MEMO

S.10-162

Se

n

a

t

e Co

mmitt

e

e

o

n Univ

e

r

s

it

y

T

e

ac

hin

g

and

Learn

i

ng

(

S

C

U

TL)

ATT

E

NTION S

cnnl

c

C

lllllmilt

N!

o

n

A

'c

nd

:

1

:l

nd Rul

es

F

ROM

SIC 1

1\

;':11 S

l

eC

t

O

r

,

C

hair

, S

enat

e CO

lil

m

it

t

ee o

n

Univcr

s

i

l

'

Tca

c

h

i

n

' a

nd

Lcarnin'

RE

Stud

e

nt

s

,

lIld in

S

IH

l

c

l

o

r

Co

ur

s

e E

v

a

l

uat

io

n

s

;

R

cs

ubmi

ssio

n

of S

C

U

TL

rc lO

r!

a

nd

rc

lIes

t

f

o

r

aC

l

io

n

DA

T

E No\'ember 17

.

20

I

0

Dear

Me

mb

e

r

s

of

Ih

e Se

n

a

l

e Co

mmunit

y

o

n

Age

nda

a

nd

Rul

e

s

:

T

h

e

i

ss

u

e of co

ur

s

e a

nd

in

s

tru

c

l

o

r

[C&

I]

eva

lu

ations

a

l

SFU

ha

s

bee

n

l

o

n

gs

l

a

ndin

g.

In

ear

l

y

2009

,

SCUT

L

co

mpl

e

t

e

d

a

report,

"

Eva

l

uat

i

ng

H

ow

W

e Eva

l

uale

"

a

n

d

s

ubmilt

ed

Ihi

s

10

SCA

R

in

March

2009 w

ith

a req

u

e

s

t

for advice

on

how

t

o

proceed

.

SCAR

's

response wa

s

that

se

ndin

g

th

e

r

epon

t

o Se

n

ate would be premature

.

Give

n th

e

timin

g

oflhe

r

equest, i

t

was

suggested

th

a

t

t

h

e

r

eco

lllm

e

ndati

o

n

s

in

t

h

e

r

epo

r

t could be

in

co

rp

o

rat

ed

in th

e

Ta

sk

Force

o

n

Teachin

g

a

nd

L

ea

rnin

g

w

hi

c

h h

ad

ye

t to

r

e

port

t

o

Se

nat

e.

The

Task

Fo

r

ce

on Teaching and Learni

n

g (TFTL)

incorporated

o

llr

r

eco

mm

e

ndation

s

at a

concep

tu

a

l l

eve

l

in

it

s

fi

n

al reco

m

menda

ti

o

n

s.

T

h

ese we

r

e accep

t

ed

by

Dr.

Jon Driv

e

r

,

VPA,

e

arlier thi

s year.

H

oweve

r

,

ac

tivit

y o

n

t

h

e

i

ss

ue

of

C&

I

eva

lu

a

tion

s

h

as

yet

to

co

mm

e

n

ce.

In

th

e Sep

t

e

m

ber

20

I

0

S

C

U

TL

mee

tin

g,

Dr.

Dr

i

ver attende

d

a

nd di

s

c

u

ss

ed

thi

s

i

s

s

u

e a

n

d

advised

u

s

t

o

f

o

r

ward

the i

s

s

u

e of C&

I

e

va

u

la

t

io

n

s

to Senat

e

fo

r

r

e

vi

ev.

'

a

nd

a

ppro

va

l.

Dr.

Driver

exp

r

e

ss

ed a wi

l

lingne

ss

to

s

up

port action to im

pro

ve

th

e

proces

s

and

the

in

s

trume

rnt

s

u

se

d

fo

r

C&

I

e

va

lu

a

ti

on

s

at SF

U

p

e

nd

i

n

g

Se

n

a

t

e

approval

a

n

d

dir

e

c

t

ion

.

As

noted

in

th

e

TFTL

's

i

n

fo

nn

a

ti

o

n

gat

h

e

r

i

n

g

in

2008

/

9

,

th

e C&

I

eva

lu

at

i

o

n

wa

s

a

n

important

i

s

s

u

e

to

man

y

respondents.

D

epar

tm

ents

h

ave a

l

so

b

ee

n

reque

s

tin

g c

h

a

n

ges

to

th

e

gener

i

c for

m

wit

h

th

e add

iti

o

n

o

f

spec

ifi

c

q

u

est

ion

s

,

d

iff

e

r

e

n

t opt

i

ons depending

o

n th

e

type

ofcollrse

,

a

nd

op

ti

on

s

in

it

s admi

ni

s

trat

i

o

n

(e

.g.

o

nlin

e).

Lack

in

g

in

sti

tuti

o

nal

directions

o

r

alternativ

es

,

so

m

e

departme

nt

s

ha

ve

created t

h

e

ir

o

wn

eva

lu

a

t

ions.

Furth

e

rm

ore

,

at the

in

st

ituti

ona

l

l

eve

l

,

both

th

e 20

1

0.

1

3 acade

mi

c

plan

and

th

e TFTL

reco

m

mendations

e

mpha

s

i

ze

div

e

r

s

i

f

y

in

g

s

tud

e

nt

s

'

l

ea

rnin

g expe

r

ie

n

ces.

Thi

s

however

,

wo

uld

requi

r

e a

ran

ge

of op

ti

ons

in

C

&

I

eva

lu

a

ti

o

n

s

which

d

o

n

o

t

p

r

ese

nil

y ex

i

s

t.

Th

ere

for

e

,

we

respectfu

ll

y

request

that

Se

n

ate review

o

u

r attached

r

e

p

ort

and

approve

act

i

o

n

on

th

e

development

of

n

ew course

and

in

s

tru

c

t

o

r

evaluation

s

a

l

SF

U

. Se

n

ate approval

\Almlld

then

a

ll

ow the

V

PA

,

in

co

nju

nc

ti

o

n

wit

h

SCUT

L

,

to estab

li

s

h

a

cou

r

se eva

lu

at

i

o

n

project

w

hi

ch wo

u

ld

in

c

l

ude

input

by

a

br

oad ra

n

ge

of

s

tak

e

hold

e

r

s

a

t

SF

U

.

T

h

ank

you

f

o

r

y

o

ur

attent

i

o

n

to

thi

s

m

atter

.

We

l

ook forwa

rd

to

yo

ur

re

s

p

on

s

e.

S

IM

ON

FHf\

S

L]t

UNlvr:nS

I

TY

TH

I

N

K

I

NG

DF

T

HE

WORLD

---

--

--

-

---

-

-

-

----

-

---

---

-----

-

TEACHING ASSISTANT EVALUA TlON

Fill

IN THE

CIRCLES

ERASE CHANGES

CO

MPLET

elY

s"wfllf

loIARIC

O<DGl

-

:"

WrQllO

I

.."

.... 1

-

-uw

tol 1'1:0«:".0>4'

51.

DO NOT USE INK

~=::!.:~~~

J=

OR FELT PENS

EVALUAT

I

NG

I

-

lOW

WE

EV

ALUATE

Exami

nin

g SFU's

co

ur

se

and

in

st

ructor

eva

luation

system

•

•

---

•

•

prepared by

m

embers of

the

Senate

Co

mmittee

o

n

U

ni

vers

it

y

T

eac

hin

g a

nd L

ea

rnin

g

S

umm

er

2008

---

Executive Summary

Introduction

UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE DO AND HOW WE CAN DO IT BETTER

I - Practice

STUDENT EVALUATION OF COURSE AND INSTRUCTORS AT SFU

A MIX OF FORMS

DISTRIBUTION METHODS

USES OF

DATA COLLECTED

IS THIS WORKING?

II - Perspectives

AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

History of evaluations at Simon Fraser University

Timeline

of activities at SCUTL

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES

Students

Instructors

LITERATURE FROM THE FIELD

III - Recommendations

A VARIETY OF OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

of recommendations

DESIGNING A

SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR SFU

Recommendations

CREATING

BEST-PRACTICES GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS

INFORMING

OUR UTILIZATION OF EVALUATIONS

SUPPORTING

TEACHING AND LEARNING

IV -Sources

REFERENCES AND WORKS CITED

V - Appendices

Appendix A SFSS Course Evaluation - c. 1974 (SFSS Archives)

Appendix B

Sample Anti-Calendar (unknown source, SFSS Archives)

Appendix C SFU Course and Instructor Evaluation - Current

Appendix D

SFU Teaching Assistant Evaluation - Current

Appendix E

SFU Forms - Statements of Use

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

5

7

7

7

9

10

10

II

12

16

16

16

16

16

18

19

20

22

22

24

25

27

28

29

30

---

-1

Executive Summary

The Senate Committee on University Teaching and Learning (SCUTL) has been engaged

in a process

of reviewing the university's current practices and tools related to student

evaluations

of courses and instructors. This process has been wide-ranging and pursued at great

length through a variety

of avenues.

SCUTL has reviewed the history of evaluations at SFU and the various incarnations that

the instruments and methods take across the university. The committee has engaged in wide-

ranging consultation with experts in the field

of evaluation and higher education, and has

engaged students, faculty, staff, and administrators in their discussions. Overall, the committee

recognizes the potential for valuable information, critiques, and suggestions to be collected

through student evaluations

of courses and instructors at SFU, but feels that the current

instruments and methods

of conducting evaluations do not encourage a full utilization of this

potential.

As such,

SCUTL has prepared and presents this report on student evaluations of courses

and instructors at

SFU. The committee recommends that evaluation methods and implements

should be renewed, allowing the university community to make the best use

of the information

that can potentially be collected. While the committee recognizes the constraints that current

fiscal realities place on the operations

of the university, it also feels that reviewing and renewing

evaluation practices and procedures could be a strategic investment in assuring the quality

of

education at SFU, by engaging students, staff, and faculty in assessing our educational

endeavours and thereby identifying points

of strength and areas of potential improvement.

Broadly, the

Senate Committee on University Teaching and Learning recommends the

following, which are discussed in-depth later in the report, along with subsidiary

recommendations:

• SFU should develop or obtain new course and instructor evaluation forms that can be offered

to the university community.

