Page 4
The Reader Asks
Why did you participate or not participate in the boycott of the course
Feature by Mark Switzer
Photography Editor
evaluations at the end of last
Gary W. Pennick-9th term-
EDET
I didn’t participate in the
boycott. I do not know how
the evaluations are used at
Capitol Campus, but at
HACC, I believe they play a
great part in determining a
teacher’s raises and promo
tions. If there was more
publicity as to why the
evaluations are not bene
ficial to students at PSU, I
may have participated in the
boycott.
Margery Sai\toid-9Vh term.
Human.-Multi-Media
I was in favor of the
boycott to a degree.
However, I feel that a
boycott is disorganized and
ineffective unless all the
Penn State campuses par
ticipate. There should be
more input to the evalua
tions. They should be taken
seriously by students.
WHAT A BIZARRE
COINCIDENCE!
By special request of Theatre
330 The Bald Soprano will
make a guest appearance
May 26 and 27 right here in
the Capitol Campus auditor
ium.
COME JOIN THE CROWD
AND
MEET HER PRIVATELY.
Open 24 Hours
7 Days / Week
-Jus, ***> tlx
On The Square
in Middletown
term?
Sharon Lee Henry-9th term-
Elem. Ed.
I did not participate in the
boycott. Most of the
instructors in the Elementary
Education Dept, have shown
an interest in me. They have
helped me throughout my
time here at Capitol Campus
in all my subjects. I feel that
the present system is a good
way for me to give them a
honest evaluation.
Winslow D. Spady-12th
term, EDET
I did not participate in the
boycott. I think that
evaluations give me a chance
to express my viewpoint on
the course, which gives the
teacher information in im
proving the course. Per
haps, the courses should be
evaluated at mid-term so the
teacher can deal with any
problems the same term.
Delta Tau Kappa
Has Busy Spring
Delta Tau Kappa, the
International Social Science
Honor Society, is planning a
busy spring.
D.T.K. sponsered the
appearance of presidential
hopeful Fred Harris on
campus.
The next big date is a
banquet for D.T.K. members
to be held at the beginning
of May. There will be a guest
speaker, dinner and a
membership-certificate pre
sentation.
All old and new members
who would like more
information should get in
touch with either Chris Cox,
Deb Hoffman or leave a
message in the D.T.K. office
r — 1
I SAVE THIS COUPON |
I FOR j
I 50* OFF j
I l-Large or 1-Small I
! PIZZA !
i NAPLE'S PIZZA j
j 25 S. Union St., '
! Middletown
I J
CtC. Reader
Bob Schmidt-12th term,
EDET
I did participate in the
course evaluation boycott
last term. I feel that the
evaluations do not better the
educational system if the
teachers are not obligated to
reveal the results.
Cathy Dunkeiberger-9th
term, Psycho-S.S.
I did not participate in the
boycott. I think the
evaluations give the depart
ment heads an idea of how
the students feel about the
professors and courses.
in W-110
At the last meeting on
Tuesday April 6, committees
were formed for organizing
the Fred Harris appearance,
planning the banquet and
planning the future executive
officers elections.
Also decided by the
members was whether or not
D.T.K. scholarships were
going to be awarded this
year.
Two $l5O scholarships
will be awarded, one to an
undergraduate student and
one to a graduate student.
The scholarships will be
made on the basis of student
merit as determined by a
faculty committee. Appli
cations will be available
soon.
D.T.K. is in need of new
members to insure the
continued life of the
organization next year.
Anyone interested in
joining must be majoring in
the Social Science program
or have 30 credits of social
science courses with a
cumulative average of 3.0 .
For more information see
Deb Hoffman, Liz Tobin,
Greg Meily, Dr Milspaw, or
stop in W-110.
Dean Wolf
Clarifies
Evaluations
The suggested boycott of course evaluations may reflect
some misunderstandings on the part of the Student
Government Association.
The primary purpose of the evaluations is to improve
instruction. The results are returned directly to the
instructor and include the mean response and a distribution
of the responses for each question.
From these results, the instructor may infer which, if
any, particular aspects of the course require attention.
Additionally, program, campus and University-wide
averages for each item are supplied so that the results on
each question may be studied with reference to those of
other courses. From term to term, the instructor is able to
respond to these specific results in order to modify the
course when necessary.
Tenure, promotion and salary decisions are based on the
evaluation of teaching, research, scholarship and service.
The importance given each of these functions is based on
the particular faculty member’s assignment. During the
review process, the instructor is asked to submit evidence of
effectiveness in all of these areas. At this point, the results
of systematic, reliable student evaluations are accepted as
one measure of teaching effectiveness. Decisions are not
based on a single term’s evaluation results, but rather on
trends.
The form in current use at Capitol was developed during
the 1973-74 academic year at the direction of the University
Council. That council included valuable student
representation. To develop the form, all units of the
University were requested to submit items and suggestions.
Capitol Campus also submitted suggestions which were
considered. In all, more than 100 evaluation forms,
including various student-made forms, were submitted and
over 1,500 individual questions were received. These 1,500
items were grouped into approximately 30 categories and the
most frequently used questions were chosen from each
category to construct a questionnaire. To arrive at the
present University Instructional Survey, 10 of the original 30
items were agreed to by the University Council.
Recently, a new 18-question form has been adopted by
representatives of various colleges at University Park. The
new questionnaire will be printed directly on an answer
sheet for greater ease in use and to reduce overall cost and
processing time. Moreover, the greater number of questions
will allow instructors to better pinpoint specific problems.
Spaces are available for instructors to ask additional
questions and certain items deemed inappropriate for a
particular course may be omitted.
Last July, I asked the Capitol Campus Joint Committee
on Promotion and Tenure to study the new form for adoption
here. We again sought student input and two
representatives of SGA testified at length before the
Committee. Unfortunately, the Committee’s recommen
dation was not received until Wednesday, March 10, the
afternoon before the posters suggesting the boycott
appeared.
In fact, there has been substantial student and faculty
input into this important matter.
The review of faculty members for promotion and tenure
must take place in one form or another. The secondary use
of systematic, reliable student evaluations is an attempt to
make one part of that process as objective and equitable as
possible:
Finally, it seems clear that the use of past student rating
for administrative decisions precludes their public
disclosure. Widespread knowledge of previous results,
taken out of context, would surely affect the utility of
subsequent ratings. More importantly, there are serious
questions regarding rights to privacy, if results obtained for
the purpose of instructional improvement and administrative
decisions are used by a wider audience for course-choice
decisions.
Dean of Faculty
Course Repeat Rule Out
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIU
ATELY* the Senate course
repeat rule (M-3b has been
dropped.
All courses taken after
January, 1976, will not be
subject to the repeat rule.
All students who took
courses before January (Fall
Term 1975 and earlier) may
George Wolf
still utilize the repeat rule
(M-3b) for those courses.
The repeat rule allowed a
student to repeat a course in
which an F was earned. The
second grade earned for the
course was then used in
figuring the student’s grade
point average.
April 15, 1976