I. Present:

Guest: Susan Odom – Faculty Chair Howard Erdman, Chair Lynne Bidwell, Library Wayne Carroll, Education Elizabeth Skendzic, Natural Sciences Craig Steenberg, Faculty Affairs Jim Tarter, Humanities

II. Minutes

Minutes of the October 27^th meeting were approved.

III. Report

Dr. Carroll reported on conversations with Scantron and Pearson sales
managers concerning availability of optical character recognition (OCR)
software that could read and process student comments.  Neither has
software capable of reading and processing more than a small range of
characters such as social security numbers. Scantron software at $20,000
can capture images of written remarks and print those images.  Conclusion:
OCR is not a viable option at this time.

IV. Discussion

The group discussed a variety of topics including the following:

1. Review of Standard 2.3.B;

2. AASCU article titled “Moving from Paper Evaluations to Online Evaluations;”

3. The differences between formative and summative assessment/evaluation.

4. Item formats most appropriate for formative and summative
   assessment/evaluation;

5. The difference between assessment and evaluation;

6. The purposes of student self-evaluation information, instructor evaluation,
   and course evaluation;

7. Reasons for and against including student self-evaluation information;

8. Time period during which student evaluation of courses should take place;

   1. Whether student evaluation of courses should be allowed during
      the week of final exams;

   2. Desirability of opening opportunity for student evaluation of
      courses beginning after the last day to drop courses;

9. Use of student evaluations results for improving instruction and as part
   of general faculty evaluation;

10. Concern by faculty about results of course evaluations and affect on
    merit pay schemes;

11. Legal and illegal ways of motivating students to complete the course evaluations;

12. Reminder software to remind students who have not evaluated their
    courses;

13. Possible procedures for administering paper evaluations and collecting
    written student comments; and

14. Procedures for faculty to add additional evaluation items on a second
    sheet of paper.

V. Substantive Conclusions

1. Optical character recognition software for use with student comments
   is not a viable option.

2. Dr. Erdman has submitted a UAP that provides funds for a paper-based evaluation system.  Students in on-line courses will evaluate their
   courses electronically.

VI. Action Items

The Task Force passed these resolutions unanimously:

A.     Student evaluation of on-campus courses should utilize paper medium.

B.     Faculty will have an opportunity to add their own evaluation items.

C.     Students will have opportunities to provide written comments as part
   of the student evaluation of course process.

VII. Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Task Force is Thursday, November 8 at 1:00 PM
in the Alumni Board Room.  Note the earlier starting time for this meeting.

Respectfully submitted by Wayne Carroll.