• SFU should develop a best-practices guide for conducting student evaluations of courses and

teaching.

• SFU should develop a best-practices guide for using the information collected through student

evaluations for administrative and operational purposes.

• SFU should develop and ensure support for responding to student evaluations of courses and

instructors.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-2

Introduction

UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE DO AND HOW WE CAN DO IT BETTER

As part of its tenns of reference, the Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning

(SCUTL) is charged with " ... provid[ing] advice and guidance on the development and upgrading

of teaching evaluation instruments in use in the University" (SFU 2007).

SCUTL

has been engaged in reviewing the evaluation instruments in use at SFU for some

time. A history

of activities at SCUTL is presented in the second part of this report, but it is

important to note the significant amount

of effort that has been placed into reviewing current

evaluation instruments and practices. The committee feels strongly that there is a potential for

valuable and useful information to be collected through student evaluations

of courses and

instructors at

SFU but that current forms and practices are hindering these well-intentioned

efforts.

SCUTL feels that evaluations can be useful and that ours can be done better.

This self-examination is particularly pertinent in light

of changing delivery

systems/course methodology at

SFU. For example, we need to be able measure the impacts of

current changes to class sizes, removal of tutorials from certain courses, etc. in order reliably to

assess the consequences of these changes.

This report will discuss the current practices

of student evaluation of courses and

instructors at

SFU (Part I), will discuss a variety of perspectives, the history of evaluations at the

university, and a brief review

of leading academic literature on the subject (Part II), and will

present a number

of recommendations with detailed suggestions on how current practices can be

improved, for the benefit

of the entire university community (Part III).

The committee realizes that this subject can potentially be a contentious matter, but

stresses that with proper consultation and engagement

of all university stakeholder groups, the

value

in

student evaluation of courses and instructors can be recognized and utilized to ensure

that the university

is achieving its goals of engaging all of its communities in providing the best

education that it can possibly provide. The committee will remain seized

of this matter and is

willing to provide resource and assistance in any actions that arise out

of this report.

The committee wishes to acknowledge the efforts

of a number of people who have

provided invaluable assistance. Acknowledgements are given to Chris Groeneboer, Amrit

Mundy, Maria Davis, Gary Poole, Ted Kirkpatrick, and others who have provided advice or

assistance during this process. A special thanks goes to the

2007-2008 members of SCUTL:

Paul

Neufeld (Faculty of Education and Chair), Janet McCracken (Faculty of Applied Sciences),

Nicky Didicher (Faculty

of Arts and Social Sciences), Stephen Spector (Faculty of Business

Administration), Timothy Beischlag (Faculty

of Health Sciences), Chris Kennedy (Faculty of

Science), Kevin Harding (undergraduate student), Joe Qranful (graduate student), David

Kaufman (Director, Learning

and Instructional Development), Elaine Fairey (Director, Student

Learning Commons), and Nancy Johnston (Senior Director, Student Learning and Retention).

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-3

I - Practice

STUDENT EVALUATION OF COURSE AND INSTRUCTORS AT SFU

At the end of each semester, most SFU students are asked to fill in one or two bubble

sheets evaluating the instructors who have taught or interacted with them. The forms are

relatively simple; they collect simple demographic information with regard to the students, ask

the students why they took the course, and then they delve into a complex matrix

of evaluative

criteria on the instructor and the course.

In order to understand better how departments and academic units across the university

are using evaluations, a survey was developed and administered to academic units who have a

staff person on the

SFU Departmental Assistant contact list. Of the fifty-nine units on this list,

seven were eliminated because they are units or sub-units that

do not directly conduct

evaluations, such as a

Special Arrangements office or a Surrey campus office, leaving a sample

size

of fifty-two units to which the survey was administered. All units but one responded,

providing a very high (98.1

%) response rate (Groeneboer 2008, 4).

Of the fifty-one responses, four units did not have undergraduate sections, and graduate

programs do not appear to conduct evaluations as often as undergraduate programs. Removing

these four units from the sample, all

of the remaining forty-seven units reported that they

evaluated "all courses each

term" (Groeneboer 2008, 8). Drawing from this, it is reasonable to

assume that student evaluations

of courses and instructors are a nearly universal practice at SFU.

A MIX OF FORMS

However, it is not safe to assume the same level of universality for the forms and

instruments used across the university. As Figure I below indicates, while most (66%) units use

the standard blue and green evaluation bubble forms

so familiar to most of the SFU community,

some (23% and 11%) use either a combination

of the standard fonns and departmental forms or

FIGURE 1 - TYPES OF FORMS (n=47)

departmental forms only, respectively (Groeneboer 2008).

The varied use of forms is a preliminary indicator of some of the concerns that have

arisen with regard to the current

SFU evaluation forms. While two-thirds of departments do use

the standard green and blue forms, others have supplemented these forms with their own, or

entirely replaced them,

in

order to capture more useful data. According to the canvassing report

I

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

prepared

by

Chris Groeneboer, some departments use their own forms "because they wanted

more space for comments[,]" or because

"a couple of extra questions are added." This raises

some questions as to the efficacy

of current instruments.

DISTRIBUTION METHODS

-4

The ways in which the evaluations themselves are conducted are also not universal across

the university. As illustrated below

in

Figure 2, while a majority of units (55%) use the

FIGURE 2 - METHODS OF DlSTRlBUTlON (n=47)

"standard procedure" for conducting evaluations, the rest use a variety of methods.

The

"standard procedure" is one that most members of the community are familiar with.

Evaluation forms are handed out, a brief explanation

is given, and the instructor leaves the room.

A student volunteer is asked to collect the fonns and return them to the department at the end of

class.

Some departments use a slight variation on this standard procedure

as departmental staff

or teaching assistants conduct the evaluations instead

of student volunteers. A significant

proportion

of departments said that they had set procedures for conducting evaluations but did

not specify the exact methodology.

One department reported using email surveys and one

department reported using online surveys.

In

addition to this is the course evaluation employed

by the Centre for Online and Distance Education (CODE). CODE administratively supervises

distance education courses and uses an online form for evaluations primarily, while giving

students the option to request a paper form for evaluations

if they so desire (Groeneboer 2008).

Again, this variety of distribution methods foreshadows concerns with current evaluation

implementation-there does not appear to be a

"best practices" model employed or

communicated, raising a number

of additional concerns with current practices.

USES OF DATA COLLECTED

How units actually use the data collected through evaluations is likely to be just as varied

as how the evaluations are conducted. While the survey administered did not directly ask units

how they used the data, comments and open-ended responses received can be used

to gauge this

to a certain degree.

It

is generally understood that units use instructor, course, and TA evaluations to some

degree with regard to human resources requirements. Generally, instructor evaluations are used

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-5

by departmental tenure and promotion committees (TPCs), teaching appointment review

committees

(TARCs), and appointment committees. To what extent different departments use

the

data collected is largely unknown; however, it is generally understood that evaluations are

"only a

part" of the human resources processes, which may also include discussion of teaching

portfolios and other materials. Teaching assistants also have the results used during HR

procedures such

as hiring, with such use governed by the collective agreement between the

TSSU and SFU.

Open-ended responses from the various departments also highlighted other specific

usage-related information that is valuable. A number

of units reported that the open-ended

comments

on evaluation fonns represent the most valuable data collected. Some departments

place a summary

of course evaluation data into personnel files. Some departments asserted that

they "really follow

up" if there are negative comments for instructor or TA (Groeneboer 2008).

This seems to imply a systemic assumption that no actions are taken to improve teaching or

course quality in response to negative student evaluations.

Again, the varied usage

of the data collected, at least as far as can be inferred from

comments, shows the beginnings

of a number of concerns that were further discussed during

SCUTL's review of evaluations. There is no best-practices guide for usage of data, nor does

there appear to be an overarching university policy that directly governs the usage.

TPCs and

other such bodies do not currently have guidance in interpreting or following up on the

information they receive via student evaluations.

IS THIS WORKING?

This brings us to the central question that SCUTL has been pondering for some time: are

current methods

of student evaluations of courses and instructors working?

As hinted at above, there are a number

of concerns with the current practices around

student evaluation

of courses and instructors. While there does seem to be a widespread

agreement on the value

of undergraduate evaluation of courses and instructors, given that 100%

of respondents indicated that undergraduate programs were being evaluated, the same cannot be

said

of graduate programs. Due to small class sizes and concerns over confidentiality, not all

graduate sections are evaluated. This raises questions as to whether or not graduate courses

should be evaluated, and

if so, how.

Additionally, concerns emerge over the current evaluation practices. \Vhile two-thirds

of

units use the standard green and blue SFU evaluation forms, a large number either supplement

these with their own, additional forms or use other instruments entirely. This would seem to

indicate a disconnect between what information departments

are looking for in evaluations and

what they are currently receiving.

Similarly, a majority of units reported following what has

become standard procedure in conducting evaluations, but

just less than half report following a

variation

of this. There is no best-practices guide on conducting evaluations aside from requiring

that the person being evaluated leaves the room. This opens the current practice up to questions

of efficacy and fairness as different units use different methods, all of which can potentially have

an impact on the results.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-6

The fooos themselves are areas of significant concern. The questions asked are often

irrelevant

to actual teaching and learning in the courses evaluated. Some courses use teaching

methods (such

as team teaching) different from that which is assumed in the instruments,

creating problems for evaluation. Additionally, faculty have serious (and well grounded)

concerns over the amount

of additional data that can be collected during evaluations, with

concerns raised over additional sheets

of complaints or concerns being attached to evaluation

forms instead

of being pursued through formal avenues in departments and units. Many

departments have expressed an opinion that the comments section

of the form is the most

valuable, and have expressed a desire

to see that portion preserved. Many of the individuals

involved in discussions at

SCUTL expressed concerns over the questions asked other than the

open-ended portions, with regard both to their design and their wording.

No information is

available as to the author(s)

of the questions on these forms or the validity of the questions, and

the forms have not been updated in at least twenty-nine years.

One of the largest areas of concern that emerges is in regard to how the data are used.

