, explanations and rationale 

appear in the report, and the recommendations are incorporated in the motions 

which follow. The earlier recommendations of the Rieckhoff memo on "Student 

Teaching Assessments" Paper S.82-78 are shown, with the present Committee's 

• ? 

recommendation in the motions which follow each recommendation. 

At the instructions of SCAR, designed to provide some broad general 

background information, a number of items referred to in the Committee's report 

are listed later in this communication. 

(A) K.R. Recommendation I: "Abandon any attempt to judge teaching effectiveness 

for the purposes of renewal, tenure, promotion, and salary review on a scale 

finer than the following broad categories: 'Exceptionally good', 'Acceptable', 

and 'Unacceptably bad'." 

MOTION 1: ? 

"That Senate not accept this recommendation" 

K.R. Recommendation II: "Assume in the absence of any specific information 

to the contrary that any instructor who demonstrably knows the subject 

matter of the course he/she is teaching, falls into the group classifiable 

as "acceptable"." 

MOTION 2: 

?

"That Senate not accept this recommendation" 

K.R. Recommendation III: "Accept as 'specific evidence' for other than 

'acceptable' performance only the following in decreasing order of importance: 

(a)

Corroborated testimony from professional colleagues both within and 

outside the University who have personally attended lectures, seminars, 

• ? 

etc. of the person to be judged.. 

(b)

A consistent pattern of complaints by past and present students who have 

taken courses from the person to be judged and whose comments have been 

investigated and weighed according to the commentator's academic standing, 

experience, and general reliability (in the case of complaints, the faculty 

complained about must, of course, have been given the opportunity to 

resoond . 

hi-,/b,-r

rpnnns 

miit al g

o h r,-n

? -

-2-

(c) Statistical opinion surveys of alumni not enrolled as students 

at the time of the survey who have taken courses from the person 

to be judged." 

MOTION

3: "That Senate not accept this recommendation" 

K.R. Recommendation IV: "Prohibit as a matter of policy the use of opinion 

surveys administered to students still enrolled at the University for the 

purposes of making judgements about a faculty member's renewal, promotion, 

tenure, and salary review" 

MOTION

4: "That Senate not accept this recommendation" 

K.R. Recommendation V: "Prohibit as a matter of policy the exertion of any 

pressure expressed or implied on the part of academic administrators on course 

instructors to use student opinion surveys" 

MOTION

5: "That Senate not accept this recommendation" 

K.R. Recommendation VI: "Where course instructors for their own purposes 

and benefit wish to use student opinion surveys they are of course at liberty 

to do so, but the use of results of such surveys should be restricted to the 

instructor" 

MOTION

6: "That Senate not accept this recommendation" 

K.R Recommendation VII: "Encourage students dissatisfied or exceptionally 

pleased with the performance of an instructor to make their complaints and/or 

compliments known to the chair. of the department for appropriate action or 

(if they are too unsure of themselves) have them go to the ombudsman of the 

Student Society, who may act on their behalf" 

MOTION

7: "That Senate accept this recommendation" 

Mdlon

hqS0,mg4g 64MUS

?

(B)

?

The Committee recommends three possible courses for further action. The 

Senate Committee on Agenda and Rules gaveconsideration to the alternatives 

and recommends alternative C of the report with some amplification. 

MOTION:

"That Senate approve that further consideration 

be given by referring this matter to the Senate 

Committee on Undergraduate Studies" 

Some general background information: 

?

1) ? 

A copy of the Rieckhoff paper S.82-78 is provided for background information., 

pages 35-43. 

2). Page 2 of the report indicates a number of items reviewed by the Committee, 

including the following: 

(a) The Gates and Kennedy Report, August 1979, on "Evaluation of Teaching 

at SFU" - Appendix II, pages 12-30. The first paragraph of page 14 and the 

second paragraph of page 24 give information on the purposes of the task 

force. 

IMIM 

0 ?

Some general background information (continued) 

2)

?

continued 

(b)

University Policy AC 2 - Appendix III, pages 31-32. The current 

TSSU Article is now included. 

(c) Draft policy concerning the evaluation of teaching - Appendix IV, 

pages 33-34. This draft accompanied a memorandum dated 80-12-31 from 

the Vice-President Academic to Deans and Chairmen and a memorandum 

dated 81-01-28 from the Vice-President Academic to all faculty members 

in advance of a Faculty Forum then scheduled for February 5, 1981. 

REPORT OF THE SENATE AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON 

STUDENT EVALUATION OF FACULTY TEACHING 

.

.

Nay, 1983 

Committee members: 

J. N. D'Auria 

I. D. Edelmann 

R. A. Holmes 

D. L. Krebs 

A. J. Wotherspoon 

.

4

Terms of Reference 

To review Senate paper S.82-78 and the concerns indicated therein, but 

more particularly to 

(a) investigate and (b) to make recommendations to Senate on the 

specific recommendations of the Rieckhoff memo on "Student Teaching 

Assessments", addressed "To Whom It May Concern" dated April 20, 1982 

and presented to Senate under S.82-78. 

Note: The Committee is not charged with investigating the relative merits of 

various forms of assessment of teaching effectiveness in general, nor is it to 

try to establish conclusively what constitutes good and effective teaching at 

the University level. ? 

The Rieckhoff memo and 

.

recommendations are restricted 

to the evaluation of tenure track faculty for purposes of salary review, tenure, 

and promotion. ? 

They are not concerned with assessments 

I

of T.A. 's and temporary 

or part time teaching staff or teaching support staff, even though similar 

considerations may be applicable in those cases. 

As a first step in its deliberations, this committee conducted a survey 

of all Departments and Faculties in. S.F.U. in order to determine the use that 

is

presently being 

made of student opinion surveys. 

The questionnaire that 

was circulated and- 

a summary of the responses that 

were obtained are contained 

in Appendix I of this report. 

?

The results of this survey indicate that there 

is considerable diversity in the types of opinion surveys employed, the way in 

which they are administered, and the uses to which they-are put. 

?

The Committee 

has also examined other relevant material, including the responses to Senator 

Rieckhoff's memo of May 10, 1982, the Gates and Kennedy report on "Evaluation 

of Teaching at S.F.U." (Appendix II), University policy AC 2 (Appendix III), and 

the "Draft Policy Concerning the Evaluation of Teaching" (Appendix IV). 

According to present University policy (AC 2), Departmental Tenure Committees 

are compelled to evaluate the "teaching effectiveness" of faculty for purposes 

of renewal, tenure, and promotion. 

?

The central question facing this committee 

concerned the liabilities and benefits of one source of information about 

teaching effectiveness; student opinion surveys. 

?

The position advanced in 

the Rieckhoff memorandum is that the liabilities of student opinion surveys 

outweigh their benefits, and therefore, that this source of information ought 

- ?

... 2 

.

.

1^1

Page 2 

not be used by the Departmental Tenure Committees.. 

?

This committee has failed 

to find sufficient evidence against student opinion surveys to support the 

recommendation that they be abandoned, providing, of course, that these 

instruments are properly constructed and administered, and their results 

interpreted in view of their limitations. All types of information about 

teaching effectiveness may be abused, but our investigations have found no 

indication that student opinion surveys have distinguished themselves in this 

respect at S.F.U. ? 

The Committee recommends strongly that the University obtain 

expert opinion on the relative merits of the various methods of assessing 

teaching effectiveness, and on the useand possible misuses of the information 

obtained from them. 

?

In the opinion of the Committee, the general issue of 

evaluation of teaching effectiveness at all levels is sufficiently important 

to warrant further investigation by Senate. 

The charge to this Committee is to investigate and to make recommendations 

to Senate on the specific recommendations of the Rieckhoff memo; and this is 

what follows. 

Recommendation I

"Abandon any attempt to judge teaching effectiveness for purposes of 

renewal, tenure, promotion, and salary review on a scale finer than the following 

broad categories: 'Exceptionally good', 'Acceptable', and 'Unacceptably bad'. 

The Committee recommends that Senate not accept this recommendation. ? 

