The Curriculum and Education Policy Committee approved these recommendations on April 22, 2021 

Purpose 

To ensure that student course evaluations – in particular, qualitative comments – are received, reviewed, and responded to in a consistent and transparent manner across the School of Public Health. 

To ensure that students perceive their feedback is taken seriously by departments/programs and the School. 

These recommendations were developed by the School of Public Health Curriculum and Educational Policy Committee and are intended to serve as guidelines. They are not prescriptive. 

Background 

In the 2020 CEPH report following their Site Visit, CEPH reviewers reported that students perceive discrepancy in faculty responsiveness to qualitative versus quantitative student course evaluations. Students raised concerns that their comments were not being read by anyone other than the faculty member and department chair, and they did not have confidence that their concerns would be addressed. For example, a student raised a concern about the content of specific slides in lecture and they were then used again the following quarter without any acknowledgement of the concern. 

In the past, some have worried that faculty “own” the evaluations of the courses they teach and that they therefore cannot be shared for broader review. This is not the case, as has been clarified by the University. Departments shall review student course evaluations and act upon student feedback appropriately to ensure their best use.

SPH Recommendations for Evaluations 

Training – In order to strengthen the process of course evaluations for all and avoid pitfalls, student, instructors, and reviewers should receive training to develop shared understanding of the purpose of qualitative evaluations and how they should be interpreted. Such trainings should include bias concerns. 

• Students should receive training at orientation on writing productive evaluations and avoiding biased remarks. 
• Faculty should receive orientation on synthesizing student evaluations and support for dealing with biased evaluations. 
• Reviewers of evaluations should receive training about bias & discriminatory comments included in student evaluations. 

Transparency of process – Processes for collecting, reviewing and responding to feedback (via course evaluations and other methods) should be transparent to all involved and communicated regularly to students. 

• Students should be made aware via both course syllabi and course websites of avenues for giving feedback beyond course evaluations. All syllabi should include the Bias Concern form (already encouraged as part of the SPH EDI statements) and should also indicate other feedback methods available to students in that department/program (for example: contact information of EDI committee members and/or student academic services staff). 
• Instructors should explain to students in advance of carrying out all evaluations, who will be reviewing their evaluations and how they will be used. 
• All programs should have access to the evaluations practices of other programs in the School in order to better advise students who take classes across units. 

Mid-quarter feedback – Instructors should obtain structured mid-quarter feedback in addition to the required end-of-quarter evaluations.

Responding to feedback – It is crucial not only that student feedback be reviewed and acted upon as needed, but also that students see evidence that their feedback is being reviewed, carefully considered, and acted upon where appropriate. 

• Course Evaluations should be reviewed not only by the faculty member being evaluated and their chair, but by select others (for example, members of an EDI committee or curriculum committee) who will be able to provide constructive feedback to instructors and support improvements. These reviewers should work with department chairs and instructors to follow up on student feedback and implement changes where appropriate. 
• Student feedback should be acknowledged whether or not it results in changes to a course. For example, instructors could briefly summarize student feedback from a mid-quarter survey in a subsequent class meeting and indicate whether specific suggestions will be implemented right away, implemented in a future course, or will not be implement. Explaining why no changes can or will be made in certain instances could lead to productive discussions of course learning objectives, content delivery, classroom climate, etc. Instructors are encouraged to begin courses by highlighting what may have changed since the previous iteration of the course in response to student feedback. This demonstrates to students that the instructor reads and considers student feedback and increases confidence that their own comments will be similarly considered. 

Departments/programs may implement these practices in different ways, but their practices should be transparent and consistent.