opportunity to evaluate their own courses at the same time that the students were evaluating the
course. The rationale behind this faculty course evaluation was that faculty would be in a better
position to reflect on the elements of a course while those elements were still “fresh.”
Politically, the faculty course evaluation also provided faculty with the chance to frame the
course and the student course evaluations. In cases where the course did not function as well as
anticipated, the faculty member would have the opportunity to offer an explanation—which
might either mitigate or enhance the student comments. As the Course Evaluation Team
consulted with faculty, though, there was concern about how such faculty evaluations might be
used. In response to these concerns, the CET decided not to include the faculty course
evaluations in the pilot project.
By providing departments and faculty with the opportunity to tailor the course evaluation
instrument to their needs, this model helped to counteract some of the power imbalances that are
often part of course evaluations. The institution is able to achieve its needs while providing the
flexibility to allow departments and individuals to meet theirs.
An Egalitarian Response
Perhaps the most frequently asked question throughout the various discussion sessions
was, “How exactly will these course evaluations be used?” Faculty care deeply about the
institutional response to and use of course evaluation data. This concern reflects their
recognition that power imbalances are most keenly felt at the point that data is used to make
decisions regarding tenure, promotion, salaries, and resource allocation.
In the W&J case, the Course Evaluation Team was operating with significant constraints
with respect to the institutional response to course evaluations. Tenure and promotion decisions
17
Convention