If

this recommendation were accepted, one consequence might well be to remove 

teaching effectiveness as a criterion in renewal, promotion, tenure, and salary 

review for all Faculty except the very few who fall. in the "Exceptionally good", 

or "Unacceptably bad" categories. 

?

Evaluation of faculty would then tend to be 

based on research productivity alone, which might.cause faculty to invest less 

in teaching and more in research. Although laying no claims to psychometric 

Page 3 

expertise, the Committee felt that a fivepolnt scale (Exceptionally Good, 

Above Average, Average, Below Average, Unacceptably Bad) would be more 

appropriate than the three point scale recommended by Rieckhoff 

.

. ?

Note, 

however, that Gates and Kennedy, p.4 (Appendix II) offer a quite different 

suggestion. 

Recommendation II 

"Assume in the absence of any specific information to the contrary that 

any instructor who demonstrably knows the subject matter of the course he/she 

is teaching falls into the group classifiable as acceptable." 

The Committee recommends that Senate not accept this recommendation. 

?

It

cannot be assumed that an individual is an effective teacher unless there is 

positive evidence in support of that conclusion. 

?

Knowing a subject does not 

entail knowing how to teach it to others. 

?

It is not clear what is meant by 

the statement "who demonstrably knows the subject matter". 

?

To whose 

satisfaction must the faculty demonstrate this knowledge? 

Recommendation III 

"Accept as 'specific evidence' for other than 'acceptable' performance 

only the following in decreasing order of importance: 

(a)

Corroborated testimony from professional colleagues both within 

and outside the University who have personally attended lectures, 

seminars, etc. of the person to be judged. 

(b) A consistent pattern of complaints by past and present students 

who have taken courses from the person to be judged and whose 

comments have been investigated and weighed according to the 

commentator's academic standing, experience, and general 

reliability (in the case of complaints, the faculty complained 

about must, of course, have been given the opportunity to respond, 

his/her responses must also be considered). 

(c)

Statistical opinion surveys of alumni not enrolled as students 

at the time of the survey who have taken courses from the person 

to be judged." 

... 4 

- ?

Page 4 

The Committee recommends that Senate not accept this recommendation. 

?

The

Committee does not believe that these three types of evidence are the only or 

most adequate types of evidence of ineffective teaching. 

?

The Committee has 

failed to find compelling evidence that properly designed and administered 

student evaluation surveys are any less adequate than the three sources of 

information listed above, or that "corroborated testimony" is a better source 

of information than consistent patterns of complaint or statistical surveys 

of alumni. 

?

It seems obvious that evaluators ought to search for consistent 

patterns across all types of information available. 

?

Corroborated testimony 

from colleagues and statistical opinion surveys of alumni might provide 

useful information. ? 

However,.-surveys of alumni are likely to be very 

expensive to administer, and the problems of non-response bias are likely 

to be particularly serious. 

?

The testimony of professional colleagues may 

also be biased. 

Recommendation' IV 

"Prohibit as a 

,

matter of policy the use of opinion surveys administered 

to students still enrolled at the 'University for the purposes of making 

judgments about 

.

a faculty member's renewal, promotion, tenure, and salary 

review." 

The Committee recommends that Senate not accept this recommendation, 

provided that the surveys are properly designed and administered. 

?

This 

Committee questions the practice of faculty members administering their own 

surveys. 

?

There is a wide diversity in the type of survey being used in the 

various departments of the University, and we'think that it would be advisable 

to obtain expert assistance in the design of such questionnaires. When 

feasible, the committee feels that more.uniformity across departments would 

be advantageous (however,' see Gates and Kennedy p.2, for necessary cautions 

An this respect). 

i

sRecommendation V 

"Prohibit as a matter of policy the exertion of any pressure expressed 

or implied on the part Of academic 

administr,ators,on 

course instructors to use 

student opinion surveys." 

Page 5 

The Committee recommends that Senate not accept this recommendation. 

AC 2 requires that teaching effectivness be evaluated, and there is no good 

evidence to indicate that student opinion surveys are any less valid than any 

other source of information. 

Recommendation VI 

"Where course instructors for their own purposes and benefit wish to use 

student opinion surveys they are of course at liberty to do so, but the use 

of results of such surveys should be restricted to the instructor." 

The Conñiittee recommends that Senate not accept this recommendation, since 

as explained previously, there is no evidence to indicate that student opinion 

surveys do not supply a useful (indeed, even the most useful) source of 

information about teaching effectiveness to those responsible for faculty 

renewal, promotion, tenure, and salary decisions. 

Recommendation VII 

?

.

"Encourage students dissatisfied or exceptionally pleased with the 

performance of an instructor to make their complaints and/or compliments 

known to the chair of the department for appropriate action.of (if they are 

too unsure of themselves) have them go to the ombudsman of the Student Society, 

who may act on their behalf." 

The Committee recommends that Senate accept this recommendation. 

In conclusion, the Committee feels that. the whole subject of teaching 

evaluations, no.t only of tenure track faculty but of T.A.'s and temporary 

or part time teaching staff as well. is worthy of further investigation. 

The Committee recommends that Senate either broaden the terms of reference 

of the present committee, strike a new committee, or refer this matter to 

one of the standing committees of Senate for further consideration. 

.

-

?

APPENDIX I

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN 

?

AD HOC SENATE COMMITTEE ON 

......................................................... .

From

.....

EV?LUATION OF FACULTY TEACH iNc........ 

........................................................

I ?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STUDENT EVALUATION OF FACULTY .      TEACHINP. ? 

5 JANUARY 1983. 

Subiect

....................................................

..........

Date

..................................................... 

Recently the Senate created an Ad Hoc Committee on Student Evaluation 

of Faculty Teaching. The following Senators were elected as members: 

A. J. Wotherspoon, Chairman 

Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Student Evaluation 

of Faculty Teaching, 

Secretariat Services, 

Office of the Registrar. 

J. M. D'Auria, 

Department of Chemistry. 

I. D. Edelmann, 

Student Society, 

TC 321. 

R. A. Holmes, 

Faculty of Business Administration. 

D. L. Krebs, 

Department of Psychology. 

This Committee 

-is

charged with making recommendations to Senate on a 

number of recommendations about student evaluation of tenure track faculty for 

purposes of salary review, tenure, and promotion put forward by Professor Klaus 

Rieckhoff some time ago. 

As our first order of business, we would like to apprise ourselves of 

the practices that currently are in effect in the various departments of S.F.U. 

To this end, we would be grateful if you would take a few minutes to answer 

the following questions: 

1. ? 

It is incumbent on all Departments to assess the teaching effectiveness 

of its faculty. What methods of assessing teaching effectiveness do you 

employ in your department? 

a.

student evaluation 

b. informal feedback 

c.

corroborated testimony from professional colleagues, within or 

outside the University, who have attended lectures or seminars 

of the person beinq evaluated? (If so, do you take into account 

the academic standing, experience, and general reliability of 

commentators?) 

d.

survey the opinions of alumni 

e. other (please explain) 

2.

?

Does 

regard 

your 

to the 

Department 

student 

have 

evaluation 

a single, 

of faculty 

formal policy 

teaching, 

and

or

procedure 

do different 

with 

?

instructors employ a variety of practices? 

cont...2 

DEPARTMENT. CHAIRMAN 

STUDENT EVALUATION OF FACULTY TEACHING 

PAGE 2 

?

.

?

.

?

.. . 

?

5 JANUARY 1983 

3.

?

If student evaluations are obtained in your Department: 

a.

Are they mandatory or. at the option of the Professor? 

i. If optional, what proportion of your faculty 

?

?

obtained them? 

?

...

b.

How are student 

.

eyah 

l

atiOnS obtained? 

?

.

?

.

i.

by the Professor..in hisown classes? 

ii.

by some other means? (please explain) 

How often are. the surveys conducted? 

?

. .

?

. .

d. Do you use different means of evaluation for lecture, lab,? 

?

and seminar courses? . 

?

. ? . . 

e. Who has access to the results of 

.

-the surveys? 

i.

the DTC? 

ii.

the Instructor of the course involved? 

iii. 

all faculty? 

iv.

all students? 

?

.

?

