• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

John Abbott College Faculty Association Newsletter Vol u me 2, Is s ue 1 Student Evaluations of Teaching: November 2017 Revisions of Policy 12 at John Abbott By Tanya Rowell - K a t z e m b a – HEPS Inside this issue: of research on SETs; it will evaluate their teachers. To The John Abbott Admin- provide some background be more precise, man are Student Evaluations 1 istration has expressed on how the current policy generally perceived to be of Teaching came to be; and outline the more competent that wom- interest in revising the Loyalty and Aca- 4 current state of the revision en not only by their stu- demic Freedom College’s Policy 12 on the process thus far. dents, but in academia in general. Race is an im- Evaluation of Teaching. SETs: a non- Board of Governors 5 portant intersecting variable JACFA is following these exhaustive review of Report the current research in this discussion as well: as developments closely Gutiérrez y Muhs et al ar- Conditions of Worth 6 gue, “women of colour too and is meeting regularly hile researchers have frequently find themselves with the administration W not quite reached a ‘presumed incompetent’ as CSN Congress , 8 Inter-syndical briefs consensus on many of the scholars, teachers and par- to negotiate this file. 1 issues surrounding SETs, ticipants in academic gov- there is increasing concern Syndical Tool-Kit 10 n anticipation of the revi- ernance.” 3 Even when be- among university faculty in ing asked to judge a profes- I sion process, we have North America and Europe done some preliminary re- sor on seemingly Meet Ethan Mom- 12 about the role of implicit “objective” criteria, such as bourquette JACFA search on student evalua- New Executive bias when students are eval- whether or not the class tions of teaching (SETs) and uating their professors.2 have conducted consulta- starts on time, the student’s Several studies have suggest- perception of the profes- tions with faculty regarding ed that unconscious or im- this issue. This article aims sor’s gender has an impact plicit bias relating to gender, on their rating in that cate- to do three things: it will race and sexuality play a role Correction: an article in provide a general overview in the way that students Spring issue “Teacher’s tribute to Sylvain” was mistakenly credited to Mark McGuire. The author is Tom Young. JACFA General Assembly and Xmas Lunch: December 13 P a g e 2 The ADVOCATE gory.4 Given the fact that It is note that, while in many post- helpful as a professional very common for personnel deci- secondary educational institu- development tool, the proce- sions at colleges and universities tions, including some CEGEPs, dure in current format is not. to be influenced by SETs, it is SETs are summative in nature At the General Assembly, imperative that the role of gender (meaning that they can affect teachers expressed that they and racial bias be acknowledged personnel decisions, such as the would be receptive to more and addressed by college and decision to grant tenure or to fire formative, constructive feed- university administrations. Some a teacher), at John Abbott SETs back in their meetings with researchers also argue that, while are primarily formative, meaning Deans after receiving their SETs clearly have their limita- they are meant to act as a profes- SETs, by being directed to- tions and significant problems to sional development tool for wards professional develop- address, student feedback can teachers. New teachers in partic- ment resources dedicated to also be valuable.5 ular go through more SETs: they this purpose. Some studies have proposed po- are performed for each class for tential alternatives or supplemen- the first three semesters of teach- In addition to doing research and tary forms of evaluating teachers. ing at John Abbott. seeking feedback that was sum- Some of these appear to us as Policy 12 has not been revisited marized above, the JACFA Exec- being somewhat unwieldly– for since it was first created, and the utive has examined the policy example, Sarah Pritchard of Cor- Quality of Education Committee itself and reflected on how we nell University suggests calculat- has been largely inactive in the perceive it has been working so ing the “average gender bias” at a last few years. Given the fact that far, and came to the following given teaching institution, and it has been over ten years since conclusions: then assigning a “bonus” to a the College has reviewed or up- The policy has generally teacher who could be potentially dated this policy, the Administra- functioned well from a la- negatively affected by this bias, tion has decided to make this bour rights perspective applying it to the quantitative revision a priority for the 2017- (largely fair; hasn’t impinged data.6 One model that we read 2018 academic year. The JACFA on teachers’ rights; allows