Negotiations: Article 12, Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching

AAUP-WSU wishes to change Article 12, Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching. Our Negotiating Team submitted the proposal below to the administration on February 1. Current language proposed for deletion is shown in the strikethrough format, and proposed new language is shown in the red underlined format. For comparison, you may wish to view the entire current CBA and this article in particular.

For more about bargaining now under way toward a successor of our current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), please see our Negotiations page. There, you will find rosters of our Bargaining Council and Negotiating Team, a table showing the status of each article (those in the current CBA and new ones, too), and also reports about each negotiating session.

For reports on negotiations regarding this article, click here (or scroll to the bottom of the table immediately below).

AAUP-WSU Proposal for Article 12, Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching
12.1 All Members of the Bargaining Unit shall be evaluated in each teaching quarter and at least once each year in each different course taught using a University Student Evaluation of Instruction form approved by the University and the AAUP-WSU. Such agreed upon forms are the only instrument for the University to collect anonymous student feedback on the individual teaching performance of a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member to be used for annual evaluation, promotion and tenure or any other matter pertaining to terms and conditions of employment. 12.1.1 For untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Members, all information from these evaluations will be sent to the Department Chair. 12.1.2 For tenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Members, all numerical information from these evaluations will be sent to the Member only, and the comments portion of the form will be sent to the Department Chair. 12.2 The Bargaining Unit Faculty Member shall not comment upon the evaluation, administer it, be present during its administration, collect evaluations from students, or return evaluations to the department or college office. 12.2.1 A student evaluation of instruction form will normally be administered during the last week of class; or at the end of the unit of instruction for Bargaining Unit Faculty in the School of Medicine or other team taught classes. 12.2.2 Once student evaluation forms have been delivered to the appropriate departmental office, the forms should be handled confidentially. 12.3 Should a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member believe that there are compelling reasons why an evaluation of a specific course in a given quarter should not be considered in evaluative decisions, he or she may submit a written request for exclusion to the Department Chair. The Chair shall respond to this request in writing. Both this request and the Chair’s written response shall be appended to the Member’s annual evaluation. 12.4 The University and the AAUP-WSU recognize that student evaluations of teaching are important indicators of teaching effectiveness, but numerical scores from these evaluations alone neither confirm nor deny an individual’s effectiveness. Thus, the Chair shall consider additional factors besides such numerical scores in evaluating a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member’s teaching. 12.4.1 Low numerical scores or scores that are below college or department averages do not confirm ineffective teaching. Additional measures are needed to determine the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member’s teaching effectiveness. 12.4.2 High numerical scores or scores above college or department averages do not confirm effective teaching. Additional measures are needed to determine the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member’s teaching effectiveness. 12.5 The University may compute average numerical scores from student evaluations on a department, program, college, or University basis. However, such averages should not reveal the scores of any individual tenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Member. 12.6 Any modification of the Student Evaluation of Instruction Form shall be approved by both the University and the AAUP-WSU.

AAUP-WSU Proposal for Article 12, Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching

12.1 All Members of the Bargaining Unit shall be evaluated in each teaching quarter and at least once each year in each different course taught using a University Student Evaluation of Instruction form approved by the University and the AAUP-WSU. Such agreed upon forms are the only instrument for the University to collect anonymous student feedback on the individual teaching performance of a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member to be used for annual evaluation, promotion and tenure or any other matter pertaining to terms and conditions of employment.

12.1.1 For untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Members, all information from these evaluations will be sent to the Department Chair.

12.1.2 For tenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Members, all numerical information from these evaluations will be sent to the Member only, and the comments portion of the form will be sent to the Department Chair.

12.2 The Bargaining Unit Faculty Member shall not comment upon the evaluation, administer it, be present during its administration, collect evaluations from students, or return evaluations to the department or college office.

12.2.1 A student evaluation of instruction form will normally be administered during the last week of class; or at the end of the unit of instruction for Bargaining Unit Faculty in the School of Medicine or other team taught classes.

12.2.2 Once student evaluation forms have been delivered to the appropriate departmental office, the forms should be handled confidentially.

12.3 Should a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member believe that there are compelling reasons why an evaluation of a specific course in a given quarter should not be considered in evaluative decisions, he or she may submit a written request for exclusion to the Department Chair. The Chair shall respond to this request in writing. Both this request and the Chair’s written response shall be appended to the Member’s annual evaluation. 12.4 The University and the AAUP-WSU recognize that student evaluations of teaching are important indicators of teaching effectiveness, but numerical scores from these evaluations alone neither confirm nor deny an individual’s effectiveness. Thus, the Chair shall consider additional factors besides such numerical scores in evaluating a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member’s teaching.

12.4.1 Low numerical scores or scores that are below college or department averages do not confirm ineffective teaching. Additional measures are needed to determine the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member’s teaching effectiveness.

12.4.2 High numerical scores or scores above college or department averages do not confirm effective teaching. Additional measures are needed to determine the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member’s teaching effectiveness.

12.5 The University may compute average numerical scores from student evaluations on a department, program, college, or University basis. However, such averages should not reveal the scores of any individual tenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Member.

12.6 Any modification of the Student Evaluation of Instruction Form shall be approved by both the University and the AAUP-WSU.

Reports on Negotiations about Article 12, Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching

Friday, April 18

The administration put forth the following counterproposal for section 12.2.2.

12.2.2 To the extent permitted by law, Deans, Department Chairs and Bargaining Unit Faculty will restrict access to student evaluation forms to those persons who have a need to view the information. No student worker will be assigned to type comments from the forms if she or he is enrolled in a class taught by a faculty member from that department.

After some discussion, our team accepted the counterproposal, thus bringing negotiations about this article to a conclusion.

Friday, March 28

The two negotiating teams continued their work on our proposal for 12.2.2. The administration agreed that it was not desirable for student workers to transcribe comments from evaluation-of-instruction forms but also stated that the cost of using full-time staff for this purpose was a serious concern. Our Negotiating Team floated the possibility of using language like “... should be handled confidentially, within the confines of the law” thus acknowledging the impact that Ohio’s sunshine law can have on matters of this sort. The administration stated that the objective of our proposal is just fine, and it will attempt to craft language accordingly.

Friday, March 21

Our Negotiating Team explained that our sole proposal (see 12.2.2 above) was motivated by problematic incidents in which student workers handled evaluation forms (e.g., in one case, a worker tasked with typing up the comments berated a faculty member for not yet having completed the evaluations). Our team responded to an administration question, stating that we have no objection to having the comments typed. The administration did not object to the intent of our proposal; but it expressed uncertainty about what the language meant, noting for example that many reading the language could not tell that it prohibited student workers from transcribing comments. The two negotiating teams discussed various alternatives (e.g., changing the language slightly or giving examples to illustrate its meaning) but reached no agreement.

Return to the AAUP-WSU home page.

This page was last modified on April 19, 2008. Corrections, comments, and suggestions are most welcome. Contact the webmaster for this page (Jim Vance) at jvance@math.wright.edu, telephone 937-775-2206.