.

f. What uses of the surveys are made in your Department? 

4.

?

?

Does your Department place much value on student evaluations of faculty? 

teaching when it assesses faculty members', teaching effectiveness for 

purposes of salary review, tenure and promotion? 

5.

?

Do you as Chairman feel that the surveys are a valid measure of teaching 

. ?

. effectiveness? 

a.

Do you think they provide useful information to the DTC when 

evaluating faculty. performance? 

b.

If you employ student evaluations in DTC deliberations, how do 

you construe them? 

c.

What sorts of information do you .think they can provide? 

d.

In what ways do you feel that they are limited? 

e.

How much weight do you attach to them?. 

6. Would you please provide copies of the teaching evaluation forms used 

in your Department? . 

The Committee would welcome comments from the members of your Department 

Onthe matter of student evaluation of faculty teaching. The next meeting of 

the Committee wil be in mid-January. Please send your answers to this 

questionnaire and any other comments to: 

?

. . . 

Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Faculty Teaching, 

Secretariat Services, 

Office of the Registrar. 

?

.

/by

Summary of Survey Results 

Question 1 All departments use student feedback as a means of evaluating 

teaching effectiveness. 

?

Twelve use informal feedback, nine use 

corroborated testimony' from colleagues, and three surveyed alumni. 

Question 2 Thirteen departments have a single formal policy regarding 

the use of student opinion surveys, eight do not. 

Question 3a In eight departments, it is mandatory for at least some faculty, 

in three it is optional but strongly encouraged, and in ten it is 

completely optional.• 

b In seven departments the surveys are done by the professor in 

his own class, while in fourteen departments it is done by other 

professors, students, or support staff. 

c Eleven departments do surveys every semester. 

d' Three departments use different forms for lecture and seminar/lab 

courses, eighteen do not. 

e In all departments except M.R.M., only the instructor, the 

chairman, and the D.T.C. have access to the results. 

?

In N.R.M., 

the, students also have access. 

f All departments use the results for the benefit of the instructor 

and the chairman, and all 

'

use them in D.T.C.. deliberations, although 

in a few, this was at the instructors option. 

Question 4 Eighteen departments felt that the results of the surveys are 

valuable in evaluating teaching effectiveness, three feel that 

they are not. 

.

.

Question 5 All except two of the departments feel that the information 

provided by; the student evaluations is useful to the D.T.C. 

b Without exception, all departments treat the information? 

'cautiously, and as ONE part of the evaluation process. 

c Most departments feel that'the information provides'a general 

• ? 

impression of student reaction to the instructor. 

?

They also 

provide information as to an instructors attendance, 

punctuality etc; 

?

•

• d Most departments felt that they'are limited 'in their use 

because of poor design and administration.. 

e Although in two departments the student evaluations are the 

only way the D.T.C. uses to evaluate teaching effectiveness, 

most departments place about equal weight on the student 

evaluations as on other sources of information about teaching 

effectiveness. ? 

The student evaluations are seen as ONE 

• ? 

piece of information to be used. 

-

?

Please" note that because of the construction of question 5, the 

wide variability of the answers made it very difficult to sutumarise. 

?

Those 

who wish more precise informationshould contact Secretariat Services or 

one of the couimittee'members' and ask to see' the actual responses received. 

.

- ?

EVALUATION OF TEACHING AT 

S.F.U. 

M. GATES, S 

& A

P. KENNEDY, DEC 

August, 1979 

.

EVALUATION OF TEACHING ATS.F.U. 

This report has been prepared by a two-person task force 

(M. Gates and P.E. Kennedy) charged with 

re c 

o

mmending 

to the 

Vice-President, 

Academic the principles which should govern 

the evaluation 

of teaching and procedures which could be used 

to ensure that teaching Is given appropriate weight in career 

progress assessments. This charge Bprang from recommendation 

6.03 of the Universitty Review Committee Report which suggested 

that the office of the Vice-Président, Academic assume respon- 

sibility 

for ensuring a.. University_wide 

Syst 

ematic approach 

to the evaluation of teaching performance. 

Before addressing these questions 

ex

plicitly, we iould 

like to stress that our 

reco 

mmendations are directed exclusively 

to the use of teaching evaluations for the purpose of playing 

a role in career progres.s assessments. We have ignored the 

more important question ,of the use of such evaluations for the 

purpose of improving 

teachin 

g..Although our recommendations 

if implemented, can play a positive role in this latter 

dimension, it is 

clearly .'the case that better methods of 

evaluation exist for this purpose. .Although 

.a 'recommendation 

on this matter was not solicited, we would nonetheless recommend 

that the 

V

ice-President, Academic commission from the Faculty. 

of Education a, guidebook Informing;fay of how they might 

usefully undertake 

e

valuations designed for self-Improvement 

Our

re

commendations and .a 

bri

efrationale for each are 

listed below. 

-2-

We do not 

?

believe 

?

it

is

feasible 

?

to ? 

structure 

?

a

University-wide systematic approach 

?

to ? 

the

?

evaluation of 

?

teach- 

ing performance in 

?

the sense 

?

that every instructor must 

'

be

evaluated 

?

(for purposes of career progress 

?

assessment) 

?

accord- 

ing to some specified set, of criteria using Some specified 

set of 

?

instruments. 

?

There 

is

too much 

v

ariation 

?

in course 

characteristics and 

?

instruction modes 

?

to accomplish this 

?

in

any unequivocal fashion. 

?

Furthermore, 

?

at ? 

this 

University 

there ? 

is ? 

too much antagonism on the part of 

.

'both 

individual 

faculty and departments towards 

the centralization 

of

such 

matters. 

?

An ,oft 

?

repeated 

?

thought in the literature relevant 

to the question 

is

that evaluation imposed from above seems 

doomed 

?

to ? 

fail. 

2. ? 

We do believe that 

?

it is 

feasible to structure 

?

a

University-wide 

syst 

ematic approach to the evaluation of 

teaching performance 

?

in ? 

the 'sense that every department 

should be obliged to follow a set of general and flexible 

guidelines 

?

in evaluating an individual's teaching performance 

and ? 

that ? 

every in    

?

should cooperate 'in 

?

this process. 

The , 

intention here is that all departments be required to 

use

certain kinds of inputs to the evaluation of teaching perfor- 

mance, ? 

alLhough ? 

the precise nature of 

?

these 

?

inputs need not 

be ? 

identical 'for 

?

all, 

d e p 

artments or for all 

?

individuals within 

a department. 

?

F

urthermore, 

?

those charged with the 

?

evaluation 

of ? 

teaching ? 

at

?

the

,

d

e p

artmental 

?

level ? 

should be obliged 

?

to

state explicitly 

?

the basis on which,thejr evaluation of an 

individual's 

?

teaching was undertaken, ':so 

?

that ? 

those ? 

responsible 

for reviewing the departmental decision can do so from a proper 

perspective. 

3. No attempt should be made to arrive at an objective 

measure of teaching effectiveness since our reading of the 

relevant 

literature suggests that this is an impossible task. 

Evaluation of teaching is subjective and must be recognized as 

such; any attempt to pretend otherwise will meet with hostility. 

Our recommendations below focus instead on ensuring that a 

viable 

subjective procedure is established. 

4.

We feel that all evaluations of teaching should be 

based on a variety of inputs, one of which should be student 

input of some kind., In our view, it is just as inappropriate 

to evaluate teaching without student. input as it is-to base 

such evaluations solely on student input. This feeling is 

.cr'nsjstent with the relevant literature. 

5.

The nature of the student input is important since 

considerable controversy exists in the relevant literature 

concerning 

its

validity (although it must be noted its 

reliability is accepted). In recommendation 

specify a particular form that we feel will, for most cases, 

be an appropriate way of effecting this input. 

may well 

be, however, that a particular individual or a particular 

departmen.t may object to this type of student input. Any 

Individual or any department should be allowed to use a 

different type of student Input 

ía

long as they make it clear 

-4-

an

why

al

they 

ternatIve 

f

eel

?

that 

form 

?

f

of

or-the 

studentparticular 

?

Input ? 

is

?

I

ndividual 

appropriate. 

