Student Ratings of Instruction Task Force

November 14, 2013, Meeting

SSB 324, 9:30-10:45

Notes/Minutes:

Attendees:

Chapman Vigil, Jane; Curl, Layton; Grady-Willis, Winston; Holloway, Madison; Kuldarni, Kishore; Nyhus, Ruth Ann; Ortiz, Lisa; Rucki, Sheila; Simmons, James (Co-Chair); Torres, Luis (Co-Chair); Vigil, Peter

Documents for Reference:

A.Agenda for November 14, 2013 Meeting

B.Student Evaluations in Colorado and Other Institutions, list and documents, by Ruth Ann Nyhus

C.Student Evaluations in Peer Institutions, list and documents, by Deb Gilliard

D.Literature Review List, by Peter Vigil

E.Website for SRI Task Force Information Dissemination, by Lisa Ortiz:

Notes of Meeting:

This was the second meeting of the Student Ratings of Instruction/Student Comments Task Force.

I.Changes to the Agenda

  1. No changes to the agenda.
  1. Scope of SRI Task Force Goals:

Agreement that we should narrow our focus and not engage in as wide a scope as discussed in our first meeting, October 10.

  1. Should the Task Force review the 2-question format?

Consensus: No, there is no need to reconsider the 2 questions in use now.

Jane Chapman Vigil stated that from her review of the literature, our 2 questions are appropriate. If we develop a survey, there is no need to ask about this point. Ruth Ann Nyhus remarked that departments maycurrently select from approximately 60 other questions, for formative purposes. The responses go to only the individual professor, to use at his or her discretion. From her literature review about other institutions’ use of student comments, Ruth Ann also said students can comment on the course as a whole, but for specific issues with the professor, the students go to the Chair.

  1. Discussion about Faculty Senate concerns about student comments. Lisa Ortiz referred to the Website she created, with the letter about issues and concerns, March 11, 2013, from Dr. Kamran Sahami, Faculty Senate President, to Dr. Vicki Golich, Provost and Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, “031113-SRI Comment Removal Resolution.” Lisa indicated that the implementation process of the student comments was a major concern, including Digital Measures technology.
  1. Who, When, and Why WillComments be Reviewed?:

Discussion centered around three questions:

  1. Who will read student comments?

Consensus: In the Task Force’s view, it would be problematic for faculty committees to review the comments of their colleagues.

However, if for example the Department faculty committee does not review comments, and the Chair does, will it be problematic if one level does not use them, and the other does? Also, a concern is, the further from the Department the portfolio is reviewed, the less likely the reviewer will be inclined to give the professor benefit of the doubt regarding student comments.

The supervisor level has always had access to student comments, but now, with Digital Measures, they are available to everyone with access to a portfolio, including faculty colleagues.

  1. When will student comments be read, and for how long will they be retained?

Consensus: It is very problematic to have the comments (and perhaps other portfolio items) be retained for a long time. There was some agreement that they should only be retained and used for as long as it takes to complete a specific review purpose.

Dossiers, in hard copy, were returned almost immediately upon review, except for tenure dossiers, so comments, had there been any, would not have been in anyone’s possession but the professor for longer than it took to complete a review. Now, with electronic Digital Measures, portfolios can be retained in their entirety indefinitely, including the comments, unless the comments (and any other desired portfolio item) are purposely deleted.

  1. Why should comments be read, that is, for what purpose?

A major question is, How should student comments be used, and for what purpose?

One possible response: They could be very helpful as a formative tool. There is an ongoing concern that a few negative comments will outweigh positive comments and positive SRI rating scores. Discussion that if negative comments become common for a faculty member, they are summative, not just formative. Tangential to this question, What should a level of review do with comments that are clearly outliers? Discussion that they are not representative, so using them would be unfair and problematic.

An additional concern is the number of student comments to be read by the levels of review. As a professor creates additional portfolios, the number of student comments included will amass, so reviewing the accumulated comments will becomean exceedingly difficult challenge. Will reviewers be expected to read all comments?

  1. Recommendation: Winston Grady-Willis stated that the Task Force should consider and discuss the role of race, nationality, and gender in student comments and in student ratings scores. For example, students at times make negative comments about speaking accents. General consensus that this is a very important subject and should be added to our next agenda.
  1. Next Meeting: Tuesday, December 10that 12:00.