The last in a trilogy of documents relating to the evaluation of teaching was approved Jan. 29 at a meeting of University Council, but not without concerns from the floor about the need for a standard student-centred evaluation tool, the cost of the evaluation process and even the title of the paper.

The Framework for Evaluation of Teaching by Students at the U of S was presented by the Instructional Development Committee of Council (IDCC), following on the heels of the March 2002 approval of Principles of Evaluation of Teaching at the U of S, and the June 2003 approval of the Framework for Peer Evaluation of Teaching at the U of S: Best Practices.

Maulé

In introducing the framework, agricultural and bioresource engineering professor and IDCC chair Charles Maulé read from the document: “It is important to create a culture on our campus that reflects accountability to our students and a commitment to teaching effectiveness. The University of Saskatchewan should strive to become known for its teaching excellence and its attention to the evaluation and improvement of teaching.”

The document goes on to restate what is stressed in the two previous documents – that teaching evaluations are an important tool in helping faculty develop and improve instruction and as a way of providing information relevant to applications for promotion and tenure.

In the case of evaluation done by students, the document states that both the U of S Students’ Union and the Graduate Students’ Association “believe that teachers should be accountable for their teaching and want to ensure that the student voice is heard in the evaluation process”.

Further, the Students Council has endorsed a statement calling for evaluations to be mandatory and the results accessible.

As part of a multi-pronged approach to evaluation, the framework for evaluation by students is intended to help departments and colleges assess current student-based evaluation practices or develop new ones from examples and resources available on campus and in the wider community. Attachments to the document include student evaluations already in use in the department of psychology and the college of law.

In addition to addressing issues like the frequency of evaluations and confidentiality, the document includes a best practices section in which departments and colleges are, among other things, cautioned about changing questionnaires and approaches to evaluation. In its research, the IDCC found that developing a valid, reliable instrument to evaluate teaching takes expertise in statistics and psychological measurement.

Early in discussion of the motion to adopt the framework, English professor Bill Slights pointed out an “unfortunate and unnecessary ambiguity” in the title that suggests students do the teaching. His solution was to retitle the document Framework for Student Evaluation of Teaching. That amendment was carried.

The issue of a common validated questionnaire for students was brought up by a number of Council members. Math professor Mik Bickis suggested it was “surprising that the document doesn’t strongly recommend a single process to be used across campus”. Commerce professor John Russell wondered if the framework “provides guidelines to set up procedures for designing questionnaires”. Maulé reiterated that two examples of questionnaires as well a number of references were provided in the document, and that the next step for the University is to work toward “a common University evaluation”.

“There are plenty of teaching evaluations used on campus,” he said, “but units and departments are not completely free” to use what they want. He suggested they “look to see what units similar to yours have done”.

Russell then asked whether the IDCC included “any teeth” in the document to ensure colleges and departments follow the framework, to which Maulé replied, “all we can say is ‘should’.”

The question of cost was raised by Jim Cheesman of the psychology department who said the evaluation process involves a “significant” investment of time by other faculty, and “I don’t believe faculty are sitting around looking for something to do”. The result will be that “something’s going to have give – teaching or research time”. Maulé replied that while up to 10 hours per faculty per year will be required for peer evaluations, the evaluations by students will require administrative time, at “the University’s cost”.

Cheesman said while he agrees with the idea of student evaluations, he would vote against the motion “because I don’t think the committee appreciates how hugely expensive it is to create validated questionnaires”.

Doug MacLean, acting head of mathematics and statistics, said he saw no evidence the committee followed up on an earlier recommendation to consult reports by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) on student evaluations of teachers. These suggest such questionnaires "measure only student attitudes toward the class and the instructor, not the amount of learning,” MacLean said. They are, he continued, “highly relevant, and I would encourage you to read them”.

For more information, contact communications.office@usask.ca

News Index

Home · About Us · Issue Dates · Submissions · Ad Information · Back Issues · OCN Policies · Search OCN