 |
(Bruce Bottomley Photo) |
Big changes are coming to AV俱乐部 course evaluations 鈥搈ost notably that students will be able to see the results forthemselves.
After months of consultations across the university, Senate hasapproved a policy statement for student ratings of instruction,mandating that:
- they will be undertaken in all applicable universitycourses;
- they will include a set of common questions (along withcustomizable questions set by individual professors, departmentsand programs);
- the summary results to those common questions are to be madeavailable to students.
In practice, this will mean that starting in September 2011, allAV俱乐部 course evaluations will include a common series ofquestions about teaching concepts such as communication,organization and engagement with students. Students will then beable to access the聽summary results of this section 鈥� notthe individual comments 鈥� through a secure website, providedthe professor has chosen to release the information.
Students welcome change
The AV俱乐部 Student Union, which has been pushing for studentaccess to聽student ratings of instruction聽data for years,considers the move a big step forward for both accountability andadds validity to the course evaluation process.
鈥淲hat we wanted was something that would help studentslearn more about their professors鈥� strengths and weaknesses,and give the process of course evaluations more credibility,鈥漵ays Shannon Zimmerman, outgoing DSU president. 鈥淢anystudents don鈥檛 give enough attention to filling them outbecause they don鈥檛 know what happens to that data.鈥�
Alan Shaver, AV俱乐部鈥檚 vice-president academic, haschampioned the change, admitting he was surprised AV俱乐部didn鈥檛 have such a system when he arrived four years ago. AtMcGill, where he taught for two decades, students have had accessto course evaluation data for years.
鈥淲hen the students brought the concern to us, we did thedue diligence of benchmarking,鈥� he explains. 鈥淲hat dothe other major research schools do? How do they implement such asystem? As we consulted with our stakeholders, we also saw howdifferent the evaluations were in different programs at AV俱乐部.So before we could address making the data available to students,we had to take a step back and create a policy that wouldstandardize some of that data.鈥�
A point of debate
Though the principles of the new evaluation system have beenapproved by Senate, there are still a lot of questions left toanswer and many months of consultations left to come.
鈥淲hat聽Senate has聽approved at this point isreally the policy statement,鈥� explains Susan Spence Wach,associate vice-president academic and the university鈥檚point-person on the project. 鈥淣ow we have to figure out howto implement it. It's an important foundation from which we canwork through the details with further consultation.鈥�
Already, the process is leading to some anxiety on campus. Dr.Shaver acknowledges the change has been the subject of significantinternal debate. 鈥淚n some faculties, it was treated as a slamdunk,鈥� he says. 鈥淚n others, there were seriousreservations.鈥�
Some of those reservations are being voiced publicly. CUPErepresents part-time faculty, teaching assistants and markers atAV俱乐部 and is challenging the university on the issue, sayingthat course evaluations need to be decided at the bargainingtable.
鈥淲e would never agree to this because of privacy concernsand conflict of interest concerns; are the students going to haveto disclose their names, their motivations, their efforts andgrades?鈥� asked Barb Moore, president of Local 3912 in arelease.
Ms. Spence Wach explains that while not all the details havebeen finalized, some broad principles have been established. Forone, students will only have access to the summarized statisticaldata聽on the common questions聽鈥� not the completeevaluation. She also says the system will be opt-in 鈥損rofessors will聽have the option聽to agree to have theirsummary data accessible to students.
Will it work?
That part of the process 鈥� the opt-in 鈥� begs thequestion of whether enough professors will choose to make theircourse evaluation data聽accessible聽to students聽forthe system to be viable.
鈥淭here are some faculties and faculty members that haveconcerns or reservations about this system,鈥� says Ms. SpenceWach. 鈥淭he opt-in respects that while also respecting ourcollective agreements. That said, at other universities we鈥檝elooked at with a similar system, it appears to have broad facultysupport. We have excellent professors here, so聽based on thefeedback thus far聽I鈥檓 optimistic that this will beembraced.鈥�
Several other questions need to be answered聽as the newevaluation system moves forward through the聽next stage ofconsultations: How to review courses taught by multiple professors,such as those in the Environment, Sustainability and Societyprogram? Should new faculty be given an exemption from the system,giving them room to learn without having their evaluationsavailable to students? Will the course聽evaluationitself聽move online at some point in the future? How will thedata reflect classes with a small sample size? How exactly will theopt-in process work?
These are hurdles other universities have cleared: Dr. Shavernotes a majority of Canada鈥檚 research-intensive universitiescurrently have some sort of student-accessible courseevaluations.
鈥淭here are universities in Canada that have been doingthis for a long time,鈥� he says. 鈥淗as it undermined theeducation system in those great schools? No. We鈥檙e not thefirst to think of this.鈥�
More importantly, he says the process of working with thefaculties to implement this system聽places increased attentionon the value of teaching.
鈥淚 hope it achieves a greater buy-in from students in thecourse evaluation process. I hope it achieves a greaterunderstanding at the university as to what course evaluations are,and what they are not. And I hope it helps students choose theircourses.鈥