Both

of the major constituencies involved in evaluations (students and instructors) seem to have

the most concerns here. While the perspectives

of students and faculty will be explored later in

this report, the concerns over utilization can be explored here. Given that there do not appear

to

be university-wide best practices for using the data, or even common ways of using the data

collected through evaluations, there is a good deal

of confusion as to how the data are actually

used. Faculty are generally aware as to the fact that the data actually are used, but they are not in

agreement as

to what extent data are used. Students are generally surprised to learn that any

weight is ever applied to the consideration

of the data collected, with many assuming that the

evaluations are simply exercises in futility. Departments, faculty, and students all expressed a

desire for useful data from evaluations that could be used towards improving teaching and

learning at

SFU.

Overall,

the members of SCUTL believe that evaluations can indeed be valuable.

However, members also agree that improvements must be made.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-7

II - Perspectives

A~

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

In order to understand the rationale, recommendations, and substance of this report better,

a variety

of perspectives must be considered, including an historical perspective on evaluations at

the university and the activities at

SCUTL that give rise to this report.

History of evaluations at Simon Fraser University

Formal and official evaluations did not exist in any recognizable form when SFU opened

its doors to its charter students in 1965. Indeed, university-sponsored evaluations did not start

until the

1970s, and it was not until much later that university policies were established that

required nearly-universal student evaluation

of instructors and courses and universal survey

forms (Johnston

2005, 143).

Prior to this policy change, students organized unofficial "anti-calendars," which were

published through the

Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS). Anti-calendars were published

compilations

of results of surveys and included statistical summaries of student responses to a

variety

of questions-with some questions very similar to those on the current course evaluation

forms. Anti-calendars also included biographies

of instructors, various information about the

instructor's teaching history at the institution, and recommendations from sample students

in

regard to the course in question.

An SFSS student course questionnaire from 1974 (a reproduction of which is included as

Appendix A) asked students these questions, in addition

to others:

• "What would you tell another student ifhe asked whether or not he should take

this course?"

• "How well was the instructor prepared for his lectures?"

• "How much freedom of choice

in

written assigrunents?"

• "Was

the lecturer successful in stimulating your interest in course material?"

• "What was the tutor's attitude towards the subject of the course?"

• "Any suggestions for the improvement of this course?"

A sampling of other SFU and SFSS course evaluation questionnaires, including those

administered by departmental student unions, indicates a wide variety

of questions asked of

students when evaluating, including whether or not the course as taught met the student's

expectations after reading the course outline (Simon Fraser

Student Society 1974).

When published, anti-calendars included statistical breakdowns

of the responses to the

questions posed

in

the questionnaires and open-ended commentaries from students. An example

of an anti-calendar, from an unknown source, is reproduced in Appendix B.

It

should be noted

that at

SFU such questionnaires appear to have been solely conducted by the SFSS or its various

departmental student unions.

Other universities (such as the University of Ottawa) conducted

joint course and instructor evaluations, with the student society and the university sharing efforts

and resources.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-8

However, solely student-led evaluations do not appear to have lasted much more than

fifteen years at

Simon Fraser University. As Hugh Johnston notes in his SFU history book,

Radical Campus,

"SFU faculty began conducting student evaluations themselves, partly in self-

defence and partly because they were, sometimes reluctantly, persuaded that they had a

value"

(143).

Indeed, in about 1979, the university began to change its policies and procedures around

evaluations.

In one report to the

VP

Academic, authors M. Gates and P.E. Kennedy made a

number

of recommendations with regard to the "principles which should govern the evaluation

of teaching and the procedures which could be used" (1979, 1).

The Gates and Kennedy report made a number of suggestions, specifically that course

evaluations should be tools for career progress advancement. Notable were the suggestions to

limit severely the amount

of input that students had in the evaluation processes, establishing

university-wide

"general and flexible guidelines" for departments and units to follow in

evaluation, eliminating numerical ratings, and changing the names/titles

of course evaluations

implements from

"course evaluations" to "students' opinions." (Gates and Kennedy 1979).

Particularly memorable is the recommendation that student input on course and instructor

evaluations be limited to four questions:

i) What do you consider to be the weakest features of this course?

ii) What do you consider to be the strongest features of this course?

iii) What do you consider to be the weakest features

of this instructor as a

teacher?

iv) What do you consider to be the strongest features

of this instructor as a

teacher?

(Gates and Kennedy 1979, 4)

Interestingly, these proposed questions appear nearly verbatim (the four questions have simply

been condensed into two) on the current form

of SFU course and teaching evaluations (See

Appendix C). This would suggest that while the mechanical fonn of course evaluations may

have changed between 1979 and now (the Gates and Kennedy report makes reference

to carbon

copies

of comments) the questions posed and the kinds of data collected may not have been

reviewed or updated for as many as twenty-nine years.

In the meantime, the student-led evaluations at

SFU seem to have disappeared. Many

reasons are cited, notable amongst them the costs

of legal review of draft anti-calendars to avoid

charges

of slander and libel. Very few, if any, departmental student unions still produce anti-

calendars. The only

DSU in recent memory to have contemplated publishing one was the

Biology Student

Union. The Sociology/Anthropology Student Union was puzzled as to what an

anti-calendar was, upon discovering that their constitution mandated an anti-calendar standing

committee. Alternatives to anti-calendars have appeared to fill this void, notably the

introduction

of ratemyprofessors.com.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-9

SFU departments and units still overwhelmingly conduct student evaluations of courses

and instructors. Students do not display a large amount

of confidence in the procedures, and do

not always complete them or give them a large amount

of attention. A considerable amount of

discussion at SCUTL has centred around perceived deficiencies in current course evaluations,

and proposed alternatives.

Timeline of activities at SCUTL

In 2005, SCUTL decided to act on a request from the Simon Fraser University Faculty

Association to examine the issue

of student evaluations, including perceived deficiencies in the

current system(s) and possibilities for updating them.

Over a period of two years, a sub-

committee with help from an

LIDC Research Assistant (Amrit Mundy) devoted time and energy

to investigating many issues connected to student evaluations. Their activities included

• a literature review to determine current thinking as to validity and

efficacy

of student evaluations, and best practices in the field,

• a number of limited, informal surveys of students, faculty, and dept.

chairs

to determine their concerns with and hopes for student evaluation

forms,

• interviews with administrators at Canadian academic institutions which

had recently been through the process

of updating their student

evaluation forms, and

• examination of a number of different forms commercially available but

designed at reputable academic institutions.

In the summer of 2007, the SCUTL sub-committee prepared to pilot one of the two

commercially-available fonn sets which we felt best matched both the criteria which our faculty

and students had identified as important and pedagogical concerns which our literature review

had indicated to be important. However, both

of our preferred form sets were American, and one

of the criteria SFU faculty had indicated was important to them was that forms be processed

locally, so we began negotiations to see

if we could pilot one of them and process the results in

Canada.

SCUTL

also determined, both from the literature review and from the interviews with

administrators at other institutions, that in order to make a major change in student evaluations

it

was important that all three of the major stakeholders (faculty, administrators, students) have

significant input into the decision-making processes.

In

early 2008, A VP Academic Bill Krane announced a new task force to review a number

of issues related to teaching and learning at SFU. Members ofSCUTL feel that examining

student evaluation

of courses and instructors should be included in the work undertaken by the

new task force. This report is intended to be a textual statement

of our beliefs in regard to course

evaluations.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-to

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES

Across the university, student evaluations are received with varying degrees of warmth,

interest, or tolerance. Each constituent group

of the university community acknowledges the

value

of student course evaluations-to a degree-and each wants course evaluations to be as

useful as possible. What differs between each group is how the group views course evaluations

and how each group feels that they should be used.

Students

In the heady times of SFU's birth, students conducted their own course evaluations and

published them. They considered this to be a democratic form

of participation in the university's

governance.

Over time, the university itself began conducting course evaluations, and student-

led evaluations have gradually disappeared.

On the whole, students informally surveyed indicated a great deal of support for an ideal

type

of course evaluation

in

which their input was genuinely considered in times of course

revision or review or when faculty and instructors were undergoing performance evaluations.

However, students expressed a great deal

of doubt with regard to current course evaluation

practices. Common responses were

• a feeling that course evaluations do not seem to go anywhere: students

fill them out and then never seem them or results again, so it seems to

them pointless to offer comments, and

• a desire to see some form ofpublic1y accessible results of scores from

evaluations.

Further consultations with student leaders such as student senators and members

of the Board of

Directors of the SFSS resulted in a few additional comments:

• course evaluation results should be available to Senate decision-making

committees such as

SCUS and SCUP when reviewing course proposals,

program restructuring, or program proposals, and

• course and instructor evaluations should be available to external

reviewers.

In

2007, the Student Forum of the SFSS voted unanimously to express support for

revising current evaluation forms to make them more useful and suggested the publication

of

some form of the results.

Graduate students have a considerably different experience with evaluations than do

undergraduate students. First, they are often evaluated as teaching assistants in addition to

offering evaluations

of their instructors. Second, with the small class sizes of graduate classes,

the principle

of anonymity is not as guaranteed as it is with large undergraduate lectures. Third,

the relationships between graduate students and their instructors who may also

be supervisors

can be difficult to negotiate. Some graduate students expressed concerns with current practices

in regard to the use

of teaching assistant evaluations. According to one student, some

departments offer large lecture courses with TA support that do not have tutorials, yet they still

I

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-11

use TA evaluation forms geared toward leadership in tutorials (see Appendix D). Concern was

expressed

as to the value of the evaluations received from students who were evaluating a T A

with whom they may have had

no contact, and concern was additionally expressed about the

weight

of these evaluations in employee files.

Overall, students expressed support in principle for evaluations, but expressed a desire to

ensure that they were meaningful and conducted in valuable ways.

Instructors

Given that a request from the Simon Fraser University Faculty Association was one

impetus

to SCUTL to be evaluating how we evaluate, it would appear that faculty have a desire

to revise the current system. They also have a distinct perspective on student evaluations.

It

should be noted, however, that an in-depth survey of faculty was not conducted, and as such, no

claims

of representativeness are made with regard to the concerns discussed herein.

