Editor,
There are few issues that elicit as strong reactions as course evaluations. It is not uncommon to hear comments from students such as, "My input does not matter, and it won't change anything."
Among faculty, there are widely held views that course evaluations are popularity contests, and only reflect the instructor's personality and ease of grading. In addition, many believe that UNM's evaluation instrument - the Instructor and Course Evaluation System - is flawed for a variety of reasons. The current version of ICES runs on old, main-frame computers, which will no longer be supported by CIRT after some time in 2007.
Associate Provost Amy Wohlert approached the Teaching Enhancement Committee of the Faculty Senate with a request to come up with a possible replacement for the current version of ICES. A committee, which included members outside the Teaching Enhancement Committee, was formed and has been at work for the past year and half.
Our mandate as a committee is twofold: To look for a suitable evaluation instrument, and to explore ways of implementation that significantly improves the effectiveness of course evaluations and that affirms all participants. To meet the first requirement, we learned what other institutions, including our peer institutions, are using. This included online course evaluations. A number of institutions are looking into online course evaluations.
If we do adapt an online course evaluation for part or all of our course offerings, there are both significant opportunities and challenges involved. Some of the challenges include security concerns and participation levels. Conversely, online evaluations provide numerous opportunities, including robust security, rapidity of response and flexibility in formulation of questionnaires.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The second mandate is more complicated. Although we have consulted experts and researched the best current practices, we realize that the successful implementation of course evaluations will require ongoing dialogue beyond the life of our committee. It will also require investments beyond providing forms and online pages.
Traditionally, course evaluations have been used for summative purposes, such as merit and rank decisions, often without much attention to the reliability and validity parameters of the questionnaires. The formative aspect of the tool, such as course correction and improvement, is often neglected. In part, this is due to lack of institutional capacity for providing post-evaluation formative support.
Another challenge to effective course evaluation includes creating opportunities for greater engagement by students. We have scheduled two forums in order to discuss these issues with UNM students, staff and faculty.
We will present our research, describe alternatives and solicit feedback from you. The meetings will be held Wednesday, Feb. 1 at the Lobo Room in the SUB from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., and another on Thursday, Feb. 2, from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
We are holding two meetings in order to get as much UNM community participation as possible. I hope that all UNM community members can attend one of these forums.
Yemane Asmerom
Chairman, UNM Course Evaluation Committee
