Minutes from Curriculum and Teaching Committee Meeting 2-27-04

 

Present: Derrick Boucher (Chair), Erin Koncinski (Student representative), Anne Massey, Edwin Ockerman, Trent Snider

 

  1. Due to lack of a quorum no votes could be taken at this meeting.
  2. The committee discussed student evaluations with these observations:
    1. in the current evaluation procedures, all King?s professors are above average, the committee would like to see a more accurate rating
    2. perhaps giving students a set number of points to among given categories would force greater consideration of the evaluations and provide more accurate feedback
    3. ?webbifying? the evaluations could save class time and help with the process, although security would be and issue.? Also, one would have to make certain that students completed the evaluation form.? This could be done by requiring students to complete the evaluation form in order to receive their final grade
    4. the overall average of the evaluation scores may not be statistically valid.? Just because we can do it doesn?t mean we should.
    5. perhaps a more useful question to ask is ?This professor was among the top ___%.?? This does pose problems with freshman who have not had very many professors for comparison.
    6. A bar code at the top of the form could eliminate much of the information taking up space on the front page of the form.? This would allow more space for student comments on the front.? It seems that when students have to turn to the back, they write less or not at all.? The written comments are more useful than the filled in circles.
    7. If the evaluation form is put on the web, answer choices, even if still in the form of check boxes, could be more diverse and realistic instead of limited to strongly agree, etc.? An ?other? category could encourage students to fill in an answer when none of the categories described their particular experiences.
    8. one caveat in creating a broader range of possible answers is the need to keep the levels of the answers the same across questions so that a 5 on question number one is equal a 5 on question number three.? It was suggested that this may not be the case now, despite the appearance of equality with the use of consistent terminology.

2. The student concerns from the T.A.L.K.S. meeting were discussed.? Issues were:

a.      not a sufficient number of courses from which to choose.?

b.      some majors require more than four years to graduate.? This problem needs to be addressed within individual majors.

c.       a request to combine science and math requirements such that students must take at least one science and one math but that they may fulfill a math/science requirement by choosing between the fields, reducing the total number of credits in this area by 3.

d.      a similar suggestion was made to combine theology and philosophy courses

  1. The question arose about professors not keeping office hours.? It was suggested that rather than set times, professors might post weekly sign-up sheets.
  2. A need for having a published plan of how Core courses will rotate was discussed.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Anne Massey