The charge of the Student Evaluation Committee was to examine course evaluations at Texas Tech from an evidence-based perspective. We assessed our existing three-question survey and considered the research investigating student evaluation data and the known biases in this data. Review the frequently asked questions about this updated process.
 
The following individuals served as members of the Student Course Evaluations committee: Michael Serra (Co-Chair), Suzanne Tapp (Co-Chair), Raegan Higgins, Angela Lumpkin, Kerk Kee, Jason Headrick, Hayden Holmes, Sandra Huston, Sarah Wagnor, Kerri Ford, Jason Rinaldo, Lauren Gollahon, Toby Brooks, Jackson Huffman, Molly Jacobs, and Addison Sparks.

Why do we want to change the survey?

• To provide better information for instructors and administrators
• To gain better quality data focused on student perception of instruction

 

Summary of Recommendations:

 

Summary of the Student Evaluation Committee’s Work

In 2021, the Student Evaluation Committee began with a literature review to consider the validity, information, and biases associated with student evaluations. They reviewed course evaluations from other institutions and built a question bank. In partnership with Texas Tech Institutional Research, they gained insight of the capabilities with SmartEvals for customization and data analysis. This committee spent significant time with student focus groups and other stakeholder groups on campus including faculty, staff, and administrators to listen to concerns, preferences, and challenges of our student evaluation process. This work resulted in a draft of a revised survey form. Two pilot tests with the new questions resulted in a set of 8 Likert scale questions and 2 open-ended questions. The new student feedback form will be implemented in Fall, 2024 and reviewed after the completion of Fall, 2025 and Fall, 2027. 

Timeline:

Summary of Pilot Tests:

Fall, 2023 Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analysis of free-response data (conducted by Dr. Michael Serra: College of Arts & Sciences):  

• The students’ language is more authentic and genuine with the new questions.
• The new questions seem to encourage more analytical thinking (more cognitive/thinking terms) and less emotional wording.
• There are fewer gendered words with the new questions which could equate to some reduction in gender based biases. 

Analysis from Pilot Test 1 (Spring, 2023) and Pilot Test 2 (Fall, 2023)  
(conducted by Dr. Jaehoon Lee, Woonyoung Song, and Xiunan Shi: College of Education):

• The order of the questions matters: The summative questions at the end of each section (as opposed to the beginning of each section) result in more variation in responses for all questions and indicate that students are taking more time to read the questions.
• The questions listed above have a high information value (information refers to how precisely the item discriminates between individuals at various levels of the trait. Here, the trait represents the effectiveness of the instructor/course).
• Overall, the students wrote about twice as many words (total) with the two proposed free-response questions.

How Do Faculty Interpret their Student Course Feedback?

Interpreting Student Course Feedback from an Administrator’s Perspective

The Self Reflection committee is comprised of Lisa Garner Santa (co-chair), Dominick Casadonte (co-chair), and Andrew Stetson.

With the goal to document the efforts instructors have made this fall semester to address our unique teaching situation, the Teaching Academy and TLPDC are recommending self-reflection using already available areas in Digital Measures.

• A self-reflection tool created by Dr. Jason Headrick, Assistant Professor , Agricultural Education & Communications, Texas Tech University.

Peer Review / Observations at TTU
 

Texas Tech University is committed to student-centered, intentional, evidence-based, and engaging teaching and learning. This definition has been endorsed by the Teaching Academy Executive Council, Chair Council, Associate Deans Council, Academic Council, and the Provost. Learn more about how we define teaching excellence.

Student-Centered

Excellent teachers tailor learning to be collaborative (when appropriate) and fair, ensuring every student is empowered to take an active role in their own learning. They strive to create learning environments that support student success and wellness and anticipate a variety of life experiences, learning histories, identities, and perspectives. These teachers have high expectations for students and provide opportunities for them to convey their learning.

Intentional

Excellent teachers are intentional in how they design and foster the learning experience to achieve specific goals and outcomes. Over their careers, they use a variety of instructional techniques, remain receptive to improving and innovating their teaching methods, and understand that excellent teaching is reflective and evolving.

Evidence-Based

Excellent teachers are purposeful in using best teaching practices grounded in a solid understanding of pedagogy drawn from research, experience, and professional dialogue. They seek evidence to establish and track the effectiveness of teaching methods to ensure students reach learning outcomes.

Engaging

Excellent teachers help learners develop as independent, creative, and critical thinkers by actively engaging students in the learning process. These teachers develop and share their genuine interest in the topic and demonstrate the applicability of content to academic and professional pursuits.

Several departments have agreed to participate in a pilot program in Fall, 2024 through Spring, 2025 to develop departmental teaching plans. These departments include Human Development and Family Sciences, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Management, and Plant & Soil Science. In this pilot program, the goal of the project is to consider how the departments currently evaluate teaching, what additional resources might be beneficial, and how they can create or build onto a plan vetted and agreed up by their faculty colleagues. Some departments on campus have already engaged in this work, such as Kinesiology & Sport Management.

This project is conducted in collaboration with the DeLTA Project (NSF IUSE 1821023) at the University of Georgia (UGA). We plan to adapt their model of designating small faculty teams to prepare departmental teaching evaluation plans. At UGA, they call this group the Catalyzing Action Team (CAT). Two faculty members from each department are paired with a TLPDC staff. The faculty team will then share this information with the department. In the UGA model, the CDACs of the involved departments are called the Leadership Action Team (LAT). The LAT group will update Chair Council to share progress with other departments as we consider broader adaption.

• Bibliography of the research on relationships between research status and teaching (all materials referenced are prior to the year 2000)