October 15, 1996

Categories: Meeting Minutes Tags: Meeting Minutes

CEFO Minutes

(J. Carter, Secretary)


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING FACULTY ORGANIZATION Special Meeting to Discuss Teaching Evaluations Tuesday, Oct 15, 1996 @ 12:30 PM Cameron Applied Research Center – Room 101
CEFO President Elect, Dr. Yogendra Kakad opened the meeting at 12:36 PM. The following individuals signed the attendance sheet:

COLLEGE OF ENGR: S. Middleton, P. Tolley.
COMPUTER SCIENCE: M. Allen, B. Chu, J. Quinn, G. Revesz.
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY: A. Barry, J. Bowen, N. Byars, J. Carter, R. Priebe, W. Shelnutt.
CIVIL ENGINEERING: J. Evett, J. Graham, M. Kane, E. King, D. Young.
MECHANICAL ENGR & ENGR SCIENCE: R. Dubler, Y. Hari, R. Johnson, G. Mohanty, J. Raja.
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING: M. Hasan, Y. Kakad, F. Kiamilev, M. Sleva, F. Tranjan.
GUESTS: None. Total documented attendance: 27 (24 voting members.) Quorum=39

I. SPART Document Overview, R. Makki. The guideleines presented in the document, “Measuring the Learning Environment Using End-of-semester Teaching Evaluations,” was developed by the Strategic Planning and Assessment Resource Team (SPART). It was distributed at this meeting and its highlights discussed. Some of the primary components of this discussion included:

Frequency of Evaluation

Each lecture course and each section, each semester.
Each Laboratory course and each section, each semester.

Reporting of Results

Provided to the Instructor
Provided to the Chair
Used as input into all promotion, tenure, and salary reviews.


Notification by the Department Chair
Evaluation package delivered by Chair, two weeks prior to the deadline.
Faculty member reserves some class time to conduct evaluation.
Faculty explains purpose to class and how it will be conducted. A suggested script for this explanation was distributed and discussed. It was emphasized that the script is only a suggestion, and is provided to help the instructor explain the purpose of the evaluation.

Also, a statement was adopted which summarizes the purpose, and that statement will be place at the top of the questionnaire. The sentence is “The purpose of this questionnaire is to evaluate the effectiveness of this course as taught by your instructor. The results will be used to improve the course and to assess the instructor’s performance.”

A volunteer conducts the evaluation in the absence of the faculty member and delivers the results in a sealed envelope. A drop box will be provided for the submission of evaluations for evening classes.
The departments forward the bubble sheets to be scanned and summarized.
Written comments are typed by the department secretary.
Results are provided as noted earlier.

II. SPART Recommendation for additional Cafeteria questions, R. Makki. On May 5, 1995 the faculty approved 15 questions from the Cafeteria list which would appear on all evaluations. Two additional questions are required by the University, and the departments were to select 10 more, to bring the total number of questions to 27.

SPART recommended that the departmental number be reduced to 8 questions, and that the college number be increased to 17 in order to include the following two questions:

In this course, many methods are used to involve me in learning.
This course provides an opportunity to learn from other students.

After a very intense discussion, the overwhelming consensus was to return to the original plan approved in May of 1995, as the two additonal questions do not directly relate to the stated purpose of the evaluation: to evaluate teaching effectiveness. Though the questions are very valid, and needed, this evaluation exercise may not represent the correct vehicle within which to ask these questions. Several faculty were concerned that the answers to these questions, which are intended to discern the extent of student involvement in the learning process, would be used to evaluate teaching effectiveness.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 PM.

Submit corrections/additions here: ( jcarter@uncc.edu)