Exerpts from the Senate Meeting 13 May 1998

Motion US97/98-10 -- add two questions to required course evaluation questionnaires. Mr. Unger, ASUO vice president, presented a motion from the Undergraduate Council and the ASUO to expand the required questions on course evaluations to include two additional questions. He indicated they have been working with the Undergraduate Council to find ways to have more information about courses available for students in order to help them make their course choice decisions. Mr. Unger reported that the financial impact may be as much as $360 per term to process these additional questions. He noted that the Office of Academic Affairs indicated that they would be willing to assume these costs. Additionally, this proposal if passed, will not go into effect until next year to allow departments to deplete their current course evaluation supplies. The motion is as follows:
  • It is proposed that University Senate legislation of May 8, 1996 pertaining to Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning be amended to add the following two required questions on course evaluations
    • This change is to take effect fall, 1999 to allow use of existing supplies of forms.

    President Tedards gave a slightly different version of the financial impact of this motion saying that in speaking with Mr. Jack Rice, associate vice provost for academic affairs, the academic affairs office would assume the minimal financial impact associated with reprogramming the scanning software. Senator Cathy Page, chemistry, asked what the other two required questions on the course evaluation forms were. Mr. Unger replied that they were, "in comparison with other professors you have taken, how would you rate this professor;" and, "in comparison with other classes you have taken, how would you rate this class."

    Vice President Hurwit asked what the word "available" meant in question 3. d. Does it include time after and beyond office hours, such as time at home? Mr. Unger answered that a similar question and discussion arose in their wording deliberations. In the end, they believed that both students and faculty have some general idea of what "available" means in a reasonable sense; students will have to make their own interpretations, just as they do for the other questions. Senator Dolezal concurred with Mr. Hurwit that interpretation of reasonable availability may very well have different interpretations by students than faculty, which in turn makes it hard to understand the results. Ensuing arguments in favor and against the wording in question 3.d. and interpretation of "available" resulted in a motion to amend the question by adding the words " particularly in regard to office hours" at the end of the question. Discussion on the proposed amended wording generally found the concept of office hours should include email. Thus an amendment to the amendment added the words "email correspondence" after "office hours", so that question 3.d. would read:

    In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, how available was your instructor outside of class time particularly in regard to office hours and email correspondence?

    Most of the discussion on the amendment to the amendment focused on the increasingly convoluted wording compared to the original wording and the fact that not all faculty members have ready access to email. The question was called. The amendment to amendment adding the words "and email correspondence" was now on the floor and failed by voice vote. Now the amendment to add the words "particularly in regard to office hours" was on the floor. Senator Elliott Dale, ASUO, spoke against the amendment, saying the ambiguity in the word "available" in the original question left the interpretation up to the student, thus the words including office hours were not necessary and were limiting. The question was called. The amendment to include the words "particularly in regard to office hours" to the end of question 3.d. was defeated by unanimous voice vote. The discussion then reverted to the main to include the two additional course evaluation questions as originally stated. Senator Luks moved to amend the main motion by striking question 3.d. He supported his amendment saying he was not comfortable in the use and interpretation of the question. Again, the question was called. The motion to amend the main motion by striking section 3.d. was defeated by voice vote. Senator Hurwit moved to amend section 3.d. by phrasing the question as follows:

    In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, how well did your instructor encourage communication outside of class time?

    Without any further discussion, the question was called. The motion to amend section 3.d. was put to a vote and passed unanimously by voice vote. With discussion now back to the main motion, Senator Dolezal asked for an explanation of question 3. c. Mr. Unger replied that the question focused on the organization and efficiency of the class time which added to class quality and expanded on the readings and out of class preparations done by the students. Senator Olson spoke support of question 3.c. saying that again, the student must interpret the question and make the judgment. The question was called. The main motion including the two additional questions, as amended, was now on the floor for a vote and carried by unanimous voice vote. The two additional course evaluation questions now read: