DRAFT

The below is meant to be both descriptive and prescriptive. In addition to describing various aspects of administering the course evaluation system, it prescribes how the system ideally operates and sets standards by which the process is determined to be effective.Considering that the below was developedfrom having begun implementation of the new online system, I suggestnot finalizing this until after Spring ’14. Only then we will have one year of all programs having used the system. Also, it has not yet been determined if the online system can be configured to handle every aspect of the below. Policy should not be codified until the system is no longer in flux to the extent that it is now.

Course Evaluation Purposes, Administration and Access

  1. Purpose:
  2. The primary purpose of course evaluation is improvement and enhanced quality, at any level of the institution.
  3. Results from course evaluations can and should be used for improvement and enhanced quality at each of these levels: individual faculty, courses, academic programs, schools, the Core Curriculum,and the institution as a whole.
  1. Roles and responsibilities:
  2. Thecourse evaluation system will be administered through the Provost's Office by the Office of Institutional Research. Neither schools nor academic programs will administer a course evaluation system separate from the central evaluation system withoutProvostial approval.
  3. The Provost’s Office will fund the system.
  4. The Office of Institutional Research is responsible for planning and designing the evaluation cycles, data collection, data analysis, and reporting, in collaboration with Dean-appointed individual administrators at each of the four schools.Alternative: A planned decentralization wherein each school controls its course evaluation administration.
  5. The Faculty Senate is responsible for the mode of administration and for the content of the course evaluation questionnaire.
  6. Use of results:
  7. The Provost’s Office, the Office of Institutional Research, and the Faculty Senate are equallyresponsible for shaping of use of results at any level.
  8. Confidentiality:
  9. All of the above offices/groups agree to confidentiality of student responses and agree that a violation of confidentiality is an egregious offense.
  1. Electronic-based administration:
  2. Evaluations will be administered electronically and the College’s student information system will be sole source of data for the course evaluation system.[1]
  3. ITS will provide the appropriate electronic course files in a timely manner and the deans and vice provosts are ultimately responsible for the accuracy and integrity of these data files.
  4. Data collection for course evaluations will operate either on a monthly basis or according to the academic term that governs the given SMC program.
  1. Scope:
  2. Besides the below, all SMC courses will be evaluated, and evaluations will be accessible to all enrolled students inthe given term.
  3. The only courses that will be excluded from the evaluation system are:
  4. independent studycourses (courses ending in 97, 98, and 99)
  5. “challenge”courses (courses ending in 32 and 33)
  6. First-year advising courses (EDUC-70, followed by a section number)
  1. Student response rate:
  2. The response rate standard for course evaluations is 90%, both by school and overall.
  3. The Provost’s Office and the Faculty Senate, in collaboration with the Office of Institutional Research, shall determine the most optimal approaches to reaching and maintaining this standard.
  4. Faculty shall have access to response rates for their courses during the data collection period and are responsible for taking an active role in increasing response during the data collection period.
  1. Data collection:
  2. For any datacollection cycle, retrieval of course files (and, thus, data collection) will not commence before the course withdraw deadline, when student enrollment is still in flux.
  3. Likewise, the assignment of faculty to courses as reflected in the College’s student information system will not extent past the course withdraw deadline.
  4. Data collection shall not extend into the period when course grades are released for the given term.
  1. Reporting:
  2. Release of faculty course evaluation reports will not occur before the grade submissiondeadline for the given term.
  3. All faculty will be sent their course evaluation report(s) within two weeks of the grade submission deadline of the given term. Access to these faculty reports by others (see below) will occur within two weeks of the grade submission deadline of the given term.
  1. Access to courseevaluation results:
  2. Access to results will be stratified. (Alternative: All faculty have access to all results.) The below lists the positions that have access to course evaluation data, as organized by four groups: staff administrators, faculty administrators, department chairs/program directors, and individual faculty.
  3. Staff administrators include select Provost’s Office staff and Institutional Research staff. These staff have access to all results at all levels as members of these groups are responsible for maintaining the course evaluation system and producing reports on demand.
  4. Faculty administrators are divided into two groups, with one group “capped” at the school level and the other group having access to all results at all levels.
  5. Academic deans have access to course- and program-level data in their schools, in addition to their school-wide data. The deans would also be able to see college-wide results, as a reference point. (Deans have the option of granting an Associate Dean in their school access to dean-level data if this person is involved in the evaluation of faculty.)[2]
  6. The Provost and the Vice Provosts form the second faculty administrators group. They have access to data from all the schools and to college-wide results.
  7. Department chairs/program directors have access to course- and program-level data from their departments/programs.[3] They also have access to aggregated results at the school and college levels, as reference points.
  8. Individual faculty have access to their course data. They also have access to aggregated results at the program, school, and college levels, as reference points.

1

[1] Although related to the course evaluation system, the Office of Institutional Research will not be concerned with the “local” (e.g., program- or school-based) systems that produced course data. It will focus on the College’s student information system.

[2] From SEBA, Associate Deans are Tomas Gomez and Larisa Genin. From SLOA, Shawny Anderson.

[3] Department chairs/program directors include directors of January Term and Collegiate Seminar.