about in research that appears to Executive has taken up this file, new teachers to make mis- have the potential to mitigate and, in partnership with the ad- takes); some of the problems inherent to ministration, has struck a parity We would like some clarifi- SETs in their current format is committee to undertake the revi- cation on what constitutes a the Cascaded Student Evaluation sion process. We have done re- “serious offense” according 7 Model. This involves having search and sought feedback from to the Administration, be- different sets of questions that departments (in June 2017), con- cause this is what triggers the are put to students when they are ducted a faculty survey and con- Administrative Evaluation asked to evaluate teachers. In this sulted our General Assembly Procedure (which has disci- model, one set would be stand- (this past September) to see what plinary implications for ardized, applied across depart- teachers think about how the teachers); ments and faculties throughout policy on student evaluations of The Cascaded Evaluation the institutions, while other sets teaching has been working out so Model may be a desirable could be formulated by depart- far. model for fixing some of the ments and even individual teach- problems with the student ers. The feedback received from the questionnaire; general call to departments, from SETs at John Abbott Col- the survey, and from the General Giving Deans access to first lege and the Revision of Assembly can be summarized as semester SETs is of very Policy 12 follows: limited value; Questions and critiques have A clearer procedure for link- J ohn Abbott adopted Policy 12 been put forward regarding ing teaching evaluations to on the Evaluation of Teaching how helpful the SETs and professional development in October of 2006 and its Guide the subsequent meetings opportunities would authored by the Quality of Edu- with Program Deans are; strengthen the formative cation Committee, a parity com- many expressed that, while character of the SETs. mittee of JACFA and academic meant to be formative and administrators.8 It is important to Volume 2, Issue 1 P a g e 3 What does the JAC Ad- 5 Mark Seasons et al (Course Evaluation John Abbott College,” CEGEP John ministration want? Project Team), “Report on the Course Abbott College. Evaluation Project Team,” University of Waterloo (Nov. 7th, 2016); Benton and he JACFA Executive, in our Ryalls, “Challenging Misconceptions,” 7. T interactions and meetings with the Administration, has 6 Sarah Pritchard, “Should female faculty identified some of the Admin- get bonus points to correct for gender bias in student evaluations?” June 26th, istration’s priorities in the policy 2015, https://www.higheredjobs.com/ revision process. It is clear to us articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=692 that the Administration would like Deans to have access to a 7 Seasons et al, “Report,” 2; Benton and Ryalls, 7. teacher’s first semester SETs. While some department feedback 8 Quality of Education Committee, has shown support for this idea, “Guide to the Evaluation of Teaching at feedback from the survey and General Assembly indicated that many teachers question the use- fulness of this idea, raising ques- tions about how much training and support our Deans receive to provide direction to a new teach- er who may be struggling with the job. The Deans do, however, appear to support the idea of linking teaching evaluations to professional development re- sources ■ 1 Stephen L. Benton and Kenneth R. Ryalls, “Challenging Misconceptions About Student Ratings of Instruction,” Idea 58 (April, 2016). 2 Anne Boring et al, “Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness,” Science Open Research 1 (Jan. 7th, 2016); Anne Boring et al, “Student evaluations not only unreli- able; they are biased against female in- structors,” London School of Economics Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Feb. 4th, 2 0 1 6 , http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ impactofsocialsciences/2016/02/04/ student-evaluations-of-teaching-gender- Before the Advocate, there was JACFA News bias/. and before that the Communique… and 40 years ago we were discussing Faculty 3 Gabriella Gutiérrez y Muhs et al, Pre- evaluation with the Administration! sumed Incompetent: the Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia, (Boulder: University of Colorado Press, 2016): 1. 4 Boring et al, “Student Evaluations of Teaching,” 1. P a g e 4 The ADVOCATE Loyalty to the Employer, Academic Freedom, and Professional Autonomy in CEGEPs By Stephen Bryce– Geosciences Over the years, a number of few teachers have come in to the JACFA office to tell us that they have been accused of “disloyalty” to the College. How can this happen? Are we not protected by our “academic freedom”? ccording to the Canadian mation about it.

Load more

  12

Copy Link