Many concerns raised

by instructors have to do with the usage of the data collected and

with the construction

of the green and blue SFU forms that are predominantly used for course

and instructor evaluation.

Some concerns are as follows:

• questions asked on the green and blue forms seemed to be poorly

constructed, with good and bad poles

of scales being inconsistent-for

example, questions 5 and 6 are centre-weighted while the rest are left-

weighted (see appendix C)

• the various bodies and persons that receive the results do not necessarily

have a best-practices guide on how to use the data collected

• any public disclosure of data collected (as has been suggested by

students) may be a violation

of privacy

• academic freedom and innovative teaching methods may be

compromised

if results are overly weighted in TPC and other

assessments

• there is a possibility of grade inflation if instructors desire high student

evaluations.

Faculty also have a considerable number

of constructive criticisms:

• evaluations should be processed locally to provide for quick tum-around

times (note: the current forms are processed at

UBC)

•

evaluations should not conducted by a private or commercial enterprise

as this raises questions of privacy

• evaluations must be conducted, processed, and stored in Canada due to

concerns around privacy engendered

by the Patriot Act

• evaluation questions should be validated by experts in the field in the

field

of psycho-educational measurement.

Additionally, faculty expressed concerns over the impacts

of teaching evaluations on the

practice

of teaching. Concerns were expressed over the interplay between popularity and

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-12

effective teaching, and the effects that this has on teaching and learning in classes. Concerns

were expressed that popularity may have a higher influence on outcomes of evaluations than

would effective teaching. During discussions,

SCUTL acknowledged the tensions experienced

by faculty through course evaluations.

LITERATURE FROM THE FIELD

The following text is taken from a brief report prepared by fonner SCUTL chair Ted

Kirkpatrick. The committee appreciates his work on the report.

The literature on student evaluations

of teaching is vast. The IDEA Center (at Kansas

State University, see http://www.theideacenter.orglcategory/idea-center/about-us) claims over

2000 articles have been published on the topic. To provide good entry points into this literature,

this report highlights several articles and special issues. Most

'of these articles are reviews or

even formal meta-analyses

of prior work. In addition to these review articles,

I

list several other

articles that make specific points

of particular note.

Overviews

IDEA (n.d.) summarizes the literature in

a single page. No citations are provided, but the

conclusion summarizes the consensus

of most experts:

Student ratings can be valuable indicators of teaching effectiveness, and

they can help guide improvement efforts. But they are most useful when

they are a part

of a more comprehensive program which includes

additional evaluation tools and a systematic program for faculty

development.

Two more IDEA reports provide excellent summaries. Cashin (1989) developed a

framework for evaluating college teaching. He expanded the definition

of teaching to include

seven areas:

Subject matter mastery

Curriculum development

Course design

Delivery

of instruction

Assessment

of instruction

Availability to students

Administrative requirements (book orders, grades, etc. completed and

on time)

Then he listed eight sources

of data for evaluating these areas:

• Self

• Files

Peers-faculty members knowledgeable about the subject matter

Colleagues-faculty members not knowledgeable about the subject

matter

• Chair/dean-the faculty member's immediate academic supervisor

Administrators-who do not have direct supervisory relationship

Instructional consultants

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

- 13

Others

He developed a table (Table 1, p. 3) with the seven areas as rows and the eight sources as

columns, suggesting which sources of data might be useful in evaluating which areas. He

concluded that student evaluations are

of most utility in evaluating the latter four areas (delivery,

assessment, availability, and administrative requirements) and

of little to no use in evaluating the

first three areas (subject matter, curriculum development, and course design). Specific examples

are given by IDEA (n.d.), that students cannot judge

"the appropriateness of the instructor's

objectives, the relevance

of assignments or readings, the degree to which subject matter content

was balanced and up-to-date,

or the degree to which grading standards were unduly lax or

severe."

In a later report, Cashin (1996) provided 20 guidelines for successful evaluation of the

complete faculty contribution, including teaching, research, and service components,

as

applicable. He argued,

As one reads the different authors, one is struck by the high degree

of

agreement among them. I would suggest that among those knowledgeable

of the literature and experienced in the field, there is 80 to 90 percent

agreement about the general principles that should guide effective faculty

evaluation. The answers to the important questions are known, although

not necessarily on every campus.

These three articles are short and reflect the contemporary consensus, despite their age.

Validity concerns

A large literature exists on the validity of student evaluations, under what circumstances

they are valid, and what constructs they measure. A Current Issues section

of American

Psychologist (Greenwald, 1997) presented competing viewpoints (d'Apollonia

&

Abrami, 1997;

Greenwald

&

Gillmore, 1997; Marsh

&

Roche, 1997; McKeachie, 1997).

Each

of the four articles provided different answers to four validity questions:

1. Conceptual structure: Are ratings conceptually unidimensional or multidimensional?

2. Convergent validity: How well are ratings measures correlated with other indicators

of effective teaching?

3. Discriminant validity: Are ratings influenced by variables unrelated to effective

teaching?

4. Consequential validity: Are ratings results used in a fashion that is beneficial to the

educational system?

The key point, from

my perspective, is in Greenwald's (1997) originating question:

My interest in student ratings had a sudden onset.

In

1989, I received the

highest student rating evaluations I had ever received for teaching an

undergraduate honors seminar. The sudden interest came, not then, but a

year later, when I received my lowest ever evaluations. The two ratings

were separated by eight deciles according to the university's

norms-about

2.5 standard deviations apart. But these two ratings were for the same

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

course, taught in the same fashion, with a syllabus that was only slightly

changed. (p. 1182)

McKeachie (1997) replied,

Had I been consulting with him about the ratings, I would have said

something like this:

"Tony, classes differ. Effective teaching is not

just a matter of finding a

method that works well and using it consistently. Rather, teaching is an

interactive process between the students and the teacher. Good teaching

involves building bridges between what is in your head and what is in the

students' heads. What works for one student

or for one class may not

work for others. Next time, get some ratings early in the term, and if

things are not going well, let's talk about varying your strategies."

I

think this puts the validity debate in perspective.

-14

Olivares (2003) offered another widely-cited critique of the validity of student ratings.

His arguments strike

me as attacks on a straw figure. He lists four requirements for student

ratings to be valid objective measures (p. 236). Not surprisingly, he can assemble counter-

examples to every one of these requirements, and therefore student ratings lack psychometric

validity. However, his conclusion acknowledges that student ratings may still have use:

Considering the foregoing analysis what can

be concluded regarding the

utility

of numerical student ratings of teachers?

It

depends on the purpose

of SRTs. Armstrong (1998) suggested, "there is no evidence that the use

of teacher ratings improves learning in the long run" (p. 1223). Nor is

there evidence to show that

SRTs improves teacher quality (Feldman,

1983; Ryan et aI., 1980). If, however, SRTs are intended to serve as a

convenient method to evaluate teachers using students' opinions

of their

satisfaction with the course

or teacher, then SRTs can be considered to

have practical utility.

Thus, a lack

of validity does not mean that SRTs are not useful; rather, it

just suggests that SRTs are not measuring what they intended to measure

and therefore inferences regarding teacher effectiveness or student

learning should be constrained.

Much

of the debate concerning validity of student ratings centers around differing

definitions

of "what they are intended to measure." I would argue for McKeachie's (1997) more

pragmatic emphasis, that student ratings are best viewed as subjective responses and can provide

useful infonnation when viewed

in that light. As Mike Theall (2006) wrote in an online

discussion forum

Ratings are intended to present students' opinions and they are doing just

that.. .. Pseudo-psychometric issues ... are far less important than emphasis

on appropriate interpretation and use of those data ....

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

Appropriate use of students' opinions requires that they are embedded in a

comprehensive process for evaluating faculty perfonnance; that they are

considered in light

of other evidence; that context and other factors are

considered

in interpreting the data; and that evaluation is accompanied by

administrative support in as many forms as are necessary

to insure

effective teaching and learning.

I consider that the best conclusion to the debate over validity

of student evaluations.

Course evaluations as predictors of learning

-15

A recent study by Weinberg, Fleisher, and Hashimoto (2007) took a new approach to

assessing the value of course evaluations. As economists, Weinberg et al. took an economic

value viewpoint. Their paper argues that course evaluations are ultimately intended to help the

university fulfil its role

of increasing the nation's human capital. After several pages of dense

economic theory (which I am unqualified

to evaluate), they present a model relating student

evaluations

of teaching in a first course in economics to expected performance in a second

course building on the first. Co-varying for

many other factors (including grades received,

ethnicity, and others), they assess how well students' assessment

of the first course's

effectiveness predicts their grade in the second course. They conclude,

When both current and future course grades are included in the same

regression (column 3), the effect

of current grade clearly dominates, and

the coefficient [for teaching effectiveness as a predictor of] future grade

is

small and insignificant. (p. 15)

This study is the fIrst one of any size that considers teaching evaluations in terms of grades in

later courses.

It

appears well-designed, and its message that teaching evaluations do not measure

learning

of knowledge that will be useful

in

future courses should be taken into consideration.

[end

of embedded report by Ted Kirkpatrick]

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-16

III - Recommendations

A VARIETY OF OPTIONS

At.~D

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Senate Committee on University Teaching and Learning spent a considerable

amount

of time assessing the various forms of evaluation implements used at institutions across

the province, the country, and in other locations. Careful examination

of the variety of options

available across the spectrum has lead the members

ofSCUTL to develop a number of

recommendations for proceeding.

Summary of recommendations

The recommendations that SCUTL makes can be summarized into changing current

implements, updating current practices, and ensuring that support exists to work with the

information collected through evaluations. Below is a four-point summation of the

recommendations that

SCUTL makes; each point will be expanded on below. There are sub-

recommendations and detailed suggestions that accompany each wider recommendation.

In

broad terms, SCUTL recommends the following:

1. SFU should develop or obtain new course and instructor evaluation

forms that can be offered to the university community.

2. SFU should develop a best-practices guide for conducting student

evaluations

of courses and teaching.

3. SFU should develop a best-practices guide for using the information

collected through student evaluations for administrative and

operational purposes.

4.

