Course Evaluation Task Force

On November 19^th, Tulane's new course evaluation task force met for the first time in Gibson Hall. The initiative was instigated by the provost, led by Angelo DeNisi, and organized by Jessica Shedd. The task force has been created to carry out a specific objective: to produce a rating instrument for university-wide course evaluations by the end of the Spring 2020 semester.

SPHTM is well-represented on this task force by Dr. Patty Kissinger, Dr. Angela Breckenridge, Dr. Eva Silvestre, and current SPHTM graduate student Arianne Sacramento. They join a group of engaged individuals interested in examining the current instrument, prevailing literature, and best practices to improve evaluations for the benefit of our students, faculty, and the institution.

Members of the task force represent various units in the university and are charged with sharing the evaluation topics discussed with and gaining input from their constituencies. Don't be surprised to hear from one of the SPHTM task force members in the very near future!

Review of the course evaluations is timely for the SPHTM. Not only has the dean expressed interest in the efficacy and use of the course evaluation instrument, it is explicitly addressed in our current strategic plan under Goal IV, Objective 14: Examine state-of-the-art practices for using student feedback and course evaluation. 

TASK FORCE GOALS

There are two parts to the task force's charge:

1. Identify a set of core items which will be included in every course evaluation on all campuses
2. Develop a set of optional items to be included in addition to core items

1. Identify a list of other items that could potentially be added to any evaluation
2. These will vary by school and the nature of the course.

In order to achieve these goals effectively, there will be discussion about the ultimate goals for course evaluations at Tulane, which will take much more time and is suggested as a secondary goal for this group. Some agreement on purpose, however, will be needed in order to evaluate any potential items that might be included in an eventual instrument.

These are other goals the task force would also like to address. A discussion about solutions/approaches to identified issues would be useful and may last beyond the spring semester. Any serious discussion of these tertiary issues will not take place the primary goal of creating the instrument has been addressed. These are the other topics of discussion for the task force:

1. We currently run about 40-50% response rates for course evaluations. Why? Why don’t students complete these evaluations? We need to learn more in order to increase participation which will make the entire system more meaningful.
2. Why do we do course evaluations?  To provide feedback to faculty? To solicit feedback on the student experience in our classrooms? To determine who are good teachers and how to improve those who are not?  If we think more seriously about the goals, and which ones Tulane values, perhaps there are better ways to collect data than from traditional evaluations.
3. We should probably view these evaluations as ONE means to collect data, but they should not be viewed as the ONLY means of collecting data about instruction and classes.  What other means are available? How would different ways of collecting data serve the various purposes for conducting the evaluations?  As noted above, we will need to address this issue in some way before discussing specific items for evaluation, but we also hope to have a more sustained discussion about this issue later in the process.

Members of the task force: