AAUP logo

CBC logo

Negotiations: Article 12, Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching

Wright State University Chapter

American Association of University Professors

MOU? CBA? RCM? NTE? TET?

What are all these acronyms? See this guide.

The administration submitted the proposal shown in the table below at the March 5negotiating session. Reports about the status of this article will be found below the article itself.

See our CBA Negotiations page for a roster of the AAUP-WSU negotiating team, brief reports about each Monday's negotiation session, and an article-by-article summary table with links to detailed information about each individual article that either the administration or AAUP-WSU proposes to include in the CBA.

Article 12

Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching

12.1 All Members of the Bargaining Unit shall be evaluated in each teaching semester and at least once each academic 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, aAll information from these evaluations will be sent to the Member’s 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 Member’s Department Chair.

12.1.3 2 In Sections 12.1.1 and 12.1.2, fFor Members with joint appointments, the Department Chair refers to the Member’s “primary” department as defined in Section 11.1.

12.1.4 3 When a Member teaches a course outside the Member’s department (meaning “primary” department for Members with joint appointments), information specified in Sections 12.1.1 and 12.1.2 will be sent first to the Chair of the department (or Director of the program) that offers the course, who reviews the information and then forwards it to the Chair of the Member’s department, who reviews the information and arranges for it to be maintained pursuant to Section 13.3.1.

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 Absent extraordinary circumstances, a student evaluation of instruction form will normally be administered during no earlier than 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 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.

12.3 Should a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member believe that there are compelling reasons why an evaluation of a specific course in a given semester 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.

12.7 The Department will maintain the Student Evaluation of Instruction forms or transcribed comments and all quantitative reports received by the Department Chair during at least the past seven years for every Bargaining Unit Faculty Member.

Status of Negotiations about the Above Article

June 24, 2014

The parties came to tentative agreement (TA) on this article, both NTE and TET versions, noting that updating various date references would be necessary before this article is absolutely finalized.

June 20, 2014

The parties agreed that they would add a statement to this article to indicate their intent to eventually extend the new teaching evaluation form described in the May 23 report immediately below, provided the new form is regarded by the parties as a success, to apply to all bargaining unit faculty, not just to the NTE BUFMs with continuing employment agreements and for TET BUFMs with tenure.

The parties expect to TA (tentatively agree to) this article at the negotiating session planned for June 24.

May 23, 2014

The administration submitted this version of this article for the TET CBA. Notice the new language in 12.8-12.8.3, which would provide for a new teaching evaluation form used for NTE BUFMs with continuing employment agreements and for TET BUFMs with tenure; the new form would be administered online and would entail no numerical evaluation of the BUFM's teaching. The administration confirmed that its intent has been to use the new online form for all BUFMs, assuming that the parties agree that its use should be continued.

March 26, 2014

The parties discussed the possibility of revamping the student evaluation of teaching forms so as to eliminate all questions calling for numerical responses, to be administered online, paired with a means of increasing student participation rates. Our team suggested a formal agreement (e.g., in the CBAs) committing the parties to switch to such a modified system, by, say, the academic year 2015-16; and further specifying that the parties would review the effectiveness of the new system with the expiration of the CBAs now being negotiated, so that they could at that future date agree to keep, modify, or abandon the new system. We further suggested that an e-mail message be sent to each student late in the term, inviting them to evaluate their classes; we likewise suggested that when a student goes online to view the term's grades, they would be prompted again to complete the evaluations unless of course they had already been done. Perhaps the parties would prohibit students from seeing their grades and then completing the evaluations.

March 5, 2014

The administration submitted the proposal shown in the table above, noting that the marked changes are relative to the article in the current TET CBA.

Our team accepted the suggested changes for Sections 12.2.1 and 12.7. (In fact, the latter provision already appears in Article 13 of the TET CBA.)

However, we reacted in a strongly negative fashion to Sections 12.1.1 through 12.1.3; these proposals would remove the protections now available to tenured BUFMs against the abusive use of numerical data from student teaching evaluations. Our negotiating team stated that all the reasons we had for opposing the use of any numerical evaluations, when in 1999 the parties were negotiating the initial CBA, still stood. We likewise stated that the current TET CBA, which does allow numerical evaluations for untenured BUFMs to be seen and used by the administration, was agreed to in this regard as a compromise on our part. Finally, we stated that we would consider the proposed changes only if numerical evaluations were used neither for Promotion and Tenure nor to inform annual evaluations and merit pay.

The parties then engaged in a wide ranging off-the-record discussion.


Return to the AAUP-WSU home page.

This page was last modified on Friday, June 27, 2014. Corrections, comments, and suggestions are most welcome. Contact the webmaster for this page (Jim Vance) at jimvance.wsu@gmail.com, telephone 937-775-2206. To contact the chapter, please see our Staff, Officers, and Committees page.