SFU should develop and ensure support for responding to student

evaluations

of courses and instructors.

DESIGNING A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR SFU

Much discussion at SCUTL centred on perceived deficiencies of the current course and

instructor evaluation forms that

SFU uses (see Appendix C, but recall that different departments

and units supplement these or use other forms) and discussion around how the various fonus

could be improved to ensure that adequate information was being collected and that the questions

asked are as fair and as useful as possible. This gives rise to the first set

of recommendations, all

of which deal with improving the implements that we use for student evaluations of courses and

instructors.

Recommendations

1. Develop or obtain new course and instructor evaluation forms that can

be offered to the university community.

The committee felt strongly that a revision

or replacement of the current evaluation forms

must be conducted. This opinion was arrived at through a considerable amount

of discussion of

current implements, usages, and methods of evaluation. SCUTL felt that new forms could either

be

11

developed locally,

21

modified from currently existing f01111s, or 3/ obtained from

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-17

commercial suppliers. However, members also felt that the fOIms should be processed locally,

due both to time constraints and privacy concerns.

1.1.

Options similar to those used at UBC (a common core module

plus unit-specific questions)

or the University of Washington

(different forms for various units/kinds

of courses) should be

considered, balancing the need for university-wide assessment

and unit-specific information.

The committee felt that a "one-size-fits-all" solution would not work at

SFU, given both

the recommendations in the literature (which recommends different methods

of evaluation for

different disciplines or methods

of teaching) and the desires of various units to use solutions that

fit their needs best. Current practice supports this, with a third

of units that conduct evaluations

either supplementing

SFU forms with their own or using their own exclusively. However, the

committee balanced this with university-wide operational needs. The University

of British

Columbia uses a specific method that approaches a best-case median

of this dilemma, with a

common core set

of questions that are asked of students across the university and a number of

questions that can be specified by the various units. This sort of evaluation instrument would

allow not only for discipline-specific questions, but also allow units to tailor evaluations for

different methods

of delivery such as field schools, wet labs, practicum courses, seminars, etc.

This would likely satisfy the majority

of units at SFU, allowing them to continue asking the

questions that they currently are (and continuing to use any amassed data) while providing an

institution-wide refresh

of evaluation implements.

1.2. Distinction in the

form should be made between evaluation of

the course as a course and the instructor as a teacher.

The committee felt that one

of the problems that currently exists with the SFU evaluation

procedures is a fuzzy boundary between evaluating the instructor as an instructor and the course

as a course: the section called

"general" seems to be where the course evaluation happens, but it

could have a clearer title. The section called

"course grading" may apply either to the course or

the instructor, depending on the circumstances

of delivery. Other instruments make a very clear

distinction between course

and instructor evaluation, with some going so far as to have separate

forms for these purposes. While the committee recognized that courses are often developed by

individual instructors, it also recognized the value in evaluating courses against student

expectations and desires.

SCUTL also discussed the utility of evaluating programs or streams,

and opportunities for this.

Some members believed that a clearer division between evaluation of

the instructor and evaluation of the course could provide an ability for institutional use of the

comments or data collected.

1.3. Consideration should be given to the unique environment

of

graduate courses and instruction when developing new fonus

and practices.

Given that graduate courses often have small enrolments, graduate students reported a

concern over the anonymity when responding to course evaluations. The unique

supervisor/student relationship also factored heavily into this discussion.

Some departments are

conducting graduate evaluations

in

unique ways, such as having the graduate chair of the

program interview classes. Whatever course

of action with regard to student evaluations SFU

I

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-l8

settles on, consideration should be given to the unique nature of graduate instruction and courses

when developing new implements.

1.4. Create an electronic repository to allow for university-wide

access to fonns and related resources.

Whichever way new implements are developed, the committee felt that sharing

information with regard to the instruments and practices was vital to ensure that the maximum

use

of evaluations was being realized. Specifically, an online repository of information relating

to evaluations was suggested, to allow all members

of the university community access to

combined and collected knowledge. Note: this would not be a repository

of student ratings and

comments, but one which details the fonns

SFU supports and the best-practices guidelines for

conducting evaluations.

CREATING BEST-PRACTICES GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS

One of the most pervasive issues that continuously appeared in discussions at SCUTL

was the many methods by which various units conduct evaluations. Some members were

concerned about the variety

of methods, and in discussions, other methods of conducting

evaluations were considered.

2. Develop a best-practices guide for conducting student evaluations

of

courses and teaching.

SCUTL members strongly agreed that a best-practices guide should be developed and

made available

to the university community. Such a best-practices guide should not be

mandatory policy, but set out ideal conditions and procedures through which evaluations should

be conducted. This guide should also outline acceptable levels and means

of public

dissemination

of results. A number of additional recommendations accompany the

recommendation for a best-practices guide.

2.1. Students should be informed

of the uses of the information

collected in a clear and coherent manner.

Currently, students are informed as to the uses

of evaluations through a legalistic-

sounding disclaimer on the back

of the current forms. While the student members of SCUTL

have become somewhat intimately familiar with practices around the use of data, the same

cannot

be said of the student population. While most faculty and T As know how data are used

during reviews or tenure and promotion committee meetings, most students feel that the

evaluations are simply exercises in futility. It is likely that a clear and coherent explanation

of

the uses of the data collected would go a long way in assuaging the concerns of students.

2.2. Explain and make students aware

of the opportunities that exist

for students to provide feedback outside

of course evaluations.

A large amount

of concern currently exists over the perception that student evaluations

are

an opportunity for disgruntled undergraduates to exact revenge on their instructors.

However, this may very well be because students are not necessarily aware

of the alternative

ways that they can voice complaints about courses and instructors.

SCUTL feels that the student

evaluations are not an appropriate venue for initiating grievances/actions versus the instructor,

and, as part

of the best-practices guide, the committee feels that students should be infonned as

to the various opportunities that exist for them to pursue these outside

of evaluations (such as

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-19

bringing concerns to the department/unit Chair or to a departmental student union), in an attempt

to ensure that constructive responses are collected on evaluations.

2.3. Timing issues should be explored.

Currently, there is no university-wide recommendation on when to conduct evaluations,

aside from the fact that they should be conducted before final examinations.

SCUTL does not

necessarily endorse this stipulation: one advantage

of offering electronic evaluations after the

fmal examination would be that students could offer comments on the fairness

of the exam and

of the grading of materials which they do not receive back until after the end of classes. In

general, the committee felt that timing issues should be considered when developing a best-

practices guide.

2.4. Explore moving to on-line evaluation implements or processing

evaluations locally.

While reviewing options for evaluation implements, the committee felt that consideration

should be given to moving to online surveys.

Online surveys have a number of advantages over

paper surveys, given that they can be processed almost instantly, are secure, can guarantee

confidentiality, and are highly customizable. However, drawbacks were also identified,

especially in lower response rates (online evaluations through

CODE receive a response rate of

approximately 20%). To improve these, completion of evaluations could be tied to grade release

(in a manner similar to library fines) or

SFU could offer incentives, for example a lottery for

prizes such as ipods/laptops drawn from all completed evaluations.

2.5.

Encourage instructors to engage in informal fonnative

evaluations throughout the semester.

During SCUTL discussions, innovative practices already in place at SFU were also

identified.

Some faculty currently conduct informal evaluations at mid-term, which allows

students to provide immediate feedback and see results during the course.

Consideration should

be given to encourage instructors who are willing to do this to continue

to do so and share their

experiences with others. We also note that mid-tenn evaluations accompanied by a narrative

account

of changes

in

methodology/content which the instructor institutes to respond to those

evaluations can be useful as part

of a teaching dossier in faculty applications for promotion and

tenure.

Additionally, the committee discussed the possibility

of creating an anonymous,

consistent, and university-wide communication mechanism for students to provide feedback

outside

of course evaluations, with such feedback going to the instructor of the course.

INFORMING OUR UTILIZATION OF EVALUATIONS

Along with developing a best-practices guide on how to conduct evaluations, the

committee also recommends developing a best-practices guide on how to use the information

collected.

3. Develop a best-practices guide for using the information collected

through student evaluations for administrative and operational

purposes.

3.1.

TPCs and T ARCs should be informed about best practices for

interpreting data collected from evaluations.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-20

The committee felt that the committees that deal with instructor evaluations should be

informed about the best practices for interpreting data collected. Some specific suggestions

included suggesting criteria-based assessment when reviewing evaluations, along with looking

at

the data collected

in

light of the full teaching portfolio. Other suggestions included a formalized

process

for allowing faculty to enter responses to course evaluations to review committees, and

ensuring that evaluations are only a part of the overall assessment.

3.2. The persons and bodies responsible for hiring sessional

instructors and teaching assistants should

be informed about

best practices

for interpreting data from evaluations.

This suggestion follows from

the suggestions for faculty and instructors, as the

committee

felt that any HR related use of the information collected through evaluations should

be accompanied by an understanding of the best practices for interpreting the data.

3.3. Issues around tutorials, labs, and TAs must be considered when

considering evaluation results.

Some graduate students have reported that they have been evaluated as T As even when

they have no direct contact hours with students. These students are performing marking and

related duties and attending office hours and lectures, but have

no tutorials-and yet students are

asked to evaluate them. There are undoubtedly other considerations with more complicated

vectors,

and these should be kept in mind when considering evaluation results.

3.4. Information from course evaluations should be shared with

decision-making bodies where appropriate

and possible.

Various decision-making bodies approve course changes or program changes without

having access

to even the meagre data currently collected that could be very useful. One

example is the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies (SCUS), which must approve course

edits or prerequisite deletions, amongst other changes. While current

forms ask students if

prerequisites are necessary, such data are not presented to SCUS for consideration. The

committee

felt that such data, where possible to be shared, should be shared in the interests of

informed decision making. This will

be of particular significance in assessment of current

changes

to formats for course delivery (changes to class sizes, removal of tutorials, etc.).

SUPPORTING TEACHING AND LEARNING

SCUTL felt that course evaluations have the potential ability to identify cases where

good teaching could be recognized or where opportunities

for improvement could be identified.

