COMMITTEE for STUDENT EVALUATION of TEACHING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29TH, 3:35
CONFERENCE ROOM, INTERNATIONAL HOUSE
|Chair: F. Michael Combs||Professor, School of Music|
|Members in attendance:|
|Dr. Ralph Brockett||Professor, Educational Psychology|
|Ms. Jo Lynch||Sr. Research Asst., Institutional Research & Assessment|
|Mr. Will Martin||Undergraduate Representative|
|Ms. Susan North||Graduate Student Representative|
|Dr. Bill Park||Professor, Agricultural Economics Hatch|
Ms. Lynch's corrections of the minutes from the November 8th meeting were discussed and approved.Statement of agenda
Title and responsibilities of committee, short term planning and old business and new business and long term goals.Old business
Online CTEP for distance educationNew BusinessNo report from sub-committeeReporting to Teaching Council
Mr. Combs reported that he had been in contact with Dr. Metros and that she was awaiting contact from the sub-committee to proceed.
Dr. Park suggested that the sub-committee contact the administrator of the AIS program at the University of Washington (a program comparable to CTEP), as it has recently been adapted for use via the Internet.
Dr. Brockett indicated willingness to replace Dr. Clark on the sub-committee should it become necessary.
The committee indicated a general desire for this matter to be dealt with expediently and efficiently.Mr. Combs indicated that he had reported to the Teaching Council as per the committee's wishes regarding the pressing items from the November 8th meeting.Minimum requirements for printing a CTEP reportMs. Lynch reported that the statistician she spoke with said that the current minimum requirement of 5 forms was not derived statistically because the number is far too small, and instead suggested that the primary concern was probably confidentiality.Open-ended comments from the Spring 1999 CTEP questionnaire
A lengthy discussion ensued with the principal concerns being: protecting student confidentiality, allowing students the opportunity to present feedback, and continuing to provide instructors with the opportunity to receive feedback.
It was noted that evaluation is possible without CTEP and several suggestions to this effect were discussed.
A distinction between the necessary confidentiality for Graduate and Undergraduate classes was discussed and it was finally agreed that while maturity and class size tend to make Graduate classes more intimate the power dynamic and level of politicization demanded confidentiality.
No suggestions were made to change the current requirement but the committee agreed that extenuating circumstances could arise and they would claim responsibility for reviewing those incidents.A graduate assistant in the office of Institutional Research & Assessment has prepared a synopsis of the categories used in the report.
Review of these comments was postponed pending clearance from the director who has requested that he be able to view the documents prior to release.
Name of the committeeNext meetingThe committee agreed on the name "Committee for Student Evaluation of Teaching."Policy regarding student concernsThe committee discussed three options for dealing with student concerns1. The students would have established channels for contacting this committee and the chair would address the issue with appropriate administrators.Mr. Combs agreed to report to the Teaching Council that this issue is being addressed and would keep them apprised of progress.
2. When contacted by students the committee would redirect them towards the appropriate committee and would publicize the appropriate actions across campus.
3. The committee would redirect students to the administration, publicize appropriate action, and intercede on behalf of the student when necessary.
As no consensus could be reached, Mr. Combs will e-mail a number of possibilities to the committee members and their responses will dictate the time and place of the next meeting.