MINUTES OF THE MEETING PAGE

6

OF THE FACULTY SENATE FEBRUARY 10, 2016

always shared all of its student evaluation data in the library and, so far as she knows, there have been no incidents where things went awry and crazy stuff happened. UFAC recognizes too, for now, that the means are not liable because we don’t have enough data so that is another reason for sort of keeping the sharing small as we start out.

Dr. Robichaud stated that this data has the five points: Excellent; Above Average; Average; Below Average; Poor; whereas the other data is a four point scale so this also sort of helps to keep it simple. She noted that Vice Provost LaGrange’s Office wasn’t able to discover anybody else in Ohio sharing data so that we will be pioneers among the state universities. She stated that the other thing she would point out along with this is that the data will be posted on the Institutional Research website and there will be some kind of link from CampusNet for students to be able to flip over. But, the data will be secured, they will have to use their student ID and password in order to get in and everyone will see on the back of the sheet with the data the statement which comes right out of the policy for SEI that UFAC thought would be important to actually have at the access point for students and anybody else looking at the data – administration, faculty, Board of Trustees members, whomever, about the role of the SEI data with respect to competence, or excellence in teaching, and noting that it is one of the constellation of the materials and not the sole piece of the materials especially since this question format is fairly new, Blue is fairly new, and so we are going to have to build up some data as we go forward.

Dr. Sridhar stated that the University Faculty Affairs Committee is bringing forward a proposal and a recommendation for what data is to be shared, not necessarily the format in which it will be shared, and in particular, the two questions, one asking about excellence of the instructor and the excellence of the course. He then asked if there were any questions.

President Ronald Berkman commented that there is a question about why you would ask students to answer eleven questions on the overall evaluation but you would only give students access to looking at two of the responses. He stated that he doesn’t understand how you would explain to students that we have asked them to complete the evaluation and they want to see more about the nature of a particular course, what kind of materials are assigned, was there a project and whatever it may be, but they would not have the opportunity to do that. He said that he was just curious what the rationale is. We are saying, answer all of these questions. This is a complete and positive evaluation of how you feel about the course but you can only look at two questions.

Senator Robert Krebs inquired if there is just a technical difficulty in just putting all of the data up. Dr. Robichaud responded that she believes that it could all open up.

Vice Provost LaGrange commented regarding posting the entire questionnaire responses said that one of the concerns that came up when this was discussed with UFAC was that there were two different scales in the two question sets and the overall ones were at five and the remainder of the questions are on the four point scale. She noted that there