As such, the committee felt strongly that all opportunities to support teaching and learning

should

be clarified and promoted to all instructors at SFU. Additionally, the committee felt that

proactive engagement with all those engaged in teaching

at SFU should be considered.

4.

Develop and ensure support for instructors in responding to student

evaluation.

The committee felt that current programs that are intended to support teaching and

learning need

to be continued and that new programs and initiatives should be explored,

wherever possible.

4.1 Opportunities for supporting teaching and learning need to be clarified

and promoted as an opportunity for instructors.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-21

The committee recognized that a number of opportunities for instructional development

currently exist, but it felt that the opportunities are often not promoted to the fullest extent or are

not clarified as opportunities for instructors to participate in.

4.2 Support should be available for all instructors, irrespective of the

evaluation results and without consideration

of rank.

The committee felt that all instructors should have the opportunity to participate in

instructional development opportunities, irrespective

of evaluation results, and without

consideration

of their academic rank or status. The committee felt that this would provide all

individuals engaged in teaching at

SFU with the opportunity to engage in informed self-

assessment, share their skills and abilities, and learn varied approaches

to teaching across the

many disciplines and units at the university.

4.3 Opportunities and support should be provided for one-on-one

consultation with peers, peer mentors, peer networks, or

available specialists at

SFU.

The committee recognized the potential value of peer networks and peer mentoring

programs

in which faculty work together on sharing skills and suggestions. Additional value

was recognised in working with teaching specialists in support departments, faculty in other

departments, and a potential institutionalization

of the peer mentorship program found in some

units.

CONCLUSION

SCUTL respectfully submits this report to the Senate of Simon Fraser University, asking

Senate to read it and to consider our recommendations. We feel that re-examining current

instruments and practices with regard to student evaluations is

of particular significance to SFU

in light of ongoing changes in course delivery methods and formats and in light of SFU's current

Task Force on Teaching and Learning.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-22

IV- Sources

REFERENCES AND WORKS CITED

Cashin, W. E. (1989). Defining and evaluating college teaching (Paper No. 21): IDEA Center,

Kansas State University.

Cashin, W. E. (1996). Developing an effective faculty evaluation system (IDEA Paper No. 33):

IDEA

Centre, Kansas State University.

d'Apollonia,

S.,

&

Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American

Psychologist, 52(11), 1198-1208.

Gates, M. and

P. E. Kennedy. 1979. "Evaluation of Teaching at S.F.U." Unpublished.

Accessed from SFSS Archives, folder #703.l5 (Course Evaluation lVliscellaneous)

Greenwald,

A. G. (1997). Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings of instruction.

American Psychologist, 52(11), 1182-1186.

Greenwald, A. G.,

&

Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of

student ratings. American Psychologist, 52(11),1209-1217.

Groeneboer,

Chris. 2008. "SCUTL Course Evaluation Canvass Final Report." Unpublished.

Available from Learning and Instructional Development

Centre, Simon Fraser

University.

IDEA. (n.d.). Overview of student ratings: Value and limitations: IDEA Center, Kansas State

University.

Johnston, Hugh. 2005. radical campus: Making Simon Fraser University. Vancouver: Douglas

&

McIntyre, Ltd.

Marsh, H. W.,

&

Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students' ratings of teacher effectiveness

effective. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187-1197.

McKeachie, W.

1. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52(11),

1218-1225.

Olivares, O. 1. (2003). A conceptual and analytic critique of student ratings of teaching in the

USA with implications for teacher effectiveness and student learning. Teaching in Higher

Education, 8(2), 233-245.

Simon Fraser Student Society. 1974. "Student Course Questionnaire." Accessed from SFSS

Archives, folder #703.15 (Course Evaluation SFSS Anti-Calendars)

Simon

Fraser University. 2007. "SCUTL - Senate - Simon Fraser University."

http://www.SFU.ca/senate/SenateComms/SCUTL/

Accessed 28 May 2008.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate conunittee on university teaching and learning

---

-23

Theall, M. (2006, Electronic discussion entry, Sep. 7). Re: Effect of research on SETs. Retrieved

May 16,2008, from http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-

binlwa? A2=ind0609&L=pod&F=&S=&P=37 66

Weinberg,

B. A., Fleisher, B. M.,

&

Hashimoto, rvI. (2007). Evaluating methods for evaluating

instruction: The case

of higher education (Working paper No. 12844). Cambridge, MA:

National Bureau

of Economic Research.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

-24

v -

Appendices

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

~z-

8U!W'B~1

pU'B

8u!l{Je~1 Al!sJ~Alun

uo

~~u!UJUlOJ ~1'BU~S

-

~1'Bnl'BA~ ~M

MOq

~unenleA~

!:l

J;!

\)

:b\

~e

S'

:c

~e~e

r

e~!. ~ e.;~~r

mS'~ ~§~fl§~ ~mi

HUh

""1!I!fi,.ll p

t~[§I'~!f~llt!

:-f=l

~12

t

l:

~

e

'

rJ

~

t!

C

~g.

ii

It

".ii"

a

.

'''s..

i

e

~

g:

11

raIL

a

~

~,:!;.

~.

u

I

iI.

r

5'

F. f I

It'.

t~

!

'I

i

:;

i

I!

r

EI

-

rt'

R

~

l::.

~

i

~

f

.0

r

r

II.

(

s

c

CIo

0'

~

D

II

i

~

g

&-

~

r

ii'

:L

I

.,

t

'4!

t

;

e

D

~

i

t'

I

!.,

f

.,

j

r

1

i.

j

j

!

..

';

II

I

~

l._

I

.;

a

So

~

j

f

~

'4

C

D

[

~

~

z

!!1

~

);

~

~

o

i

~

~

....

fI

~~

~ft

0'''

f

'W~ir

"

Don C"u

!=!.

SS$~O

E:';ttr

jjlSj:~)1

--SoO tft'H

ft~

I

flf~l.d

[ ftl

1'1

"-

~

"-

~";"""""""'I~~"""'"

n

~"<:I""

::i

OJ

~n

0'11

.........

9

ir

::t."

r

~fH[r

i~.

-:

II"

1

SIllS'

1

F

I~-

f

~~i<'

:~Iflf

~r'"

n

II

..

!h

f,

i~[l

~.

I II

~

.

·'~,l·:··

..

t ..

,~

L:,.

,.",:-,

I;

"

....

~0---

•• -' ..... " •• ".-.-- .... -.--- •• -- ..... -.,...- ......

:-"'1"'7

•

~""!,

!:I

~

;S

~

~.:

~!!.~:.

~~,; ~e,~it

ee

n

!~"It e.e~~e;r.:'

~l;'i~ ~ ~~~:s

[

~~fiWa O'~~~~~i ~~rfG":,'";

9'5 P-i-E

1 i

8i!~~~

'8

iii'

~~~:.

1

B

!);

~

tIl"

tOfl~

...

1i

"

......

:

..•.

'.',".

tI. Ii" B ... •

5

j

,'<'C

< •• fi i

0 G

~

i

!

.' '

~ Ii';r~

s-$

i

R.

R

r~i5i

i:i

~i1

!;g.

gji2i[

~~~

"1

R. &.<:

I!./::~'

~ ~

~ :R~

-tJ tfDllf

t.f~,

I

9

!

E-

c

-

~!i,It:

~I!.[.

Ji

J

ii-i!

~

Eo

i

a.

Ii

.

.t.

ft.{:~

:".!

-

.. " If' -.

~

,

er

Q,.

iii }}.

•

r-

-0

~S-

i.

a-

9..

1'" .. '

~

,:<:~

'.'."";\.1

ita

I?,

1

ar:

X

a.1I'

.

~

j' .

.

.~r~

l' ......

;~:.'

.....

~

..

i

:i

[

,.,

0"

a~ ~.

C .:"7

.

.r;

It

e

'=

.

~:

:-t.

STUDENT

COURSE-QUESTiONNAIRE·~/v~··ltr-~·~{?·

Simon Fraser Siudent Sodely

Dept:

Course

No:

ProF:

TA:

Yo,.

M~

Mial 1I.\l('t/ 10

(,DMplt'~

,,,'"

fluntwfllIlI"r

on

part D,t II

pml"'

"r

SF.S.S lO rsrtfltJlllr

4IfI

;mti-<ahttd"

a:

51_ FfTISV.

Yt.ur

allinult.f

1IntInr/,.

t»td

~r"UII""

tJprt!fJf'd

lin'

.~t'TJmrd",

'lui,

/s#u,.,. rowst,

_" Itt

piQllrtKd

.."a

(vru/unnf

with thl "Nltlll 'JI ","'Iot/uni,y

"lIIIrlll

(It/fOlium.

YOII

(I"

"Qr ",Atd 1(.

.,~'"

rhls

",wlIlun"ai,..

~(J

./urr .,.,,, ..

"pini",.s

,,'mllrJI ,.,. t'p"nn"('t/

wi",

.'lVU

prrmff#ll, Cu.

,oj"

t:llJJJl"i'l! ti(Jf11

if

"ttdttt

JO thlll

II

('11ft

lit

d~I,.,,","nI

.. h,.,,,,, "I'iltim/l

('MC'''''''''"

lJoi. CVU/k

mor

"I

GIrd , ••

urrr1

fJ/ r:rmN'llfmti,.n.

Il/(f'. rrndr

PC""/ uwor",,,,

tIl:

INSTRUCTIONS

the '"

118 pt'1't.,1 D' ht.vit! ... htn

,.lIIng

0lIl the __ l?.ect

---

Fot _h

q~q,tC)l\ C~oOOi

....

Ir

~

elt, .... li\l'(l,

Tt.

ccom~

can CCOpt ....

i.h

only

an~

IIn""1tr

" 0$ .... nt.,; tn.,

rho

mwlfo:.t., sectior,

be !'iliad

Ol.l~

aIt,edl\' ir. lhe boa ptDvided II' the tcp r.gh1

h ... d

tCW,..'

of the tm_ lho.

• p .... rUe

~

• .., .. ,,. "--' ia pro ..

id~

for

edd!1,oMI_"Iet:

""""*"", Do no'

w,IIe..., ,''' __ .......