'in question 

6. , We 

re commend 

?

that. the Student input 

?

take the form 

of

is-tics. 

a

one-page.étudent 

?

questionnaire with the following 

?

character- 

a)

'

?

Only tour questjo5 

?

should 

.

be ' 

flked with appropriate 

spaces 

p rovided 

?

for written responses. 

?

These 

qu

estions are: 

I)

?

What do ' 

y

ou consider to be the weakest features of 

this course? 

What do you Consider 

?

to be 'the strongest features of 

this 

?

course? 

What do you Consider 

?

to be 

?

the weakest 

fe atures 

'

of

this 

in

structor as a teacher? 

iv) ? 

What do Y 

ou

consider 'to be 

?

the strongest 

?

features of 

this ? 

I

nstructor as a 

?

teacher? 

This provides student input in 

?

the form of 

subjective opinions 

with 

Implicit 

c

riteria chosen on the 

basi s 

of what 

?

the ? 

student 

himself or herself feels is appropriate. 

?

Only by reading 

through these Comments will someone charged 'with 

ev

aluating an 

individual's 

?

t

eaching be able 

'

to utilize 

?

this 

?

input. 

?

We feel 

that doing this will allow those doing the 

ev

aluating to obtain 

a proper "feel" for the 

?

individual's 

?

t

eaching and allow them to 

better 

?

Integrate 

?

this 'subjective ? 

in'formatjofl"wjth their 

?

subjec- 

tive assessment 

?

of other 

?

Input. 

b) ? 

Unlcs a 

dep

artment 

?

insists, ? 

this 'questionnaire 

?

should 

contain no means 

w

hereby a numerical rating 

?

can be calculated. 

Tw many individuals in the University 

are opposed to the use 

of numerical ratings 

,

to make this 'an 

C) ,

The

q

uestionnaire should be designed 

'

such that a carbon copy 

is automatically produced 

'

instructors should be given this copy 

after grades have been submitted (or a' transcript thereof should 

the class 

size 

be small). 

d)

Pepa'rtmental Assistants should be in charge of organizing 

these student surveys, ensuring that someone other 

'

than the in- 

structor in question is responsible for its administration. 

e)

The title 'of. this 

q

uestionnaire should not Include the 

terminology "teaching 

e

valuation," but should instead contain 

,some leàs emotive term such as "student opinion on teaching." 

These 

q

uestionnaires should always be referred to as student 

"input" to the teaching e 

v

aluation process and not as student 

"evaluations." 

f)

This questionnaire should be administered near the end of 

the course. 

g)

Student opinion should be sought via the 

?

questjonna 

?

in

all courses taught by untenured tenure- 

. t . 

rack faculty, in all 

courses taught by faculty expected to be considered for promo 

tion in the near future, in all courses taught by faculty 

who

will be up for.salary review within two teaching semesters and 

in all courses taught by faculty for whom therema 

r

be reason 

to believe a change in teaching 

ef

fectiveness has 'occurred. 

7. Student input should be 

supp 

lemented with a' variety of 

additional,, inputs as a 

p

propriate to the individual in question. 

-6-

•

Examples 

are copies 

of course outlines, 

?

reading lists, 

?

exams 

and class 

handouts, 

peer evaluation based on workshop or 

seminar presentations, 

i

nformation on Supervision of graduate 

student research, statements from the instructor in question 

commenting on the student opiniOnø as expressed in the questionn- 

aires and corridor 

'

gossip. The individual in question should 

be made responsible for ensuring that all materials that he 

or she feels are relevant to an evaluation of his or her teach- 

ing are made available to those responsible for assessing 

teaching performance. 

8. Those charged with evaluating teaching by using this 

information should ensure that they are aware of what little 

• ? 

knowledge we do have concerning the validity of student opinion, 

so that subjective assessments can be made in an informed 

manner. For example, the-relevant literature suggests that 

the following are true: 

a)

There Is a large measure of agreement between students and 

other observers concerning the behaviors judged to be important 

for effective teaching.' 

b) : Students are at least partially capable of 

distinguishing 

certain qualities of instruction which Increase their knowledge 

and motivation. 

c)

Students seem to be rather generous or lenient 'in their 

ratings of faculty, a phenomenon that 'seems to become stronger 

as the students become more advanced in their 'studies. 

-7-. 

d)

Student variables such as. sex 

,.age, class standing, class 

size and grades assigned' have little or no 

re

lationship to 

ratings of 

the course or the instructor. 

e)

The evidence 

on the effect of course 

char 

acteristics such 

as course content, difficulty level, class size, whether 

the Course is reuired or elected, year or level of the course 

and the time at which the cOurse is offered is 

?

al.

1)

The

e

vidence on the effect of instructor characteristics 

such as 

sex, 

.,academic. 

?

qualificatjo9 and degrees, 

e

x p

erience, grading standards, knowledge of subject, knowledge 

of teaching, research performance, 

pe

rsonality, Popularity and 

ability to change in response to feedback is also equivocal. 

g) The rnostbasic complaint about student 

qu

estiOaj 

'

9

is

that they reflect student attitudes rather than learning; 

although most evidence suggest 

'

s -that student evaluation of 

teaching and student learning are Positively 

c

orrelated, this 

evidence is not strong. It is conjectured though, that unless 

instruction is viewed by students in a positive light there 

are likely to be severe limitations placed on communication 

and learning. 

h)

It is 

notable that theforegoing comments indicate' that 1) 

the temptingly simple riot. 

I

Ion that students give high ratings to 

"popular" instructors is neither 

sup

ported nor r 

ejected 

'

by

empirical evidence and 'ii) the 

e

mpirical evidence neither 

supports nor rejects the hypothesis that 

expe 

ctations of high 

-8-

gre81e8 students, to give an instructor a 

'

favourable 

evaluation.. ? 

..

?

1) There is 'a tendency among humans to remember extreme views 

when reviewing 

.

a mass of .comments., and 

give "them more weight 

than 'their relative frequencies deserve when forming-an overall 

assessment of the 

.

comments under review'. 

J) Student learning has been shown to be directly related to 

the amount of work an instructor has forced' them to' do. 

9. In many departments there is currently a tendency to 

"explain . 

away!' evidence suggesting either "good" teaching or 

"bad" teaching and thus to deny teaching its proper role in 

the assessment process' . In our Opinion, it is this behavior 

on the, part of departmen,al tenure committees rather than 

University policy or-attitudes of those charged with reviewing 

departmental assessments 

.

that is the main cause of teaching 

effectiveness not . 

,

being given proper weight 

in

career 

' assess- 

ments. Only if those charged at the departmental level with 

evaluating teaching are willing to treat it as an achievable 

task and are prepared to formulate from an informed perspective 

a subjective'. judgement based on a variety of inputs will it be 

possible for teaching to play its proper role in career assess- 

ment'. . Al], departments should b.e &ncouraged to adopt a positive 

attitude towards the subjective 'evaluation:of teaching. 

Onthe basis of the empirical evidence, it cannot con- 

.

?

-9-

elusively 

be shown that student 

eva

luations 

-

of teaching are 

valid in 

the sense that they are-able to accurately discriminate 

among instructors on the basis of their teaching abilities. 

On the 

other hand, however, it cannot be shown that such evalua- 

tions, 

properly conducted, are misleading on this score. In our 

interpretation of this literature, the circumstances under which 

evaluations of this nature are misleading are connected either 

to the quantification of the information received, or the speci- 

ficity 

of the information requested. We feel that the very 

general open-ended feedback solicited by our recommended 

q

uestionnajre will avoid this problem. 

Un

fortunately, there 

exists no empirical evidence on the use   

?

of open-ended 

student evaluation of teaching; in defense of our suggestion 

we can only appeal to general results from 

o

therstudies that 

indicate that on the whole students are able to properly assess 

Instructors and our 

ow

nexperlence which indicates that -a careful 

reading of student comments provides valuable information about 

an Instructor. 

In our opinion, student input should be viewed as informa- 

tion: that can be useful to those charged with assessing teachin. 

Although it is possible that this Information could be mislead- 

ing-, we feel that the nature of our reco1nmendeq'uest'ionnaire 

and the-ability, of a 

we

ll-informed and concerned p'rôup of 

assessors-to-view-that 

i

nformation In-its 'proper perspective' 

should ensure that this information plays a useful role In the 

teaching assessment process-. 

-10- 

• ? References ? 

The literaturein..t.he area of. student. evaluation of? 

teaching is considerable. 

Our task was 

eased 

by the existence 

of several -survey articles.-of which the following we found to 

bemost useful. 

?

•.. :. ? . 

?

.

• ? 

Frey, P.. (1978) 

"A

Two-Dimensional Anayais of. Student Ratings 

of Instruction," Research in Higher Education 9, 69-91. 

• Knapper, C. 'et 

.

al (1977) If Teaching Is Important ... The 

Evaluation of Instruction in Higher Education 

.

Clarke 

Irwin & Co., Toronto . (A 

.

CAUT Monograph), 

Kuilk J.and W,, .McKeachie (1975) "The Evaluation of Teachers in 

Higher Education," chapter 7 in F.. Kerlinger (ed.) 

Review of Research In Education Peacock Publishers, 

Itsca, ? 

Ill. ? 

.. ? 

. ? •. . ? 

. ?

.

Murray, II. (1973) A: Guide to Teaching 

Evaluation Ontario 

Confederation of University 

*

Faculty Associations, Toronto. 

Sheehan, D. (1975) "On the Invalidity of Student Ratings for 

Administrative Personnel Decisions" Journal of Higher 

Education 46, 687-700. . 

?

S..,. 

In addition to .a review of the teaching evaluation 

literature, this report draws extensively on responses to a 

short questionnaire and. interviews conducted bythtask.force 

to elicit Information and opinions concerning the actual 

practice of teaching, evaluation at S.F.U. The questoanajre, 

presented below, was sent to all chairmen and was also 

-11- 

administered orally to selected Deans and resource people. Only 

ten chairmen responded to 

the questionnaire although follow-up 

reminders were sent. Apparently a combination of the extended 

strike and delegation 

of the task were responsible for the low 

return rate. 

EVALUATION OF TEACHING 

Dan Birch has asked us to recommend "the. 

principles which should govern the evaluation of 

teaching and procedures which could be used to en- 

sure that teaching is given appropriate weight in 

career progress assessments." We would appreciate 

your advice on the following questions, i.nconsu].ta- 

tion with your DTC or other faculty members if 

appropriate. 

1. What teaching evaluation procedures are 

currently employed in your department? What are their 

advantages/drawback8? (Please 

,

attach copy If formal 

instrument is used..) 

?

.

.2. What role do you consider student evaluation 

of teaching should play in overall 'assessment? 

3.. What responsibility should be place'd on 

individual, faculty members to'p.r'ovide documentation 

for teaching assessment? 

? .

4.

Should there be a "University-wide. systematic 

approach t 

,

o the evaluation of teaching performance?" 

(Recommendation 6.03 of 

.

thè URC Report)? 'If so, what 

should the components' 'be? 

5.

Would It be useful to Initiate follow-up 

monitoring of student evaluation of. teaching 

'  in '    

your 

department? (after graduation mail surveys etc.) 

6.

What documentation-of teaching performance 

should be considered optimal/minimal In assessment? 

7.

In general, 

,

do you consider that teaching (at 

all levels) is given sufficient weight 

relative to'ot.hCr 

faculty responsibilities? 

-12- 

in-summary, the responses indicated: 

1. Most of the departments surveyed currently employ 

some kind of teaching evaluation procedure, administered some 

of the time by some faculty. In other words, practices vary con- 

siderably both across and within departments 

?

Use of a Stan- 

dardized departmental instrument is normally highly recommended, 

but seldom compulsory. In some depatments teaching evaluation 

procedures are left up to the individual professor. In others 

student unions are completely responsible for generating an 

.

ti-

calendars. In general, it seems that junior faculty are more 

prone to employ a formal evaluation procedure with regularity, 

while senior faculty are less interested 

?

Other notable 

varia- 

tions across departments are whether course evaluations are auto- 

matically submitted to the chairmen; whether evaluations are 

administeredby the professor, TA's, DA's or colleagues; the 

length of the questionnaire; the proportion devoted to. course 

rather than teacher evaluation; whether the 

questionnaire is 

designed for numerical rating; the amount of background data 

requested and.. whether. or not the questionnaire contains a precise 

statement concerning the purpose of the survey. 

Most respondents appear to be reasonably satisfied with 

their departmental instruments. The main advantages perceived 

are.ease of application and tailoring to individual departmental 

requirements. Disadvantage C are selective employment by pro- 

fessors (both 

in adininistrati 

. on.and 

in submission of DTC. 

materials),, limited comparability across dep3rtrnents and 

•

-13- 

across faculties, variability in the diagnostic value of the 

questions themselves and in return rates from students. Over 

the past year some departments or individual faculty 

have 

Sus- 

pended their normal evaluation procedures as a result of the 

Student Society questio'nnaire 

effort. However, it seems likely 

that former procedures will be reinstated due to the delay in 

processing the student data, 

2. Most respondents consider that student evaluation of 

teaching should play some role in overall assessment, but that 

it

should be neither overemphasized nor constitute the only 

measure. The main disagreement is to how important this role 

should. be 

. Some feel that student assessment should be 

considered 

very seriously as one aspect of evaluating faculty teaching per- 

formance. Others believe that student evaluations are of doubt- 

ful value, unless they are clearly very bad or very good. Many 

are concerned that students lack the. competence' to evaluate the 

course itself and teaching performance 

?

In addition, there are 

suspicions that students are-likely to reward or punish the pro- 

fessor i,n evaluations, based on mid-term grades etc., thus en- 

couraging the professor' to modify his/her standards ande'xpe.cta- 

tions. Some doubts were also expressed concerningDTc use of 

evaluation materials in terms of manipulating the data. to provIde 

the desired 

I n

t

erpretation. Several res 

' pondents'con 

g

jder that 

student evaluations currently loom larger than they should In 

overall teaching assessment in the absence of 

'

other systematic 

feedback, and that corridor gossip may in fact convey a more 

-14- 

accurate'picture 

ofa faculty member's teaching effectiveness 

despite the obvious danger of relying heavily. on this source 

of information. ? 

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any real con-. 

sensus amongst faculty as to what constitutes good teaching, 

either as an ideal goal or in relation to normal job performance. 

Consequently, thére'seems to be a' considerable variation in 

attitudes concerning the evaluatjonof teaching in general, as 

well as over the role of student assessmentin particular. 

3. :Opinions vary considerably concerning the amount of 

responsibility that individual faculty members should assume 

for providing documentation for teaching assessment. While 

•

?

some respon4en 

,

ts believe that the faculty member should be totally 

responsible for providing teaching evaluations, others consider 

that collection of data. on teaching should be the responsibility 

of the department as a whole. One respondent suggested that 

departmental.. Curriculum Committees would serve as an appropriate 

mechanism 

-

for compiling teaching effectiveness assessments "other- 

wise the results may reflect differential powers of persuasion 

:

?

or surveying skills of individual faculty". 

It is evident that opinions concerning the amount of 

• responsibility that should be borne by faculty, in the provision 

of

.-.

teaching assessment, material, are strongly correlated to 

•

at'titudes.conce'rning 

administration of compulsory, standardized 

instruments. In departments where such in8trumnt'8 

are not 

employed routinely, the'only consensus appears' to be that it is 

5 ?

, ?

-15- 

u,p ? 

to

?

the indivual faculty 

?

to submit ? 

something ? 

about ? 

his/her 

teaching ? 

to protect 

?

his/her ? 

own ? 

interests ? 

if nothing ? 

else. 

4. ? 

The opinions of respondents 

?

are,most ? 

sharply divided 

on'the question of whether -or not 

?

there 'should be a University- 

wide systematic approach 

?

to ? 

the evaluation of 

?

teaching perfor- 

mance. 

?

