Strategic Issue
Issue: Whether consideration of an interface with course evaluation functionality is within the
scope of the implementation of a new Student Information System (SIS).
PRISM #: 103
Student System Project Contact (PRISM Issue Owner): Robert LeHeup
Scope Type:
Issue Priority:
General |
Critical |
School/Unit Issue |
High |
Medium |
Coordinating Project |
New Functionality
Low
Impact Statement:
 Best practice is the provision of a robust, online course evaluation solution which is connected to the SIS.
 The University currently administers an online electronic course evaluation system, created and maintained by ITC. The online
course evaluation system is used by all schools except Darden, Law, and Medicine and is part of the Instructional Toolkit,
which extracts information from the ISIS Warehouse.
 Students link to the course evaluation system through the Toolkit and may evaluate all courses online regardless of whether
faculty members are using the Toolkit to administer the course. The course evaluation is comprised of seven University-wide
questions, approved by the Provost, and it is typically augmented with additional custom questions either at the school,
department, instructor, and/or course section level. Adding custom questions at the school and department levels requires
manual action by ITC, but instructors can add their personal questions online.
 Course evaluations are posted within the course offering directory for courses that have a 65% student evaluation response rate.
Course evaluations are posted for approximately 39% percent of all courses.
 Evaluation responses are aggregated into a “course selection guide” linked to the online Course Offering Directory.
 When the new student system is delivered, a decision will need to be made whether to retain use of the current evaluation
system, in which case an interface must be built, or to switch to a new course evaluation solution application.
 Centralized course evaluations could facilitate and streamline the process of making evaluation data available online for
students to review.
 Some level of baseline variability for student processes will be delivered within a new student system. However,
customizations driven even by school-based needs will reduce the benefits of an integrated system and increase institutional
costs over time. The mechanics and costs associated with the implementation of the student system will be affected by current
variability in course evaluation procedures among the various schools.
Options and Implications:
1. Consideration of an interface with course evaluation functionality is not within the scope of the implementation of a new SIS.
In this option, the interface between the current “course selection guide” which displays course evaluation data will not be an
element of the implementation of the new student information system.
2. Consideration of an interface with course evaluation functionality is within the scope of the implementation of a new SIS. In
this option, existing interfaces among the current evaluation system, the course offering directory, and ISIS will be redefined in
the context of a new student system and options for course evaluation solution.
Recommendation:
 Option 2: Consideration of an interface with course evaluation functionality is within the scope of the implementation of a new
SIS.
Dependencies:




The desire of the University to retain current course evaluation functionality or to consider other solutions.
The scope of implementing an interface between the new student system and a course evaluation system depends upon the
vendor selected and whether adequate evaluation functionality is provided by that vendor or whether an interface is constructed
to the University’s application or another third-party solution.
The University’s analysis of the costs and benefits of each option for course evaluation, particularly in light of the current
practice of individual schools or departments having the option of using paper-based evaluations.
If use of the current evaluation system continues, the current interface with the Instructional Toolkit (to extract enrollment
data) and the online COD (to post evaluation data) may need to be replicated in the new student system.
Next Steps (if in scope):
 The Executive Committee should recommend a course of action to solicit the requirements of the various schools, units, and
key stakeholders, as appropriate, and to advise on the selection and relationship of a course evaluation solution to interface
with the new SIS.
 The University should review the charge, composition, and leadership of the Provost’s Course Evaluation Committee to
determine whether/how this committee and its membership may be leveraged to comprise a working group to advise on the
selection and relationship of a course evaluation solution to a new SIS.
 The Project Team will provide documentation to key stakeholders describing the Project’s decision-making models.
Deadline for Executive Committee:
Decision by Executive Committee: Option 2: Consideration of an interface with course evaluation functionality is within the
scope of the implementation of a new SIS.
Executive Committee Reviewer/Approver: Full IS Executive Committee
Signature of Reviewer: Gene Block
Date: 3/1/06