Date of Notice: May 2, 2018
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh & Sierra Dawson, Teaching Evaluation Task Force
1.1 Whereas: On May 24th 2017 the Senate approved motion 17/17-28 to create a task force on student evaluations with the charge of “evaluating and improving course evaluations and peer reviews with respect to reducing biases and improving validity, with the goal of improving teaching, learning, and equity.” (https://senate.uoregon.edu/entry/?Motions=US16/17-28)
1.2 Whereas: While student evaluations of teaching can be an important tool for evaluating and improving teaching and learning, there is substantial peer-reviewed evidence that student course evaluations of the sort used at UO are biased with respect to gender and race, and that the numerical scores are orthogonal to measures of teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes. (See for example Uttl, White and Gonzalez (2016) at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X16300323?via%3Dihub)
1.3 Whereas: There is also scholarly evidence that, unless conducted by trained evaluators using consistent methodology, peer (faculty) reviews of teaching of the sort often done by UO departments are ineffective at evaluating teaching and do not provide useful feedback for improvement.
1.4 Whereas: While in the past UO has required that only signed written student evaluations be provided to department heads and review committees to be used in instructor review, the UO Office of General Counsel’s interpretation of the relevant law is that student classroom survey evaluations of a faculty member’s classroom or lab performance must be anonymous. (See letter from the UO General Counsel’s Office)
2.1 Therefore: The Senate directs the Committee on Committees to create and staff a Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee to include faculty, graduate student, undergraduate student, and ex-officio administrative representatives, and charged with collecting feedback from stakeholders and updating the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS) as needed. The 17-point chart is appended to this motion. Senate approval will be required for any changes in the CIETS except those involving the wording of questions or design of the instruments. described above.
2.2 Therefore: In Fall 2018 the committee will present to the Senate (for vote) a disclaimer for faculty personnel committees, heads, and administrators will stop using to include in reports, if those reports continue to use numerical ratings from student course evaluations in tenure and promotion reviews, merit reviews, and other personnel matters. If units or committees persist in using these numerical ratings, a statement regarding The disclaimer will address the problematic nature of those ratings, provide and an explanation for why they are being used despite those problems and include other available information regarding faculty teaching (e.g. peer reviews, student comments, faculty self-evaluations).will be included with the evaluative materials.
2.3 Therefore: As of Fall 2018 student evaluation surveys will be anonymous. Past faculty personnel committees, heads, and administrators will stop using signed written comments from previously collected student course evaluations can continue to be used in tenure and promotion reviews, merit reviews, and other personnel matters.
2.4 Therefore: Beginning with the Fall 2018 quarter, the University will stop collecting data using the current student course evaluations and will adopt the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS), starting with the following elements:
- A Midterm Student Experience Survey. This web-based anonymous survey will collect non-numerical course feedback that will be provided only to the instructor, for use in course improvement. (See spring 2018 pilot at https://oregon.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6nCcC7UHM64Etil).
- An End-of-Term Instructor Reflection Survey. To be completed Available for optional use by the instructor and to be used for course improvement and evaluation. (See winter 2018 pilot at https://oregon.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_aa47C9OFZCiFt1r; and spring pilot as .pdf).
- An End-of-Term Student Experience Survey. This web-based anonymous survey will collect non-numerical course feedback that will be used for course improvement and evaluation.
2.5 Therefore: The committee will be charged with bringing the Senate a motion regarding the end of term student evaluation survey in Fall 2018. The current Course Evaluations will stay in place until a new version is approved by the Senate.
- See winter 2018 pilot at https://oregon.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ex1g0zh5aWMfwR7, and spring 2018 pilot as .pdf.
2.6 Therefore: The committee will be charged with bringing proposals to the Senate for vote, no later than Fall 2019, motions on the following:
- A Peer Review Framework with recommended instruments that units will customize to establish a consistent process and criteria for evaluation, with the goal of campus implementation by Fall 2020. (See initial framework at https://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/sites/academicaffairs2.uoregon.edu/files/proposed_peer_review_framework_4.20.18.pdf).
- A Teaching Evaluation Framework that units will customize to establish a consistent process and criteria for evaluating teaching, with the goal of campus implementation by Fall 2021. (See initial framework at https://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/sites/academicaffairs2.uoregon.edu/files/proposed_teaching_evaluation_framework_4.20.18.pdf)
Oregon Law on classroom evaluations by students
(9) Classroom survey evaluation by students of a faculty member’s classroom or laboratory performance shall be anonymous. The record of tabulated reports shall be placed in at least one of the files designated in subsection (4) of this section. All survey instruments used to obtain evaluation data shall be returned to the faculty member.
(10) A public university listed in ORS 352.002 (Public universities) and, after July 1, 1975, but before the date on which the public university obtained a governing board, the State Board of Higher Education and its public universities, offices, departments or activities, when evaluating its employed faculty members, may not solicit or accept letters, documents or other materials, given orally or in written form, from individuals or groups who wish their identity kept anonymous or the information they provide kept confidential.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND EVALUATION OF TEACHING COMMITTEE [Tier 1]
1) Name of Committee followed by [Committee Tier Number in brackets]:
Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee [Tier 1]
2) Brief Description:
The committee collects feedback on the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS), makes minor changes to the instruments based on stakeholder feedback, and advises the Senate on significant changes as needed.
Created by Senate legislation US17/18-19: “Implementing a System for the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching” on May 23, 2018.
4) Charge and Responsibilities:
The committee collects feedback on the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS), makes minor changes to the instruments, and advises the Senate on significant changes as needed. Any proposals for Senate action during an academic year should be proposed in writing no later than the beginning of Spring Term.
5) Membership Requirements:
Three to five faculty broadly representative by college, including at least one career instructional faculty, one tenured professor, and one Senator, appointed by the Committee on Committees. One graduate student, appointed in consultation with the GSA and the GTFF. One undergraduate student appointed in consultation with the ASUO. Ex-officio members to include designees from the Office of the Provost, the Registrar, and the Teaching Engagement Program.
6) Leadership Structure (Chair, Convener &/or Staff):
a) Chair: Elected
b) Convener: Office of the Provost ex-officio member
c) Staff: Office of the Provost
7) Election of Chair (quarter, week or “at the first meeting”):
Annually at the first meeting.
8) Length of Term:
a) Non-Students (faculty, OA’s OR’s, Classified): 2 years, staggered
b) Students: 1 year
c) Ex officio: indeterminate
9) Term Limits:
a) For the Chair: none
b) For Committee Members: none
c) Ex officio: none
10) Frequency of Meetings:
At least quarterly.
11) Workload Designation:
a) For the Chair: Tier 1
b) For Committee Members: Tier 1
12) Reporting Deadline(s):
The Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee shall report to the University Senate. At a minimum this report shall be in the form of an annual written report submitted by the Committee Chair to the Senate President and Senate Executive Coordinator no later than June 1. The committee shall also make additional written or oral reports to the Senate as necessary.
13) Current Members [Leave blank at present]:
16) Selection Process:
17) Additional Information: