ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

The KU Task Force recommends the following in order to administer the IDEA instrument:

1. Appointment of a full-time SRI Coordinator whose duties would include:

1. serving as the primary point of contact between the university and the IDEA Center;
2. ordering the evaluation materials;
3. developing and implementing a process to produce and distribute the Faculty Information Forms and Student Forms with preprinted approved course learning objectives, enrollment numbers, and institution, course, and instructor information. These forms should be provided to the department peer evaluation committee chair(s) no later than two weeks prior to the evaluation periods;
4. working with the Office of Institutional Research to determine the enrollment size of course sections;
5. acting as the principal university-level agent collecting the completed evaluation forms, sending them to the IDEA Center, and returning them to the departments;
6. providing oversight and quality control to ensure that evaluations are properly processed.

2. Routing

Administering the SRI to the students would continue to be managed at the departmental level. Following each department’s procedures, the peer evaluation committee chair(s) would oversee the administration of the SRI and the peer evaluation committee chair(s) would be responsible for ensuring that requirements detailed in the CBA and local agreements were met. Once, the evaluations were completed, the peer evaluation committee chair(s) would deliver (in person) the completed evaluations to the SRI Coordinator who would acknowledge receipt of the materials and send the entire university’s materials to the IDEA Center on an agreed upon date.

The IDEA Center would return the materials to the SRI Coordinator whose office would then deliver (in person) the materials to the departments. Departments would then return the tabulated results to the evaluated faculty members and in accordance with their departmental procedures distribute them to the peer evaluation committee and department chairs.

Gathering and Processing the SRI

Returning the Processed Student Evaluations to Departments and Faculty Members

3. Completion of the Faculty Information Form and Department Responsibilities

1. Evaluated instructors complete the course objectives for each of course section in a manner that is consistent with standards detailed in the IDEA and Course Syllabi Proposal section of the report.
2. Departments identify the Discipline Code for each of their courses.
3. Evaluated instructors are strongly urged to complete the contextual questions of the Faculty Information Form.
4. The university continues to use the Information Form for Faculty (IFF) with the IDEA Instrument.
5. All laboratory course sections taught by faculty members eligible for evaluation are to be evaluated, and the instructor teaching the laboratory course complete a Faculty Information Form.
6. If a department fails to deliver their faculty members’ completed student evaluations on-time, the department work with the SRI Coordinator to arrange for late delivery of the material and pay the additional costs from their department budgets.

4. Timeline for Administering and Processing the SRI

1. Departments provide the name of the department peer evaluation chair(s) by the second week of the fall and spring semester to the SRI Coordinator.
2. The SRI Coordinator provides the evaluation materials to the departments by the fifth week of the semester.
3. Evaluated instructors return their completed course section Faculty Information Form to their peer evaluation chair(s) before the start of classes of week eight of the semester.
4. The student evaluations are to be administered between weeks ten and twelve of a course.
5. Peer evaluation chairs submit the completed student evaluations for processing to the SRI Coordinator by the first day of classes following the eleventh week of a course.

5. Additional Questions

1. Any additional questions added at the university level (i.e. questions to be asked of every course section) be introduced and approved at a college curriculum committee, approved by the university curriculum committee, and approved by a local meet and discuss agreement. The SRI Coordinator would be responsible for including the additional question(s) with the evaluation materials distributed to peer evaluation committee chairs. These “additional questions” would be considered part of the official KU SRI.
2. Any additional questions added at an individual level (i.e. questions asked of one or more of an instructor’s course sections) be included at the discretion of the instructor. The instructor will be responsible for including the additional question(s) with the evaluation materials distributed to peer evaluation committee chairs.
3. Questions added at the individual level are not considered part of the official KU SRI and it is up to the instructor under review to include these additional questions in his or her materials.

6. Confidentiality

1. Academic departments review their procedures for distributing the tabulated SRI to department and peer evaluation committee chairs and evaluated faculty so that the requirement to evaluate faculty is balanced against the need to protect the faculty members’ privacy.
2. The SRI Coordinator deliver all printed copies of the evaluated course section reports, the digital course section report, and the completed student evaluations to each department peer evaluation committee chair(s). The SRI Coordinator shall not retain any copies (printed or digital) of these materials.
3. The department peer evaluation committee chair(s) provide the evaluated faculty member two printed copies of their course section report, a digital copy of their course section reports, and the completed student evaluation forms. The peer evaluation chair(s) will retain copies of the reports in accordance with their department procedures.
4. Any data generated by the SRI shall only be used for to meet the contractually mandated evaluation process.
5. APSCUF-KU enter into negotiations with the Kutztown University administration regarding a local agreement governing assessment.

7. Training and Course Improvement

1. The Center for the Enhancement of Teaching (CET) be given the charge, authority, and resources to offer ongoing training sessions for faculty and administrators on the IDEA Instrument.
2. A webpage be developed that would support CET’s efforts to train the KU community.
3. A brief handbook on the IDEA Instrument and student evaluation of instructors be constructed and distributed to all faculty members and salient sections be included in the Key Student Handbook.
4. APSCUF-KU initiate the formation of a committee to evaluate the use of the IDEA Instrument at Kutztown University. The charge of this committee would be to conduct an ongoing review of the administrative procedures governing the use of the IDEA Instrument at KU and review the use of the IDEA Instrument for evaluating teaching effectiveness.

8. Team Taught Classes

1. If two or more of the professors are eligible for evaluation, students complete one evaluation for each eligible instructor.
2. Instructors identify the course objectives in a manner that is consistent with the IDEA and Course Syllabi Proposal section of this document.

9. Extra-Contractual Evaluations

1. The practice of allowing faculty members to evaluate their classes outside the contractually mandated periods be continued.
2. A tenured faculty member who wishes to have a course section(s) evaluated extra-contractually must notify their department peer evaluation chair no later than the last day of classes the previous semester.
3. Fees associated for the extra-contractually evaluations be provided for at the university level.

10. Qualitative Responses

1. Answers to any open-ended questions be written on a separate sheet of lined paper.
2. Answers to any open-ended questions, which are part of the official KU SRI, be used in the evaluation of faculty teaching.
3. Any writing in the “Comments Section” not be considered part of the official evaluation.