I. "

~

'"'

QvftfiDot'

0"

",....,."! pIN.

0l1li1 ...,

~

TOIl

(S~All(:l.I\f

SS.:IS)

vL6

t ';) - UOp

un

r

UA

3

;;)SJnoJ

SS.:IS

V

X!pU~ddV

"'""

~,:

~f

~

---

'-D

N

I

. .-'" .,. .._,' "" -

, '"r .

SECTION A: THE

COURSE

AS A WHOLE

10.

The

~~n;':'; 'ti~

spent on written wortnous:

:"}

""

a) FlU'.., nlde •

a

~

.;:

~

".,

2

~

....

0(

e.

~

~

}-

~

a

on

)

o

~

,-

~

...

:z

~

z;:

;.

Q

~

.£

«

}-

z

?

-

S:? g ..

~

!!:

~

.!!

1

!!

~

~

«'-

~

[.

8

~

-iJ

2

~

~

-I~'o

~

';I

U

Z

1l

~

a.!:

Q

l

f

:;

W

$

u.

~

]

~

. )

;l

... -6

'"

~

~

~

s

~

~

t

~ ~

1

:;

a....;

~~

-8 :

~

i.2

~~ ~

$

~

~~~~o~

lI)e

~IU

.!

~:e

::

.J?

l

.

.f

.!

~

...

!'

.':,g~J!...2l

~"''';M-;<tJ

~...

~:

~ .!N~g

0 oS

~:ss;~

~

0..,0':

~

0;10

~ ~.

_

~~~,!!ij

~

2.2JUf;

-:J~:::o~

:~

s ':

i~

=:

~I?,~~;:;

•

o~~~~ ~ ~rsJ';cil!

':l~

i

:!...: .....

:!

....:ri..; .... ""

:!

....;,.;t"i ... '" 3 ,;",t"J..;..n

~~

- N....

..

I. What" . ,,,ur

principal

reason for taking this co.k?

~) ~~J.rJr:.OO

little.

)

iI)

R"'llUrf"l.

d\ SmuewhiJ.t too much.

;.)

~:

..

I:~=..:i~hiL'b

rnuubedlo.en.

e) Pauoomuc:h.

d~

I\;I"Y crt'Cfil.

J ,. flow much

r~m

or dJoioc=

in

written ASSiIRIJ1C!IIU'

d Finc.d my

~boduJc.

.) Fat' tao little.

.

b) SomewMl 100 DIlle.

2.

,,)

Tht'

LcctuNs..

most C1ljOyable

pan of «'be

c:uurse W3$:

d)

~)

SODK'WhiI

Abouc

Ii"

too muc:h.

&) Tutorials..

e) FBI" too mtII:h.

~~ ~~r;.~d ~lt.

12. CommeDts OIl

~

writtm

work

were:

l'!)

r(!~1

cnnsultlltioa

~~;tb

instnlCtM".

b~ L~~rucUYc.

l. llh: oll.::rall org.:anizatlon of lhe cour.e w.u:

c) Never CIl'IntnH:thv.

sa) \'CJ'Y

",~D p!3~

d}

Destruc:tlft.

b) Wdll'lanrWd.

e) NocortmaeftcsatalL

c) About r18hL

SECTION C: EXAMINATIONS

d

dl Somewhat

Fat

too

dbot

dIs~~

Il.

II}

Thf

Lecture

eums

material.

wemol"K!D.cd

•

Iowod'd:

4. W11al would you tell :ulIlll..,r "turk",!

If It ..

3.,k.,.J W Mllzel' or nn'

b

~

IIDd J'CIIdiDa.

he !bould

t8l;~

this eotaneP

C

R~

a)

Dim't

miss IL

14. 11_ :shoul lhe deames&

of

exam questiom?

b) I1"A II guuch'OW'X-

a) V;que

~

amblJUOUl.

c:) U's

rulC:quate.

h)

M.;a..MWlIy

dear.

d) TI1Ju: il only

if

you luive to.

c)

U~y

qUire clear.

e) Avoid it.

d) Vetydmr.

5. Criteria Jor i)I"dlnS In Ihl ...

c:our~ \\'e~:

15.

nD~':~~

did eMms

I~t

Y(l1lf onrall

IlDmpr6Jen~iun

:0)

f:..r and clearly

~t:t.red.

of

h) Unfair aJld c:le:Srly

.~ted.

a) Not a! 1111.

') .. ' 1

1-.lI

b) VerT imtdequ:Uel)',

c ...

o,Sta.,....

c) Somewluat

~leIy.

d) Adequately.

I

n.1

he

,,[and.nd~

tued in Br:lding this cuu,.,. ..

W"'rl:!:

3)

Vent !cnirot.

,

b)

Son,,~whllt

knkm.

I

c) About rl;hL

:

t1)

S(Jlltew~t

strict.

I

I

SECTION

c)

VelY strict.

B: READINGS AND WRITTEN WORK

I'

1, The reading

I\s5il!l1m~ntl;

m:re;

::I}

Rd~vant

and stimuJatinJ.

1

Il)

R~leTllnt.

c) AIkQlmte.

d) Irrelevant.

I

i

8,

e)

The

1~levant

lIbra.)'

f~)Urces

II]]d duD.

rel~';lnl

10

the murse aTe:

.,) 'TN.:snV Imuff!eienl.

I

b) SIJIr>cWh;'lt msulT.cienl.

c) AdcqIJate.

d) Tn1:tUJ' sufficient.

c)

~t"dlen~.

I

OJ.

How much lime sprnl each ""ttl. n'lIding fof' tlle cnuNe?

a) 0

to

I hour.

b) 2 or l hOUB.

c) 4 or ! bows..

d) 6

01'

'7 houtL

I

e) More th:m 7l1ours.

SECTION

D:

LECTURES

t6. now Wl:lJ was

lhe

IDstructor pl'q)llftd fur

hi.

l«:Ettn:t?

t~

c:)

tI::Jrv':!L=.

Inadequarcly prrpu-ed at times.

d)

F~uently

nmdeqmzteJy

~mt.

e) Never ptqmecL

17.

The

f\'~" ~lc.iCl&

ability ls:

D) Vcry RQUd.

b}

Good:

c}

Adcquarc.

d) Poor.

d Vttypoor.

It!. The

Ii'(:tn~t'"

"hilily to Cllplain j,,,;

it)

Vrry gonel.

b) GoOd:

c) Adoqaatc.

d) Poor.

.. ) Vtny poor.

'9 WM

,h~

lecturer :lUtte!lOsful In sllmlJla.in£

)'OW'

intel'eSt

In 1M C'olll'lle rrnlItetUl?

a)

V~rv

suceesml.

b) Oulle su«cssfuL

c) NOl very succ:ossful.

d) Tot:llly.unsuccas.ful

ClIl

.5

E

c;s

~

"t:I

s::

c;s

s::

ClIl

:E

c;s

u

B

.~

~

CI.)

.2:

:;I

s::

=

0

a:l

CI.I

>(

,I

:.a

I1J

0.

=

0

0.

u

-<

~

c;s

s::

~

CI.)

~

:;I

(0

>

CI.)

~

~

0

.s::

s::

ClIl

.~

.E!

c;s

>

CI.)

---

Sample Anti-Calendar (unknown source, SFSS

Archives)

BIOL

106:

BIOLOGY

Ted Robinson

c-;

Scol'_:_"

fIOLICI

... __

ASSESSMENT ..... -

c

r ..

..

(}

f

'-

r_

0

,_ 10

,

,

(}

I

r

,-

~

...

•

0-11

"

'''Ir-.rl

C/Hrfr .....

Itt~.tpt"".,

LECTURE" LlQUAER,

Uc __

.~

..

oIl111i.IY •••••• ""

WrII

1tt,_I'IIOf

__

~

A,"-_

A ......

ItI'~

lfowllli ••

ID~'ItitI«

.. ,., ..

1t

".-",-"'"

If,",.""...,.t>-_,fd

TUTORS. TUTORIALS

Al,«tdfdtrDj,

A""'IIMIrJt-.l"riOil

D",,,,,,~tIIa'_

"'/pfu"~ie

~fd_

" ...

IIIil.",~IftoI"'IOt"*,,

WfllOIPf/itldltlt_,fd

,,,,.,

Prw:TICALS.OlMONUAATOAS

...

,,,.,

A'~1tIII.I1

C_,..".."lI1l«ftNft

H,/jItc.I""IIWM'''''I('

WORKLOAD

"~""'I

GIfd,,-

CENERAL

__

""-._'."'*'''''

E~6(/Id~'.ulltUltItcutJt'

~",_tr

.. , .. ."."",

'_""'111"011111."

AdfQull,

A.",_tr

"'--.""'"

IIrJJr,.,.AV.1

1M

..

m#dI

,

~II""

01

,utfI..,

Opinion 1

... IIMtooti.

Rapo.-Guidol

SolI - __

0-_

10

..

u

--

-

-

__

__

SIOl 105 is a prerequisite. Arms

&

Camp - great tuxt.

book (the best I've seenl. Tho lecturer (Ted Robinson)

was excellent.

If

I were giving him a grade

I'd

gille him an

"A". Maybe thero should be one lecture

and

one tutorial

instead of two lectures/week. This course is the best one

I

have done all year. The subject was IIerv interesting as

well.

Opinion 2

Read widely, it's not strictly neceuary, but it's interesting

to do

so. Keep up with the work and get help with prob-

loms as they arise. I enjoyed the casual atmosphere of the

pracs. and the helpfulneu of the staff. In some of the mini

courses there was a discrepancy between the demon-

strations mentioned on the tape and what was available in

the lab; Lab sessions need more tutors.

---b~.

BIOL

205:

INlr100UCTORV BIOCHEMISTRY

Dr Hiller

c:.....,

1101.111

... " .......... ,110_

,

AUESSMENT

,-

:

'-

, r __

,

r

,

:= .... '-I

o

II

,..,,.,-.-

CIw,.,

••

~

,.",....Jo/,.,,.ta

UQURIS. UCTUIIIRI

L_ .. "' ....... IoIIiIlIY ••••. , ""

...

