Evaluation Subcommittee Meeting - May 14, 1997

Present

Alguire, Duerson, Duff, Okun, Rooks, Romrell, Stevens, Small, Suter, Watson, Webb

Not Present

Lucas, VanSusteren

A draft of the subcommittee's report which had previously been distributed was discussed by the group. The following pending issues were addressed:

1. All members of the subcommittee who responded to the mail out approved of all recommendations contained in the report. Approval therefore is unanimous.
2. There was unanimous approval of a suggestion that there be a standing subcommittee of the Curriculum Committee, which would be charged with the implementation of the report. A recommendation to that effect will be added to the report.
3. The role of COMEC in the implementation of the report was discussed. Lynn Romrell indicated the need for an individual to head that function of COMEC. Bob Watson indicated that Kyle Rarey may assume that role. A major function would be to carry out a critical analysis of all evaluation data, assume responsibility for the various reports, and serve as Liaison between COMEC and the Curriculum Committee.
4. Faculty peer evaluations still are problematic: not all departments are carrying them out, and if they do, evaluations are done at long intervals. There need to be course specific faculty peer evaluations independent of the departmental peer evaluations. Whichever, faculty peer evaluations need to use a format that can be entered into the database. A decision will also have to be made about a minimum teaching load in a particular course or clerkship for peer evaluations to be carried out. In addition to creating a computer-friendly form, we have to develop descriptors of optimal performance leading to criterion referenced forms. The thrust of the evaluation should be constructive and contribute to a standard of excellence.
5. The group then addressed the need for a statement of principles or assumptions that implicitly or explicitly have guided the deliberations of the subcommittee. Some of the principles suggested are:
   
   • learning depends on timely and appropriate feedback
   • evaluations must be competency based
   • evaluations must be objective driven
   • examinations must be authentic with meaningful context
   • evaluation system must be multidimensional
   • peer evaluations can assess professional behaviors of students and faculty
   • evaluations and feedback are formative and summative. The former assess student progress and the latter ultimate accomplishment.

These principles should become part of the introduction of the report.

Next steps

The report with the necessary revisions will be presented to the Curriculum Committee at its May 21 meeting. A copy of the revised draft will be distributed to the subcommittee members for their immediate review prior to distribution to the Curriculum Committee.