The advocate's ? 

of a University-wide questionnaire con- 

sider it to be 

?

the fairest and most practical 

?

solution to 

?

the

problem of assessment, ? 

in order to give more credit to good 

teaching and 

?

to

improve 

the performance of others 

?

These re- 

spondents generally feel that 

?

the University has not 

?

given 

sufficien,t emphasis 

?

to teaching through evaluation processes 

,

for

?

the ? 

purpose of 

?

promotion, 

?

tenure and salary 

?

adjustment) 

and ? 

that insufficient support for the promotion 

?

of-teaching 

has' been provided by senior administration. 

?

The 'remainder of 

the respondents ? 

clearly consider University-wide systematic 

approaches ? 

to ? 

teaching evaluation to b'e inappropriate, 

?

usually 

because ? 

they believe 

?

that departments have specific requirements 

that ? 

reflect particular teaching modes, 

?

and ? 

that ? 

a universally 

applicable instrument implies a.leyel' of validity which would 

be difficult ? 

to substantiate without years of monitoring 

?

One

respondent suggests 

?

that faculty, refresher training programs would 

be more appropriate if 

?

the goal were to improve, university 

?

teach- 

ing, ? 

"if

?

the

.

aim is ? 

to reward good 

?

teaching. 

?

it may be argued 

that ? 

good ? 

teaching 

is ? 

its own reward". 

5. ? 

Most respondents ? 

agree ? 

that follow-up monitoring of' 

student ? 

evaluation 

?

of-.teaching, ? 

such asinait surveys 

?

of ? 

graduands, 

.

-16- 

might well prove useful In reducing the biases of in-class 

evaluations. Some departments are 

ex

perimenting with such 

monitoring at present, but it is too soon for conclusive re- 

sults. The main concern is that such procedures might prove 

too cumbersome and expensive relative to the benefits derived, 

at least as a routine device. In addition, problems based 

on low return rates, distorted samples etc., all damage the 

validity of the exercise. One respondent is firmly convinced 

about the futility of follow-up monitoring, in that "the 

average student will remember no more about the average teacher 

than the average teacher remembers about the average student". 

In general, however, there is support for follow-up 

evaluations, particularly at the program and course evaluation 

level, although the exercise is not felt to be worth the effort 

for routine merit assessments. 

6. The consensus from this survey is that a minimal 

amount of documentation should be required for assessment of 

teaching performance. . However, there Is no agreement as to 

what this minimal amount should be. Some feel that this should 

be left to the discretion of the department chairman relating 

to the situation of individual faculty in the department. 

Others consider that the results of some form of departmentally 

-

administered survey.of students currently enrolled in courses 

constitute the minimum. Still others leave it up to the 

individual faculty member to submit all information he/she 

deems relevant, such as course outlines, examlnatjons, theses 

SWR

supervised, reading lists etc. Most consider that additional 

Information on. teaching, beyond student evaluations, is desirable. 

7. The respondents are again divided as to whether or 

not teaching is given, sufficient weight relative to other faculty 

responsibilities. 

On the positive side, the respondents were 

satisfied 

that teaching is given considerable emphasis, at 

least In their own departments. On the negative side, It 

was felt that despite the formal guidelines relating to renewal, 

promotion, tenure and salary review, publication appears to be 

definitely emphasized'at the expense-of-teaching. As one re- 

spondent expressed this problem: 

"In 'writing, teaching Is given sufficient weight. 

In practive, it is not. In practice, good 

'   re- 

search Is allowed to 'make up for' poor teaching, 

but good teaching is not allowed to 'make up for' 

-weak research." 

To be sure, communication of personal research experience 

through teaching 18 one of the prime distinctions between uni- 

versity-and college education. However, as we are all aware, 

communication at the freshman level requires totally different 

skills from those employed in writing a paper for a refereed 

academic journal. Furthermore, since we all enter university 

teaching as virtually untrained amateurs 

)

it would be unfortunate 

indeed if the University did not employ every means at its dis- 

posal to promote and assess excellence in teaching on a level 

commensurate with its dedication to research. 

APPENDIX III

I i

Current University policy .concerning the evaluation of 

teaching is as follows: 

1. Faculty 

Appendix' II to Policy AC 2 (Renewal,. Tenure, .and' 

Promotioii)• includes the following at.atcnient: 

'2.1Teachi.n9 L'ffectivenuss 

'Success as a teacher, however rucai;ni'iid 'or''.;scisscd, 

is the paramount criterion for evaluation. 'Generation 

of.enthusi'asm in students, dedicated i'nvolvemerU within 

one's- discipline; openness to innovation and he 

capacity for a broad approach 

to one's subject matter . 

are all important aspects of teaching effectiveness. 

2 ?

TSSU Bargainin 

Unit-Employeus. 

A copy of Arti.clb XVII of. the CoilciGl 

e Agreement 

between the University and TSSU 

is shown below. 

Article VI!' £nnp)oym.ntEoalolttoin

• A. ?

An.mployae- may be evaluated

least once Audi.1 any

semester In alitch sh./h.

Is employed. An employee

, cay

•

reqo.st that an evaluation of tier/his performance be

undertaken during a aennater and an evaluation will ice

lade p,ttbided such a request. Is c.c.Ieed by the Cl.;jli,tn.nt

Chalfn.fl at least One nOntli tinfOil cI.i.e, and In that

0. - Cnaluat ton shut be inade.on the perfornance of the

dttea aettgned to tlee.

anomSsnelt of true. enployvie

perlatinunce by the students assigned to tire t

intulOyec,. -

and f'y the person 00 ahOc tiim..nptóye. ii vesjlcihistbl

- ?

and/Or Such otter person(e) as may tve-deolgiuvted by tile

• ?

' Chairman.

0.. ?

A copy of the .oalautton shall be tormevded to the

•. ?

employee andili/h. shell Lie Permitted

add eelceranf

co—ants an Ills' evaluation to her/lit. .n'ployn.nt.

hi,. ?

tvrpaeteen's that do not curcently breve fotnat •ystv'l.'.

5 ?

af-evaluitiOn of tile 50(5 perfoemanc. of I.arg.ilii.r.

1 ?

. ?

unit

stym 

i e.s

elicit be •flCos.geJ by the liii a,

,hll y

Initiate and maintain such .ieza.

F. ?

the design, ednlnleseutlon and tnteegre.tatinvi oI.nucii

enaluallons. falls within the a,.. of '..an.qemeius'n 'lilts

and ro',1oiisihhlltite. ?

. ..,, ? . ?

. ?

ARTICLE XVII Employment Evaluation - Revised as follows December 1982 

0,5101. sill t.Qloy.ent [valuasiun

A. ha eselo>.s

-It

be evaloatea at dust once during' any semester In

she/he is ?

lay,g. ?

The

Criteria tirall be maoe clear to 'She

employee

mpi

croe.eot Of

Outlet. ?

6. (-acept In Cases of. gross •ilcanhinct relatea to the employees suitabIlIty

farempl.yaahnt, •,ali.aOldn most be .eaas only on

the e.elay.es

qualiliCathoat anm

pert nrsancs 01 aslIgnea Outlet and respcnhbbilitl,s.

C. (alluutloli flay Inc cue •sseslrne,nt of the tnQloyens perfnnnAnce

by the

studentS astignem to tie e.aplayee. Lain

esployee shell be assesse

On an

louI,loaal asses.nt lore. tvelu.tluo may usA incline asSessment t, the

person to __ Ire employee Is ro'spo/rs iii, and/or Such Other person(s) as

ma,- be 0i5 Ignatme 0, the Chairman.

0. I acnanpart-ment Snail prepare sluaehut assc'sss*lht ior'm.s suited to Its owl;

use, sath tee ccasulfitvn Of flit' Departmental Shop Stemara. or Other

SolOn tepr,seetas,,., . A Copy of. the lore must be formatted tn the Union

stuutfl( assessments 'east be . slatea

Inert shall be no alteration Of

the

employees tOmttletmd

-, Student

asses sa.ent terms or hat suesary prepared (lie, ci roe, by any persons granted

access to In...

hotels to all original student assnoserent iornii ana'ell Sunanaries of (hose

forms shall be buararteen to each person e,aio.teo therein.

