Motion US 07/08-7 -- to revise the required
university-wide questions on course evaluations
Sponsored by: Paul
van Donkelaar
For senate action: March
12, 2008
Preamble
Student evaluations play an important role both for improving teaching and in providing an opportunity for students to contribute to information included in the yearly evaluation of faculty. The 2006-07 Joint Senate-Academic Affairs Committee on Student Evaluations recommended that the current four required university-wide questions be replaced with a more comprehensive set of questions that would more accurately and consistently probe students' evaluations of course and instructor performance. In their report, the committee outlined a new set of questions that have subsequently been slightly revised by the 2007-08 Joint Senate-Academic Affairs Committee on On-line Course Evaluation Implementation and vetted by each college/unit and various faculty governance and administrative units.
The proposed new required university-wide questions will have a 7-2-3 structure. In particular, the first 7 quantitative questions plus the subsequent 2 qualitative questions will be the only university-wide questions used in the evaluation of faculty in yearly reviews and promotion & tenure cases. The remaining 3 questions related to course attendance, workload, and expected grade will allow instructors to better interpret the patterns of the main evaluation questions. It is important to note that these 3 questions will not be used to evaluate faculty. Finally, students will have access to responses to all of the first 7 quantitative questions. Additional questions beyond those contained in the 7-2-3 structure are the responsibility of individual departments/units.
Be it moved that:
The required university-wide questions for UO course evaluations, as adopted by the University Senate on May 8, 1996, and amended in US 97/98-10, be replaced with the following required university-wide questions.
Please share with us your basic perceptions of the
course:
1. What was the quality of this course?
Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory
2. What was the quality of the instructorÕs teaching?
Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory
3. How well organized was this course?
Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory
4. How effective was the instructorÕs use of class time?
Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory
5. How available was the instructor for communication outside of class?
Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory
6. How clear were the guidelines for evaluating students work in this course?
Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory
7. The amount that I learned in this course was:
Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory
Please share with us your thoughts on the course:
1. Please comment on the instructorÕs strengths and areas for possible improvement.
2. Please comment on the strengths and areas of possible improvement for the course as a whole.
Please tell us a little bit about yourself:
1. How often did you attend class?
90-100%
75-90%
50-75%
25 to 50%
Less than 25%
Does not apply
2. How many hours per week did you spend on this course, other than time in class?
More than 10
8 to 10
6 to 8
4 to 6
2 to 4
Less than 2
3. What grade do you expect in this course?
A
B
C or P
D
F or N
Financial Impact: minimal
Web page spun on 15 May 2008 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises |