Faculty Senate Minutes
March 5, 2001
Present: David Bahar, Suzanne Barnett, Terry Cooney, Joel Elliott, William Haltom, Jim
Harwood, Martin Jackson, Juli McGruder, Michael Sugimoto, George Tomlin, Keith Ward, Rand
Worland
Visitor: Trina Olson
Bill Haltom called the meeting to order at 4:04.
The minutes for the Senate meeting of March 5, 2001 were approved.
Haltom introduced David Bahar, the new president of ASUPS (and the appointed representative
of that body to the Senate), and Trina Olson, the new vice president of ASUPS.
Announcements
Kris Bartanen was in Boston attending a professional meeting and sent her regrets for missing
the meeting.
David Droge asked Haltom to announce a campus-wide forum sponsored by the FDC on
accessibility. Scheduled for March 21 at 4:00 p.m. in the Rotunda, this forum will provide an
opportunity to learn about accommodation required by law and the opportunity to become a
community that welcomes human differences. Scheduled to appear are John Hickey, Director of
Business Services, Ivey West, Disability Services Coordinator, and George Tomlin from our
School of Occupational Therapy. In addition, a representative from the Tacoma Area Council on
Individuals with Disabilities (TACID) is likely to attend. Anyone curious about wheelchair ramps,
untimed tests, dogs on campus who are not pets, sign language interpreters, and handicap
parking is invited to attend.
George Tomlin announced that OT/PT will serve as host during the week of March 26 for two
faculty and fourteen students visiting from Gunma University in Japan.
Old Business: Senators returned to reviewing the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee
regarding student evaluation of teaching. They began by summarizing their work thus far on the
recommendations. Terry Cooney distributed two versions of the instructor evaluation form we
presently use: the present form with the statement, “To the Student,” on a separate sheet, and a
second designed by Yvonne Bjorklund that incorporated the statement to the students into the
form.
Recommendation (1): Open the “black box”! This means to assure the faculty and the students,
in an openly demonstrable way, of the accuracy and fairness of the process employed in the
interpretation and use of evaluation data.
Based on Randy Nelson’s work (Randy is the Director of Institutional Research) and
earlier discussions in the Senate, Suzanne Barnett emphasized that this issue is mostly a
concern of junior faculty. Haltom also noted the motion passed at the last meeting of the
Senate, directing it to sponsor a forum for junior faculty at least once every three years
concerning the use of student evaluations in the assessment process.
Recommendation (2): We must design different forms for feedback and appraisal.
Haltom mentioned research cited by Randy Nelson in earlier meetings that showed
similar results in evaluation forms regardless of their use for either feedback or appraisal.
Speaking from personal experience in reading numerous evaluation forms as a member
2
of the Faculty Advancement Committee (FAC), Juli McGruder asserted that students at
Puget Sound understand both processes and do not confuse them.
The Senate chose to take no action on this recommendation.
Recommendation (3): Students must be clearly instructed about the purpose of the particular
form they are completing for a particular class.
Discussion focused on the script read by departmental secretaries prior to filling out the
form (“To the Student,” which accompanies the form). Jim Harwood reported that in his
experience secretaries often read the script, although not always. Based on her personal
experience, Trina Olson felt that students take the evaluation process seriously, taking up
to thirty minutes to complete the form. She felt it would be best if the directions to the
student were incorporated into the form itself. She also noted that secretaries tend to
remind students of the instructions in upper-level classes instead of reading the script
verbatim. David Bahar suggested that the statement should be on the form and that it
should be read. Terry raised the practical issue that veteran secretaries do not always
read the script. Bahar expressed concern for students who have dyslexia who may have
problems reading the form accurately. Olson expressed reservations about the reduced
room to write comments on the proposed revised form. Cooney said students tend to
choose one place to make extensive comments on evaluation forms and that 3
(“Instructor’s Ability to Promote Knowledge”), 4 (“Instructor’s Concern For and Interaction
With Students”) and 5 (“Instructors’ Promotion of Students’ Learning”) traditionally do not
have as many comments as other sections. McGruder noted that the “Background
Information” section on the proposed revision is longer. She spoke in favor of this,
mentioning that many students write extensively in this section. She and George Tomlin
identified problems with section 4c (“the instructor was willing to discuss different points
of view during class), particularly in evaluations from science courses. Because students
“decode” this statement differently, Tomlin thought different wording may be helpful.
Cooney said that the Professional Standards Committee may look at phrasing when it
reviews the form, and he thought the PSC would welcome suggestions. He also spoke in
favor of incorporating the statement to the students into the form, since the cover sheet is
not always attached. It would assure that every student evaluation had it.
M/S/P to forward Yvonne Bjorklund’s proposed revision of the Instructor
Evaluation Form, providing instructions on the evaluation form, to PSC. The
Senate also recommends that PSC seek student input when reviewing the form.
Tomlin made a motion to suggest to PSC that the instructions also be read to students
before filling out the form, particularly in first-year classes.
Cooney suggested that secretaries should ask students whether they would like the
statement to be read. Bahar felt that such public requests may stigmatize students with
disabilities who cannot read the form. This would not happen if secretaries were required
to read the statement. He asserted that all students should be able to fill out the form in
class without questions asked. While being sympathetic to this concern, Cooney noted
that there are practical concerns with requiring secretaries to read the statement as well
as concerns from faculty if students have difficulty reading or understanding questions on
the form. Bill Breitenbach felt it would be problematic to single out first-year classes,
since it neglected transfer students who come to the University as upperclassmen.
Removal of the reference to first-year classes was accepted as a friendly amendment.
M/S/P to suggest to the Professional Standards Committee that the instructions
also be read to students before filling out the instructor evaluation form.
3
Recommendation (4): Questions on the form should take into account whether the class is small
or large, team-taught, multi-disciplinary, lab[oratory], etc.
Breitenbach wondered whether this recommendation meant that additional questions
should be considered or whether we should assess the existing questions. Bill Haltom
also was not sure what the recommendation meant. Breitenbach was reluctant to create
additional questions on the nature of course structure, since students are being asked to
evaluate an instructor, not a course. Suzanne Barnett also spoke against creating an
extra layer of information on the form. Cooney pointed out that the Faculty Advancement
Committee considers other information when evaluating a faculty member (syllabi,
personal statement, etc.).
The Senate chose to take no action on this recommendation.
Recommendation (5): Questions on the evaluation form should not ask about a particular
teaching style.
Breitenbach noted McGruder’s observation that “organized” appears often in the form.
Discussion included brief mention of evaluation procedures from the past (such as giving
students a “blank page” and asking them to evaluate the instructor and the course), the
ordering of questions on the form, the overlapping of some questions, such as 3
(“Instructor’s Ability to Promote Knowledge”) and 5 (“Instructor’s Promotion of Students’
Learning”), and varying interpretations on teaching styles by academic departments.
The Senate chose to take no action on this recommendation.
Recommendation (6): The evaluation form should obtain information which assist[s] in identifying
and adjusting for the influences of students’ grade expectations, motivation and prior interest, and
workload. Each of these have been shown to have at least a moderate[ly] confounding effect on
evaluations. In order to have discriminant validity, the impact of these biases must be accounted
for.
Haltom reminded senators of earlier discussions in which senators thought this might be
useful information. Harwood spoke in favor of this recommendation, stating that the effort
of instructors is influenced by the amount of effort students invest in a class. While
favoring inclusion of more information, Cooney cautioned that asking questions about
expected grades would be problematic since the evaluation form is often administered
well in advance of term paper deadlines and final exams.
M/S/P to send this recommendation to the Professional Standards Committee for
its consideration.
Barnett suggested that, along with the recommendations from the ad hoc committee, the
Senate also forward the minutes for its meetings on February 5 and 19, and March 5.
New Business
The Senate decided to cancel its meeting scheduled for March 19. The next scheduled meeting
will be Monday, April 2.
Bill asked how senators felt about posting the minutes before they have been approved. Barnett
spoke in favor of earlier posting, noting that the faculty does not know of action on agenda items
until well after the Senate has acted, and that the present delays create procedural problems for
other governance committees. Terry suggested that we may distribute drafts of minutes and
clearly identify them as such. With consent from the Senate, Bill directed Keith to distribute, with
4
Alan Bagwell’s assistance, a draft of the minutes to faculty via e-mail (as opposed to the Web) to
see whether this would be welcome by the faculty or whether Keith would be the sacrificial lamb
to this experiment.
The meeting adjourned at 5:32.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith Ward