I.   PHILOSOPHY AND PURPOSES OF STUDENT EVALUATION OF TEACHING

 Within the university, evaluation of teaching effectiveness by students serves two primary purposes. First and most critical, constructive student critique provides individual instructors with important feedback from the "consumer's" point-of-view. This feedback should reflect how he/she is perceived as a teacher, and more importantly, how he/she might become more effective by making adjustments in his/her teaching techniques. To facilitate this effort, the appropriate administrator should provide improvement opportunities and support, and should encourage improvement efforts by the teacher.

 Secondly, student-generated teaching evaluation data are of value to administrators and senior faculty members in assessing the perceived effectiveness of instructors. This information forms part of the evaluation of teaching effectiveness relative to tenure and promotion considerations for junior faculty and can serve to monitor trends for every instructor's perceived effectiveness over time. Composite data from individual instructor evaluations can be useful in estimating how different instructors teaching similar courses to similar groups of students are perceived. This information is useful when considering differences in perceived effectiveness by students at various levels in their progression toward a degree; e.g., freshmen students taking a required, prerequisite course versus senior or graduate students taking an elective course in their major field of study. Thus, student-generated teaching effectiveness evaluations should serve primarily the instructor, and secondarily the university (department, college/school).

 It is neither the purpose nor intent of this policy to propose how much weight should be given to the results of student evaluations in tenure and promotion decisions, other than to reaffirm that student-generated evaluation data should be considered in the overall evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Any interpretation of the results of student evaluations of teaching must, over an extended period of time, take into account numerous variables such as- course level, interests and abilities of students enrolled in the course, and other factors. Thus, the following policy is directed at the process itself, with the objective of establishing a uniform or standardized method of obtaining and handling student generated evaluation data.

 II. HOW STUDENT EVALUATION DATA ARE TO BE OBTAINED AND HANDLED

 A. Design of Official Student Evaluation Instrument: In recognition that a "university", by virtue of its definition, is composed of many disciplines with a wide variety of educational objectives, any evaluation instrument must have the flexibility to allow its effective adaptation to different disciplines. Any attempt on the part of the university to dictate in any detail how these instruments must be constructed would be counterproductive to the process and would quite justifiably doom its acceptance by the university faculty.

 Each University Department or Unit shall adopt or develop an official survey instrument (questionnaire) that is appropriate to the discipline(s) and courses taught by the faculty of that unit. The questionnaire should include certain basic questions such as those pertaining to the students' perception of the instructor's knowledge, organizational skills, enthusiasm, motivational abilities, fairness in testing and grading, availability, and the instructor's overall effectiveness as a teacher. There should also be the opportunity for each program and/or instructor to solicit responses to more specific questions that are particularly relevant to a specific course. The above questions should solicit a graded response by the student evaluator (e.g., A= excellent, B= good, C = average, etc.). As a general guideline, the total number of questions to which a graded response is requested should not exceed 20. Responses to the above questions should be recorded on an OP-SCAN sheet that can-be processed by computer so as to provide the instructor and the department head with numerical data relative to each question.

 In addition, the evaluation instrument shall allow the student an opportunity to provide written responses and comments to the instructor. Examples of such questions are: "In what ways has the instructor been most effective as a teacher?"; "In what ways has the instructor been least effective as a teacher?"; and How could the instructor improve his/her effectiveness as a teacher in this course?" Other questions may be developed by colleges, departments, or individual instructors.

 Neither the student's name nor any other identifying information is to be required on the survey instrument. The course, section, and instructor are to be identified on the questionnaire, preferably by an abbreviated designation that would not be meaningful to individuals outside the department. The completed questionnaires, containing both the graded responses and written comments, which at the discretion of the department or unit may be typed to further insure anonymity, constitute the original student evaluation data.

 Any official evaluation instrument is to be approved by the department head, in consultation with the faculty of the department, and approved by the dean of the college/school before it is distributed to students. In addition, department heads should encourage instructors to collect qualitative data at least one other time during the semester in order to solicit student concerns, observations, and suggestions for improving the teaching methods for the course. This unofficial student feedback would be collected for the sole benefit of the instructor and would not necessarily be shared with the department head or any other administrator.

B. Distribution, Collection, and Handling of Original Student Evaluation Instruments: The two basic principles that govern distribution, collection, and handling of the original student evaluation instruments are those of anonymity and confidentiality. Strict adherence to these criteria is imperative if students are to provide honest and candid perceptions of the instructor's effectiveness. The official questionnaires are to be distributed no earlier than during the last two weeks of regular classes. Preferably, the instructor would not be present while the students are completing the questionnaires. If, however, this is impractical, then he/she is not to watch over the students while they are completing the questionnaires. In either case, the instructor must not see the questionnaires nor have access to any of the student-generated data until after the final grades have been sent to the Registrar's Office.

 The completed questionnaires are to be collected by a responsible, trustworthy person, either a non-teaching university employee or designated student representative(s). Completed questionnaires are to be collected, placed immediately in an appropriately identified, sealed envelope, marked confidential, and delivered promptly to the departmental or other designated administrative office for safe-keeping. The envelope containing the completed questionnaires is to remain sealed, and no person, including the department head, is to have access to the questionnaires until after the final grades for the course have been submitted to the Registrar. At that time the envelope is to be opened, and the OP-SCAN sheets are to be delivered to the university or college computing center for processing. The information generated by the university or college computer center constitutes the composite student evaluation data for that instructor, for that course, for that semester. In addition to the response means, these composite data should include a frequency-distribution of the quantitative responses to each individual question.

Following processing, the composite student evaluation data and the original student evaluation data, including written responses and comments - (which should be typed whenever necessary to ensure anonymity), are to be returned directly to the instructor being evaluated. These data are considered joint property of the instructor and North Carolina State University and, after review by the instructor, are to be delivered to the department head. It is the responsibility of the department head to review the composite data and the responses for each instructor and to maintain that information in an appropriate confidential file in the departmental office for a period of at least one year. The composite evaluation data must be maintained by the department head for a period of at least five years. At such time as any of these data are removed from the departmental office, they shall be returned to the instructor.

 While the original student evaluation data and responses are in the possession of the department head it is his/her responsibility that strict confidentiality be maintained at all times. The information is not to be shared with anyone other than those persons who have a legitimate reason to access it, and then only through the department head. In addition, the department head has the responsibility to make every effort to ensure that written comments on the original student evaluation forms are not used out of context in tenure, promotion, and salary decisions. No copies of the original student evaluation data may be made without the expressed written permission of the faculty member involved.

 The individual composite data for each course or for each instructor can be combined in various ways to create departmental or course composite data that could be of value to the department for developing comparative information or long-term trends in evaluation data for selected courses and/or instructors. It is important that, in constructing these more public composites, the data not be manipulated in such a way that individual instructors can be identified. Personal composite data maintained by the department head are to be shared only with the instructor and with senior faculty members, administrators or other individuals who will be directly involved with recommendations or decisions relative to tenure, promotion, merit pay increases, and/or awards for outstanding teaching.

 NOTE: Bold face indicates required procedures; all other procedures are recommended.

 North Carolina State University is a land-grant university and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina.
 
 

CONTENTS