The Original ?

Completed lures shell

o r mithheio from one person eaaloatea Only until

submission of final gnats is tonpielea. Access to original student

assessment tones shall be leallible to the individual for a pnriod Of

twee (3) ssters ialioning tile semaster in .111th the asteasment sat

made.

H. -A

copy of the' aap.rt.ent's eeaI.tenn shall be fOroarteG to theb(lOh

enaloatea by

tile inn of (ha first cut of classes of. the io)loobng

semester, th, evaluation shill not normally be consleeret part of the

tile until she/he has had reasonable opportunity to Qiscusi the evaluation

.ilh her/his superoisor aura aOd connects to the file. This snail not

pritlu g

e the use of S

he evaluation

for rehiring An the s mat Star

sm tiiteiy iailnming the evaluation.

problems in evaluations, or using them in my proceeoings against the

.mplopee.

The design, aueln,str.tion and insorpretatlun of such evaluations tails

sillil

the area of management's rights aria responsibilities. .

APPENDIX IV

1)4)

DRAFT POLICY CONCERNING THE ? 

EVALUATION OF TEACHING' 

1.

Teaching includes instruction 

in

regular courses, 

reading courses, and the supervision of graduate students. 

The purpose 'of evaluating teaching is two-fold:, to assist 

faculty 'members in improving the quality of their 

teaching and to provide information for use in evaluating 

the performance of faculty members. 

2.

The evaluation of faculty members' teaching is an 

important responsibility of departments and appropriate 

procedures are to be developed and used. 

3.

A variety of types' of information should bd'used in 

evaluating teaching., Sources of this information include 

students, course materials, direct observation, and state- 

ments from faculty members concerning their own teaching. 

4.

A course survey questionnaire or other suitable 

information concerning student opinion will be one of the 

sources of information used in evaluating teaching. 

?

is

S. ? 

Department Chairmen will en .sure that full information 

is provided to faculty members concerning the evaluation 

of their teaching 

?

Appropriate standards of confidentiality 

will be maintained. 

6. ? 

Department Chairmen.are responsible for providing 

information on the process and outcome of the evaluation of 

teaching for use in the review processes required under 

Policies AC 2 and AC 22 

7

?

The Office of the Vice-President, Academic will 

provide information and advice to departments wishing to 

improve their.teaching evaluation 

,

procedures. 

8 ?

The University will provide assistance to faculty 

members who wish to improve the quality of their teaching 

.34

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

ka9

MEMORANDUM

SENATE                  

From

SENATE COMMITTEE 

ON AGENDA AND RULES 

Su61ect 

STUDENT TEACHING ASSESSMENTS      

Date ? 

JUNE 17, 

?

198? 

The foiioingotion from K. E. Rieckhoff was, received by the Senate 

.

Committee 

on Agenda and Rules for discussion at Senate. 

MOTION 

That the Senate of Simon Fraser University goes on 

record as endorsing the recommendations I to VII 

regarding assessments of teaching effectiveness as 

stated in the memo of April 20th, 1982 by K 

?

E

Rieckhoff on the subject of "Student Teaching Assess- 

ments" and requests the adm 

i

nistration to implement 

these 'recommendationsas a matter of policy" 

Senator Rieckhoff's memorandum of April-20, 1982 is attached 

tb.1tt%ur:: ...............

AprIl 20, 1982

Date......................................................

• I0

10 WliOH

IT MAY

S.iI,ed "Stdt Teaching Assessments"

A recent memo by a department jchdfrman to his faculty arid I ib

• ?

'instructors' regarding "STUDENT TEACHING ASSESSMENTS" prompts inc

•

ll lo: dcl"lon.. ?

The use and particularly t'Re'misuse' of such assess -

melits has been a longstanding concern of mine

Only the mitur(

d ?

ise'at't'flude regarding such assessments In my. own depart-

ment, I.e. to leave itup to Individual. I.sistructorsto decide oil

their use and to take them only "cum grano sails" rather th iii as

t-ue measures

of Leaching' ef.fectJeness,.has.pre'verited'me frUm

going public with 'my concerns

I am beginning to realize that as

a responsible member of the Senate and of the Board of Governors

I cannot continue iii the luxury of such a parochial

att

flude

Elsewhere in the university academic careers are endangered,

promoted, or efforts misdirected on the basis of the widespread

and gross misuse of lnformdtl

on of questionable real: value

(.0

anyone with the possible exception of the affected Instruclor How

seriously

s.0

ch. assessment.s are taken by academic administrators

07-

is. ?

by the following quote. from the memo referred to

above: ?

"This perspective on teac.hing'eff

ectiveriss.js all impor -

taut one dnd It Is expected that all faculty dud Instructors

will

ensure that students, have an' oppor.tun fly. to

dssess their

t each itig

1 shall address myself briefly to a number of questions ill 11i

hope of provokliig thought,, examinationianid discussion among

'Fit y

colleagues, within the Fdculty Associ iliori, among the senior

academic .ddminlstraLors," and perhaps even within the Senate an(I.

the Board and their appropriate commillees with a view to et)rrnt

tive action to eliminate this.,serious threat to our acathmi

Integrity

The questions are the following

Why: do

. I consider the present prdcticeto be 'deplorable

and a threat.. to our acddemlc integrity?

How did the present. practice evolve arid why

is it widely

tolerated by' so mdlly faculty members and academic"ad.min-'

is.trdt.Ors?

What measures can arid should he taken to el Iminate the

misuse and 'a

u'se of student. teaching assessments.?

rrely,

•assessme

its

ever,

a1,

for

''staff.

"obj.eclive"rdtings.,frequc,,tly

rate ?

dssessment

lit

lit

In the first place there are no dejreed upon criteria by

.which teaching effectiveness

the

,"ünlverslty level can be

assessed ?

At this time there exists no scholarly consensus

outside a. few rather obvious 'des1'r

: able- and'.a similar number of

obviously .

, undesirable characteristics . of an "effective,t.eactur".

Even 'oil some of those, eceptioris to the rule can often he Iuuiid

• cc . ep

t for the one. rule that an 'efec live teacher must know anti

unerstand the subject matter that hi/she Is teaching

But

Iedvl'ng aside, the absence of 'a' consensus oti what constitutes

"effective teaching."

, there Is. d furlhe.r'absence of con,serIus as

to what 'extent student' sUrvey's are va'! id. tools to med,&ure

.anvt..1n'g.(everi';i'f.there

were an.agreeinent on•.what" constitutes

teching effectiveness) ?

Studies have been made and I havu read

myself some of the original liter itjre

jir

the field ?

All that

cm itbe said at this time

that these ?

tudies ire (ont.rov r tat

and that no consensus ha eriet ged

This state

affairs is riot reilly surprising

In the ?

first Instance, a students evaluation

will

be strongly iiif!utirctd

by It

pst

? ?

e xperience with teachers and by his/her

expectations regarding a particulir course If his/her Previous

exposure to teachers has led him/her to expect very little, then

mt rely competent. and conscientious teaching will appear "good"

. ?

'arid "very good" to him/her. ?

In the second

pi'ace, st't.ident

populations are not homoqeneous and their differences extend to

likes and dislikes and differential responses regarding

part icu tar modes of learning and teach log. ' The importance of

thest, factors to the student evaluation is exemplified by

evaluillons In which a particular teacher iii a particular course

was rated by some students as "exceptionally good", by others is

xcept tonally bad" ?

These are not. imaginary

situat Ions

lhcv

occur all ihe time and 1 am awdre of at least one instance where

such

dichotomy was further ex

lored. In an open-ended'.

questionnaire,

where the re,as:orr for the jssesment was asked for,

arid identical reasons were given for these divergent judgments,

i.e. what':app.eared to some students to' be at' exceptlonaiiy :gooni,

i.peet of the course was considered by others inn a totally

different, way

In some disciplines ideological compatibility

between student'. dod instructor has' been shown to be an impur I ant

factor

f I 'ienclng assessments

Unit 'the problem of v'alidl.ty, ' rd ibi

. l ity, and' meaning of

these opinion

urvey's 'is compounded'

by the fact that, 'the result. '

are considered, interpreted, a.i. used ?

