Proposed Change to Section 311.02.01 of the GSU Faculty Handbook

Currently, Section 311.02.01 reads as follows:

The Faculty Affairs Committee recommends approval for a second response report to the Student Evaluations for each college to be sent to the SGA Office in printed or electronic form that will answer the six common questions in the order that the students requested:

The Instructor:

1.      Follows the plan for the course as established in the syllabus.

2.      Explains the grading system clearly.

3.      Is well prepared.

4.      Communicates effectively.

5.      Is accessible to students.

6.      Considering all limitations and possibilities of the subject matter and course, how would you rate the overall effectiveness of this instructor?

The proposed change would strike item 6. (N.B.: Striking this question merely means that it would not be required on all college student evaluations forms. Colleges would still have the option of using it however.)

Principle justification:

The six questions required of all colleges are required on the assumption that, while evaluations should be tailored to the needs and requirements individual colleges, certain questions are of such obvious and general pedagogical importance that no college should exclude them. As such, these questions ‘trump’ the context-specific considerations that colleges bring to the student evaluation process.

There are good reasons for such safeguards: if the value of a question is self-evident and undisputed, it is reasonable to limit the leeway colleges have in altering or deleting it. We must note, however, that this safeguard only makes sense in cases where, to repeat, questions are of obvious and general pedagogical importance; where their value is self-evident and undisputed. We must note, in other words, that the litmus test for such restrictions on college evaluation forms is an onerous one.

This consideration leads to a question: do these six student evaluation questions meet this high standard? The present proposal addresses only question six (“the global question”), and leaves the status of the remaining five for future deliberation. With regard to this question, the position of the committee is that it does not rise to the required level. The general justification for that position is that there is a large body of research questioning the appropriateness – for either formative or summative feedback – of the question. In light of such controversy, the claim to be of obvious pedagogical importance and to have self-evident and undisputed value is simply false. It may have the value that some claim it to have, but that is not the issue. The relevant fact is only that its value is not self-evident. As such, it does not rise to the level demanded of a question required of all colleges.

Concern:

Is the debate over the legitimacy of the global question itself a legitimate debate? (To offer an analogy: evolution is a non-controversial scientific theory, notwithstanding the “debate” with creationism. Is the debate over the global question akin to that one?)

Response:

As an academic matter, the only concern regarding the legitimacy of the debate is raised by the fact that the peer reviewed literature is remarkably silent in defending the global question. If anything, the current state of academic thinking on this issue suggests eliminating question 6 as a university-wide requirement not on the grounds that it is disputed or controversial, but on the much stronger grounds that it is indisputably of no value.

This site is designed to provide faculty with another venue to explore pedagogy and emerging education trends