Members Present:

Howard Erdman, Chair Lynne Bidwell, Library Wayne Carroll, Education Elizabeth Skendzic, Natural Sciences Steve Staab, Technical & Industrial Craig Steenberg, Faculty Affairs Jim Tarter, Humanities

Provost Fernandez addressed the task force members, thanking them for
agreeing to serve.  He expressed concerns about the low participation rate
and the bi-modal distribution of results. He was asked for his perspective on
SCEs. His response was “to improve teaching and learning”. He also stressed
the need to use multiple criteria for faculty evaluation (this is consistent with
NWCCU Accreditation Criteria). He was asked if the Task Force could re-write
the instrument(s) though PG-08-57 did not authorize this. He responded that
the Task Force could re-write the instrument.

Dr. Carroll stated that after carefully reviewing the NWCCU criteria, he agreed
with Dr. Erdman’s assertion during the first Task Force meeting that it was
clear that NWCCU was describing a process of formative evaluation in their
description of faculty evaluation.

Discussion of appropriate faculty encouragement concluded that a clarification
of SCE purpose and use should encourage student participation.

Discussion of the response window for completing SCEs observed that after
shifting the window for SCE access, the participation rate fell to 43.7% in
Spring 2007. Professor Carroll pointed out that correlation does not imply
causation. The length of the window for completing SCEs was also discussed.
No evidence was cited that having a window greater than 3 weeks would
yield invalid or unreliable results. The Task Force unanimously approved
recommending that SCEs become available the day after the last day to
withdraw from classes or college for the semester and close after the close
of the semester (the day before grades are due).

Alternate methods of administering SCEs and estimated costs were discussed.
Returning to paper evaluation forms would entail a first year cost of $20,000
for equipment, software and operating expenditures. Recurring cost would be
approximately $5,000 a year. On-line courses would continue to use the
electronic SCE format.

Discussion on how comments would be handled followed. It was observed
that they could be handled in at least 4 ways: (1) Use the current electronic
SCE system to collect comments; (2) Have students write the comments and
give them to the faculty in their raw form; (3) Have the students write
comments and have division staff type the comments; (4) Purchase an
optical scanner/ software to transcribe comments. Dr. Erdman rejected option
3 as being too labor intensive and observing that LCSC staff do not have time
to do this. Item 4 was questioned by Dr. Erdman since no cost estimate was
available. Dr. Carroll offered to get an estimate.  

The following questions were asked of Dr. Erdman:

(1)  What if a faculty member wants to continue using the electronic
format for face-to-face classes if we adopt a paper system?

Answer: If we adopt a paper process, we will not afford that option. 

(2)  What if a faculty member doesn’t want to use class time to administer   evaluations?

Answer: Student evaluation of instruction is an expectation of NWCCU
and appropriate policy requiring participation will be developed and
 incorporated into LCSC’s Policy and Procedures Manual (there is no
current policy regarding SCE’s)

The meeting adjourned at 3:10. Discussion of items on the October 25
agenda will resume at the next scheduled meeting.