Student Ratings of Instruction Task Force

Notes/Minutes of the January 16, 2014 Meeting, held in SSB 400, 12:00-1:30

Notes/Minutes:

Attendees:

Chapman Vigil, Jane; Curl, Layton; Foster, Joan;Grady-Willis, Winston; Holloway, Madison;Kleinfeld, Elizabeth; Kulkarni, Kishore; Nyhus, Ruth Ann; Ortiz, Lisa; Rucki, Sheila; Vigil, Peter; Simmons, James (Co-Chair); Torres, Luis (Co-Chair);

Documents for Reference:

A.Minutes of December 10, 2013 Meeting

B.Qualtrics Survey of SRI Task Force

Notes of Meeting:

This was the fourth meeting of the Student Ratings of Instruction/Student Comments Task Force.

I.Changes to the Agenda

  1. No changes to the agenda.
  1. Jan. 16 Agenda Item II, Race, Ethnicity, and Gender…:

Agreement that we should discuss and study in detailissues about race, ethnicity, and gender (at least), considering the different aspects of the issue. For example, students might write, “My faculty member is Black, and…,” or “My faculty member is gay, and…,” and then comment negatively. Discussion about the complexity of this issue, with possible bias about a variety of identifiable features of the faculty. Students might comment negatively about a professor’s accent, or about a professor’s perceived sexual orientation, for example.

Discussion that the Task Force could recommend a policy statement added to the Handbook for Professional Personnel about prejudicial student comments. For example, such statements should not be part of faculty reviews and evaluations

Decision: The Task Force decided to establish a subcommittee, with Jim Simmons, Kishore Kulkarni, and Winston Grady-Willis, to study this issue and report back to the Task Force. They will review the literature and make recommendations to the Task Force for further action.

  1. Discussion about previous Faculty Senate vote, from previous Task Force agenda items, including March 11, 2013 letter from Faculty Senate President Kamran Sahami, recording the vote against use of student comments in faculty portfolios (see “Notes/Minutes” of SRI Task Force for December 10, 2013 meeting). Review of Faculty Senate concerns with faculty peers viewing the comments, and concern with student comments being used for summative evaluation purposes.
  1. Jan. 16 Agenda Item III, Summary of Results of Qualtrics Survey:

Original discussion that the Task Force is in agreement that the Supervisory levels should see the student comments. Later discussion clarifying Faculty Senate vote that the Senate agreed that all supervisory levels could have access to student comments, but not for summative purposes.

We should recommend further study even of the use of the numerical Student Ratings of Instruction; why are numbers assumed by all to be valid, but not student comments?

Recommendation, but no decision, that we could have a “white paper” about these issues.

Discussion attempting to delineate our issues so far:

1.Who should review the student comments?

2.For what purpose or purposes?

3.We should recommend additions to the Handbook for Professional Personnel about the use of student comments.

No consensus was reached as to the issues facing the Task Force.

Additional commentary about the “Formative/Summative Dichotomy,” and that the assumption that this dichotomy is defined is not accurate. It is not clear that there is such a sharp distinction between the two, but there is rather a gray area between the two.

  1. Next Meeting: We will send out a poll for the next meeting date; this poll resulted in the next meeting to be held Tuesday, February 4th, 11:00-12:15.