coe-staff: UO Senate Proposal to Change Course Evaluations as well as the Overall Teacher Evaluation Process

[Beth Harn]

Hello Colleagues,

There is a current proposal in the UO Senate that will completely change 1)
inputs provided by students on courses; and, 2) how all faculty will be
evaluated as teachers. The proposal is at the following link:
https://senate.uoregon.edu/2018/05/04/us1718-19-implementing-a-system-for-the-continuous-improvement-and-evaluation-of-teaching/



Within the proposal they have links to: 1) the proposed student evaluation
surveys (mid and end of term); 2) a forced instructor self-reflection; 3) a
peer review checklist for a course; and, 4) the *Teaching Evaluation
Framework*. Within the Framework it explains the University's broad
parameters for the process of evaluating all instructors (i.e., protem,
NTTF, TTF) for merit, promotion, and tenure decisions using the previously
mentioned inputs. It is proposed to be instituted *Fall 2018*.


I have strong concerns about the approach and scope of the proposal, as the
process was initiated to change how *courses* were evaluated.

·  For the course evaluation process: If you look at the draft, you will
notice that all feedback is provided in *narrative* form. There are no
numerical ratings gathered, not even objective information like hours
students devoted to the course. Students will no longer have the option of
signing their responses and *all *responses will be included in an
instructor's course/teaching evaluation.

·  For the scope of the proposal: It is instituting changes that will
impact *each* instructor, program and department that will require
significantly more time and effort to complete the process without a clear
indication as to where this extra time as well as who will complete the
process. Additionally, it is unclear how *progress will be evaluated*. No
goals/benchmarks were provided and if the proposal is passed, there will be
no oversight by the Senate and the “piloting” of efforts will continue
(e.g., the student evaluation survey was tweaked after Winter responses and
will be again for Spring and Summer but with no guidance on how/what guides
the “tweaking”).

While I don't disagree that the current course evaluation process is weak
and the teaching evaluations process is idiosyncratic, I am not convinced
this proposal will improve teaching. Additionally, it requires more time
and effort toward, as proposed, an unmeasurable goal. Finally, I am
concerned that most faculty were not informed or aware of this sea change
shift from the University. For example, I participated at the University
Town Hall for faculty last week and a total of 10 faculty attended.


This will be voted on May 23. The COE senators include myself, John Seeley,
and Chris Murray, please send along feedback to us via email or you can get
more information and provide feedback at the Provost's website:
https://provost.uoregon.edu/revising-teaching-evaluations



Thank you for your continued commitment to high-quality instruction.
Beth

-- 
Beth Harn,   bharn at uoregon.edu
Associate Professor, Department of Special Education & Clinical Sciences
University of Oregon
O: 541.346.4247   /   F: 541.346.0683

Confidentiality Notice: This email contains information for the sender that
may be confidential, legally privileged, proprietary, or otherwise
protected from disclosure. This email is intended for use only by the
person or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, disclosure, copying, distribution, printing, or any
action taken in reliance on the email, is prohibited. If you received this
email in error, please contact the sending party, delete the email from
your computer and shred any paper copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/pipermail/coe-staff/attachments/20180510/21c30eb8/attachment.html>