“The College has decided to implement a (new) system of course evaluation starting this
year. Additional details and instructions will be forthcoming.” The very announcement of a new
regime of course evaluation and assessment often exemplifies the power imbalance that is so
often embedded in assessment efforts more generally. While “the College” (or the University)
has presumably decided, the Faculty are often only informed of the decision (and forthcoming
review) after the fact. It is hard to envision faculty in such a situation as anything other than
pawns being directed by administrative masters. When one considers that the “system” of course
evaluation often consists simply of a series of student evaluations of courses, one sees faculty as
doubly impressed into service. Not only are administrators requiring a variety of assessment
activities, but students will be sitting in judgment of faculty—prompting the suggestion that
faculty ought somehow to be accountable to those whom they are teaching. In such a world,
notions of faculty autonomy seem rather empty.
While course evaluation and assessment is often accurately perceived to reinforce current
power imbalances between administrators and faculty (and faculty and students), it is possible to
structure course evaluation processes around collaborative design, targeted inquiry, self-
reflection, and protected use in ways that both support the pedagogical mission while also
balancing the power. In this paper, I will present a model for a more egalitarian system of course
evaluation design and implementation based on an ongoing course evaluation project at
Washington & Jefferson College. In order to situate this model, we will consider first the
common sources of power imbalance in course evaluation. In response to these power
imbalances, we will offer a model in which egalitarian assumptions underlie the construction and
implementation of a college-wide course evaluation endeavor.
Several qualifications apply to this paper (and the broader project). First, the model is
based on a single case study. As a result, the claims and suggestions fall prey to the ordinary
1
Convention