TO:                  Faculty

FROM:            K. Shirley, Chair

DATE:             1 May 2005

RE:                   DEC Chair’s final report

---------------------------------------------------------------------

During preliminary meetings before the beginning of the 2004-2005 academic year between the dean and the DEC convening chair, the issue of SETs (student evaluations of teaching) and their application at LaGrange College was raised.  The dean felt it critically important for the DEC to review the college’s use of the SIR II and explore alternatives.  This was driven, in part, by anecdotal feedback and the ‘sense’ that faculty were generally dissatisfied with the instrument.  When the DEC met for the first time in September, 2004 each member received a copy of “SET comment and critique,” a collection of materials reflecting the state of the debate on the issue as well as a sampling of SET systems used by institutions across the country.  Also at that first meeting, The VP for Academic Affairs and Dean presented the committee with the following charges:

1.  Examine the SIR II and determine whether it should continue to be utilized.

2.  Consider whether the weights for the major areas of faculty evaluation should be adjusted.

3.  Change the wording of the sabbatical leave policy to reduce ambiguity in its interpretation.

4.  Examine the possibility of changing the way that faculty research stipends are awarded.

During the academic year the committee tried to consider each in an efficient and productive way.  The committee addressed each as follows.

Charge 1 - The SIR II:

a. The DEC assembled and reviewed the ‘SET comment and critique” document (copies are available for faculty review in the dean’s office)

b. Developed and incorporated questions specifically dealing with SET/SIR II into the faculty survey.

c. Analyzed the survey results regarding SET/SIR II issue which led to the development and submission of  an administrative proposal regarding SIR II administration to the Dean.

Charge 2 - Evaluation weights:

a.  collected data from faculty on weight preferences in the faculty survey

b.  Those results, summarized in narrative summary, indicate that the mean weights were 65, 20 and 15% respectively.  The range, however, was considerable.  The committee has no recommendation for change at this time.

Charge 3 - Sabbatical policy language:

The focus of the concerns raised was upon the timeline language for sabbatical application.  DEC developed a timeline for sabbatical application which appears in the 2005-2006 faculty handbook.

Charge 4 - Faculty Research stipends:

While the DEC understands the logic associated with centering the research award process within the committee’s purview, it is the judgment of the members that summer research stipend applications should continue to be ranked by an external evaluator.

During the Spring semester, 2005 the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean presented the committee with two additional charges:

1.  Consider whether the SIR II should be used for J-term course evaluation

2.  Consider the implications for the development and evaluation process of a change in the evaluation calendar.

J-term course evaluation:

The committee does not forward any formal recommendation.  However, members have noted that

(a)  some courses are formatted in a matter much more conducive to SIR II application than others and

(b) the interim course ‘in-house’ evaluation form is in need of a considered revision.

Clearly, further discussion is required

Evaluation calendar change:

The committee has not discussed this topic and is not prepared to comment.

 ------------------------------------ 

In conclusion please allow me to take a moment to thank the members of the committee for their hard work on behalf of the faculty. 

Thank you all for your time and consideration.