'*-littr

___

~rll1

AIIftl:IId_'

~IOI...,.",,/~/_

WOUId.a'lII,."" ,M ,«", .. ., ....

lUTORS. tUTORIALS

R_'~'''~'i,.,

AI

"tII..,..,II(/~_1d

__ '

A .. /MIlr'",<_,,,,1OIf

tJidltO'~.lMJtr""

"'''fuI~'''-"-'tr

~/ttc'III"

fIoutI

ri ..

to "-,,,,,

til,.,. ....

"',-"",

""AtTICALS

W."

Al __

.....

_'-Ittld

'

• DEMONSTRATORS

~"tId

/fm" ••

",~r~_'Jlrtre

GIfd,......,

WORICLOAD

GINERA'-

tI,,./W#r'''''''

___ ' ..

""101.

~.IIMp''''

l"rour""~I,U"t<"_""

tI._alT

",~n,.''''''Ib''

•••

uu""

Cwrll"lrrlll' /0"'1'

~

AtHqwI.

"«OtMlOtll!COUt

_

_

..

0' ,ftC, .. ..,

_',f.AIlI

Opinion

,..-,--

..........

11_0

A

._

....

..

U

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

10

o

.,_

... "'1 .. ..

......

Read from the text book frequently. Don't foil far behind

In Prac. write ups. BIOL

210

or

HSC

BiologV would be

handy in covering respiration and photosynthesis. lecture

notes were good, Icctures were O.K., but certainly re-

quired clarification from textbook. Rosemarv Davy was

an excellent tutor and went to lengths to make sure every.

one understood the theory behind the experiments.

Hiller's summary of lectures at the and

wa~

good. Maybe

he could give them a bit slower so that notes could be

taken, and avoid standing in front of overhead projector

and casting

shadow

on screen. ",nother point in favour of

the course was that the experiments covered work from

the lectures well.

*.

Examination -

6n%

2

assignments

&

seminar -

20%

2 problem tesu 20%

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

-27

---

Appendix C

SFU Course and Instructor Evaluation - Current

-

----

COURSE

AND

<3'

PLEASE

INSTRUCTOR

••

SEE

=n

REVERSE

IMX

SIDE

WI

EVALUATION

•

DO NOT USE INK

OAFELTPENS

•

-

BACKGROUND

1. Whalia your cumulative

2.

Why

did you 1ak81h1a

course?

_ Please answer

Ih.

grade potnt average?

Choose the single most Important reason.

foltowing question. 10 tho

-

bu' 01

your

lib/lily.

-

_ con,id,,,d

The r.sutts

tn

."

d,c/tlon.

c.refully

regardfng cours.

_ revl,lon •• ,

Inti promotion

-

_

-

and

3.

How

often

of

faculty

cId

you

attend

the

lectures/semlnars?

-

4.

The course prerequisites were

-

5. The cweraJllevel

of

difftcully for

the

course was

-

6. The amount 01 work requlrud for the course was

-

7.

How ,valuable

was

the course content?

-

8. The course text Dr supplementary material was

-

,9. I Would rate thIa

course as

-

COURSE GRADING

-

10. The asslgnmema

and

Iectutelsemlnar matenaJ were

-

1,1.

The

exams

and assignments were on the whole

-

12.

The marking

scheme

waa on the whole

...

INSTRUCTOR AND LECTURES I SEMINARS

... ' 13. How Inrormaflve were the Imures/semlnara?

... 14. The Instructor's crganiZallon and preparation were

16. The Instructor's ability to communicate material was

3.5

or over

<D

3.0

to

3.49 (i)

2.5

to

2.99

(i)

2.0

to

2.49

@

befow2.0

always

essential

rooeaay

tooli1tle

very

relevant

well related

fair

fair

Inlormatlve

excellent

eKC81lent

",',

18.

The Instructor's interest in the course content

appeared

to

be

high

•

17. The Instructcts teedback on my work was

adequate

.. 18. Ouestlonl ctunng

cfasa

were

encouraged

.. 19.

Was the Instructor reasonably

accessible

for extra help?

avaJlabIe

.. 20. Was

the

Instructor responsive to suggesJIons or complaints?

very

-

21.

0veraH.

the Instructor's attitude towards l1Udonts was

oxcel!ent

-

-

22. I would rate

the

instructor's toaching ability as

eD

It

was compulsory

@ I

am interosted

In the subject

(i)

No alternative course available

@

It looked like an

easy

c:redI1

Other

reasons

G)(i)(i)(!)(!)

hardly

ever

G)Ci)(i)(!)<V

not

essential

G)(i)(i)(!)<i)

too

difflcult

G)Ci)(j)(!)<i)

roo much

G)(i)(i)(!)

<V

not

very

G)(i)(i)(!)@

irrelevant

<t>~@@(f)

G)Ci)(i)(!)(!)

unrelated

G)<!>(i)(!)@

unfair

G)@@@(j)

unfair

G)(i)(i)(!)(j)

uninformative

G)Ci)(i)(!')('j)

poor

G)@(i)@@

poor

G)@(j)(!)('j)

low

G)@(i)(!)(j)

inadequate

G)Ci)(i)(i)(i)

discouraged

G)(i)<i>(i)<i)

never

available

G)Ci)(i)(!)<V

not at

aD

G)(i)(j)(!)<i)

poor

(6)@(S)@(f)

-28

~------------------------------------------------------------------------~

-

Course:

GENERAL

COMMENTS

1.

What

do you

consider

ro be

the

strongest and weakest

features

of

thelnstnJctOt.

as

a teacher?

2. What do

you

consider to be

the strongest and weakest

features of the course?

3. MY other comments or

suggestlons?

Semester:

Instructor's

Name:

1io~"U'TtlON

CANADA FORM NO. Q.102913-SFU

PC3 3099 • 991H2

Appendix D

SFU Teaching Assistant Evaluation - Current

I

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

---

--

-

-

-

-

-

-----

-

---

-

-

-

-

-

1,

PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE

TEACHING

ASSISTANT

EVALUA

TION

FILL IN THE CIRCLES

ERASE

CHANGES COMPLETEL V

..:-_.:c:::UU::=:"=D=PE=HCI=L=O=H:=LY==:::A. •• U ..

...,

DO NOT USE INK

OR FELT PENS

~®@@®

Wrong

G:>®@@®

Wrong

SAMPLE MARK

G:>®@.®

Righi

Please answer the following QuestIOns to the best 01 your ability

Your assessment of the T,A.'s leaching abilities will become pan 01 hiS/her employment record. ThiS

information will also prOYlde feedback to l1elp your TA refine and improve hIs/her teaching methods.

How allen did you allend your tutonal(or lab)?

always

<D®G)0®

hardly ever

•

•

-

-

----------

-

-

-

-

-

-

Course:

1.

What

GENERAL

do

10.

2.

you

3.

B,

6.

9,

5,

7.

4

Old

QuestIons

Tutorials

The

The

Was

Was

I

I

conSIder

COMMENTS

would

would

the

TA's

T.A.'s

the

Ihe

T,A.

rate

rate

T.A.

T,A.

(or

10

dunng

marking

Interest

be

the

the

keep

labsl

punctual

reasonably

Ihe

Monal

TA..s

Semester:

tutonal

10

and

In

was

hIS/her

the

lectures

teaching

in

(or

(or

course

accessible

slarting

lab)

scheduled

tab)

were

as

ability

conlent

wele

lutorials

lor

as

ollice

exira

appeared

(or

hours?

labs)?

help?

to

bo

coordinaled

<D®@0®

nol

coordinated

_

strongest and weakest features of

-

-

_

-

2.

theTA?

Can you offer any suggostions

_

for improving the T.A:s style of

_

presenlation. indiyidual

consultation.

marking.

etc.?

-

-

T.A'sName

available

<D®@0@

never available

always

<D®@0<D

hardly ever

encouraged

<D®@<D®

discouraged

faIr

0®@<D®

unfair

high

0®<Y<D@

low

al\vays

(D®<DG>®

hardly ever

@@@@®

@®©@®

IMPORTANT:

Don't 'orget to specify your T.A.'s name.

-29

_~

______________________

~

________

~~~n~~.~.oo~~~,~~~~.=~~,~~~~.~=,,~~~.,.~,~u~

.•

~'~'~~'~~~

••

~'~~=~'~~~'I~O.~.~~~.~.'~~~'m~m~~h~t.

________

~

:;:AHTAOH

CANADA F()$<I.IP,O O.ttJOa7.srU

,~~~~~~~;.........

~3)'~

'091'.

Appendix E

SFU Forms - Statements of Use

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university teaching and learning

---

Protection of Privacy

Collection Notice

The information on this form is collected under general authority of the University Act

(A.S.B.C. 1979. c.419) and SFU Academic Policies A11.02, A12.01, A12.02 or

A12.0S. It is related directly to and needed by the University to operate its personnel

management

and academic programs. The information will be used to evaluate the

qualifications and performance of faculty according to their assigned duties and

responsibilities:

to decide on salary increases. promotion. contract renewal or tenure:

and to evaluate an academic program. This evaluation form is completed

anonymously, however, please

be advised that any handwritten comments you

provide on this form will be available to the person being evaluated and university

administrators.

If you have any questions about the collection and use of this

information please contact the administrative staff

in the academic department

responsible for

the course.

Protection of Privacy

Collection Notice

The information on this form is collected under general authority of the University Act

(A.S.B.C. 1979. c.419). the SFU/TSSU Collective Agreement (Article 17)

andlor

SFU

Academic Policy A 12.09. It is related directly to and needed by the University to

operate its personnel management and academic programs. The information will be

used to evaluate the qualifications and performance of non-faculty teaching support

staff according

to their assigned duties and responsibilities: to decide on

reappointment and to evaluate an academic program. This evaluation form is

completed anonymously. however. please be advised that any handwritten comments

you provide on this form will be available to the person being evaluated and university

administrators.

If you have any questions about the collection and use of this

information please contact the administrative staff

In the academic department

responsible

for the course.

evaluating how we evaluate - senate committee on university leaching and learning

-30