1 prefer to' say "jnisni;ed"

- by our socalled "peers' 1

, i. e ?

eople who 'with. some not it) Le

exceptions, have .sbsolite!y no professional kniowledqe req,nrdinq

.ipproprlate.

social

science' methodology ?

lit

lug

All ?

i . nstllutlon'that. ?

2) ?

psychologlcalreasons.. .....

to ?

by ''increasing. 'student

to the student and give consider.jtlo,, to his opinion became a

public "motherhood" Issue.

This led to

almost. totally uncritical

acceptance Of a variety of concepts that tended to abolish, as

opinion surveys as the domliearit tool for such assessments.

ot their IImlte.d knowledge

. and Iniformat iOn bdse,. they tend

1(1

give the benefit of the doubt to their

teachers, rating faculty

Of merely. average, professional competence arid :oimaj care iiid

c o

scientiousness as "good' or even "very. good", dcknowlcdy ilul

normal courtesies shown to them as if they were almost, unheard of

kindnesses, and judging even professors who trea

t them with

disdain irnd,whG are sloppy dud unreliable as "o.k." or average.

Of course, there are a fair number of students who never

experienced truly competent teachers and are thus unduly

impressed by whet they find

dl.S.F.U... ?

Their

assessme,rts, will

S ?

err far more frequently in ways that favour dn-d flatter us than

the other way around.

Furthermore, there exist a number of

effective ,

-ays in which career-conlsc

.ous Instructors can

• manipulate students to achievefavourable ratings to the

detriment of true learnIng:

generosity in giving grades is only

one of the cruder and more obvious ways to do. this.

The combination of these factOrs leadsto thegenera!

acquiescence of faculty, since the practice rarely hurts them and

is frequently to their advdntdge.

Academic administrators ?

naturally love a sy.stem.dbout which faculty rarely complain,

which gives them the opportunity to point Out how studenis

opinion is treasured and used, and allows them to be seeni by (lie

public in a demonstrable way as guardian of the teaching quality

of the institution. ?

•,

With .isltuatioii

lit

which students, faculty, and

administration conspire -to fool -

thmslves, each other and the

public by the mdin.tc,,dnce of,apleasan.t set ofillusions (not

'iecessarily..id.entical illusions for the vdrious

groups) why would

anyone wish a change in this st.te of affairs?

my.elf. to the above qustions, 1 already

heir the reply:

"stu'dentquest'Iona!res may have their •fault, hut

they are the best tools- we have for' teachi nj assessment and

• ?

lacking

better ones--4e

'must continue to use them."

My answer and

the recommendations arising from It have two aspects:

would

be honest to acknowledge the deficiencies

lit

the first

place

an. , d

1i the second place, given the extent of the deficiencies, ii

wwild he. preferable not to use any. teaching assessment 'evn.if

nothing else could be substituted. ?

Rut there are ways-.

which

• ?

we can avoid Intellectual fraud and yet us student input to make

sufficient, albeit admittedly subjective, jud,ymeis. with respect

to a rough assessment of teaching effcctivcuuess

Here then are my recommendations:

Abdudon any attempt to judge teaching effectivenes

for

purposes 'of renewal, promotion, tenure, and salary

review on a scale that is fi,ier than the folowlug hr oud

categories.

"Exceptional ly. good", "acceptable", and

"unaccepi ably bdd"

II)

Assume in the absence of my specific evidence to tic

contrary that any. Instructor, whodem'onstrabiy knows the

subject

matter of 'the course he

Lsh

' e .

Is teachliug,. falls

Into the group ciassiflabic as "acceptable"

111) ?

Accept as

"specific evidence" for other

thari;

"acceptable" performance only the following, in

decreasing order of imporlancc

Corroborated testim o

from professional cohl.iujuts

both,wI thin. and outside the university who hjve.

personally attended lectures, seminars etc... of the

person to be judged.'

•ii),. Acorusistent pattern of

compliments or

'compiai:'.1 ?

past and present students who have taken cour.es

from the p' rson to be judged and whose comments

havc

been iulvestlgdted and weighed according to

Ahe

commentators academic

stdrudirlg,

experience, aiu

general reliability. ?

(inthe case :of 'complairiti,

the faculty complained uboul must, of course, have

been given t'he opportunity to respond and. his/her

responses must also be considered).

ill)

Statistical opinion surveys ,of alumni not enrolled

as students at the time of the survey who.

hdv:e

Lukeru

courses from the. person to be judned.

I ) Prohibit asa matter of policy the use of opinion 

surveys 

1.

administered to student-s still enrolled at 

[lit-

unlversitY'f0rpurposes of making 

,

judgments about a 

'faculty members renewal, promotion, tenure and s.ii ary 

review. 

'

V') ? 

Prohibit as a'mat'ter of policy tte exerLioll of any 

pressure expressed ot'impi1ed'O1I'tt 

?

part of academic 

administrators 'on course Instructors, to use.studen't 

• ? 

'.

?

opnlon surveys. 

?

.

?

.

VI)

Where course instructors for their own purposes and 

benefit w1h to use student opin.iOfl surveys they arc 

of coursee at libert 

y

to do. so, but the, use of resitts 

of sue-h surveys should be r 

.

esir'lcted.t0 the instruclor. 

VII) 

Encourage stud.en 

t

dissatisfied or exceptionallY 

pleased withthe performance óf 

.

an Instructor to make 

their compldit5 and/or compliments 

.

n

kowim 

.

to the chair 

of a 

'

department for appropriate action or 

?

If they are 

too unsure of themselves) have them go to the ombuds- 

person of the Student Society why may then act 

their. 

behalf 

Concludingremar 

k

s

:

?

,.

I am aware' that I am ditacking something that will he per- 

ceived by some as "a sacred cow", which 

,

, ttoweYer.I to me appears 

to he 

'

merely a myth. 

'

1 urge the reader to' take the time to read 

'the 

atove 

.

caref.u1l, to consider It as free Of emotion as is 

Possible, to dicuSS the merits of. -my remarks with others, .,ud, 

ultimately, to respond In concrete fashion to my. recommetUtI110n5. 

Your considered opinion hill be of interest t-o, me and shoul 

d

of Interest to our senior academi 

.

c adminiSlrdtOrS. 

?

Let's 

from you. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. K'.E. Rleckho 

,

t 1. 

KE,R/mlb 

?

• ? 

.

?

' ?

.

?

'

?

•

?

.,• ? 

'

?

.

?

-0

Current University policy concerning the evaluation of 

teaching is as follows: ? 

.

?

.

1. ? 

Faculty 

Appendix II 

-to PolicyAC 2 ? 

(Renewal, Tenure, and 

Promotion) ? 

includes the following statement: 

2.1

?

Teaching Effectiveness 

Success, as a.'teachèr, however-measured or assessed, 

is the paramount criterion for evaluation.. 

?

Generation 

of enthusiasm in students, dedicated i. . nvolvement within 

one's discipline, openness to innovation and the 

capacity for a broadapproach to one's subject matter 

are all important aspects of teaching effectiveness. 

2.

?

TSSU Bargaining Unit Employees ? 

.

?

..

A copy of Artic'le,XVIIof theColle'ctive Agreement 

between the University and TSSU is shown below. 

Article XVII

Employment Evaluation

A ?

An employee may he evaluated at least once durinj any

• ?

semester in which she/he is employed. ?

An employee may'

request that an evaluation of her/his performance be

•

' ?

undertaken during' a semester and -

an evaluation will be

• ?

made provided such a' request ?

is received by the

Chairman at least one month before classes end in that

semester.

o. ?

lvaluatiofl

haU be made on the performance of the

duties assigned to the employee.

performance by the Students assigned to the employee,

by

the 'person to whom the employee is responsible

'and/or such other person(e)

be.

A COPY of the evaluation shall be forwarded, to the'

•

employee and she/he shall be permitted to add relevant

comments on the evaluation to her/his employment

file.

t. ?

Dvp*(tmont5 that do not currently have formal

tlilvilty ?

r. ? 

' ?

area