Skip to main content

Student Evaluation of Academic Courses and Faculty

Updated

PURPOSE / SCOPE:  

This policy applies to the evaluation of academic courses and faculty in their roles as medical educators. It applies to all academic courses offered (both required and elective/selective courses), at all stages of instruction (OMS I through OMS IV), and all faculty with teaching responsibilities, including full-time, part-time, and adjunct faculty. This policy does not address feedback, surveys, or evaluations of non-instructional events or personnel, such as club events, optional non-academic enrichment activities or other social or cultural activities that occur at ICOM.

 

DEFINITIONS: 

  1. Student Evaluations of Courses and Faculty at ICOM: The process by which students are solicited for their personal perspective as they participate in the learning process at ICOM. These evaluations may be produced and disseminated through online surveys, focus groups, informal discussions with students, emailed questions, and other methods. 
  2. Types of Evaluations at ICOM:
    1. Informal (Individualized) Evaluations: The ongoing and unofficial gathering of information connected to academic teaching and coursework at ICOM. This might include informal classroom observations, mid-semester student feedback, patterns in student performance, and informal discussions with students in various venues. The primary use of these informal (individualized) evaluations is to aid faculty, course directors, and administration to observe teaching at ICOM in “real-time,” resulting in faculty self-reflection and improvement of teaching and courses as they are carried out. Informal (individualized) evaluations also give faculty the opportunity to respond to student views and concerns as courses are in process, leading to faculty growth, course development, and general improvement of the student learning experience.  
    2. Formal (Institutional) Evaluations: The evaluative process that occurs for courses and faculty on a regular basis that is initiated and solicited by the institution (usually the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs or the Associate Dean of Clinical Affairs, under the direction of the Dean) with the purpose of producing standardized and comparative data by which courses and faculty can be formally reviewed. Typically, formal (institutional) evaluations are subjected to the same survey questions as all other faculty and courses, which have been approved by the College. Institutional evaluations are used as one form of evidence among many (in regular curriculum committee meetings, during end-of-year course reviews, for faculty yearly reviews, and in faculty advancement portfolios) to analyze and address student perceptions of the learning environment at ICOM. 

 

POLICY: 

  1. ICOM recognizes that understanding the student perspective in their individual learning experiences provides valuable insight into the extent to which the College is fulfilling its primary educational mission. Course and faculty evaluations are one mechanism by which students communicate feedback on those experiences to instructors, course directors, and college leadership.
  2. Student course evaluations are designed to solicit student feedback about their learning experiences to inform faculty efforts to improve course designs, delivery, and pedagogy.  Although the evaluation of courses and the evaluation of faculty at ICOM are administratively handled separately, it is understood that students often give comments and opinions on individual faculty within course evaluations and give comments and opinions of courses within faculty evaluations. Students will be instructed to do their best to keep course evaluations about courses (not referring to individual faculty) and keep faculty evaluations about individual faculty (not connected to certain courses).
  3. Evaluation of courses and faculty integrates and summarizes the performance of multiple facets of the college. Therefore, student course and faculty evaluation data will not be used as the sole or primary measure of the value or quality of a course or faculty member. Research indicates that students are well-positioned to speak about their experiences in a course but are much less capable of assessing an instructor's teaching value or the appropriateness of course content and methods. Therefore, evaluations, although important, will always be considered within the context of the greater educational outcomes of the college, including board exam passing rates, feedback from OMS III preceptors, graduation rates, match rates, exit surveys and other independent measures that assess the quality of ICOM programs.
  4. Students are not permitted to distribute surveys or evaluations of courses or faculty without the written permission of the Dean. This includes the distribution of survey questions that attempt to measure course or faculty effectiveness through both official (ICOM email, ICOM Google forms, etc.) or unofficial (independent websites, apps, pen and paper solicitation, etc.) methods. Students who attempt to survey courses and faculty in these ways and then distribute those survey results to other students, faculty, staff, or community members without the permission of the Dean may be referred to PAR for unprofessional behavior.
  5. Faculty are welcome to produce and disseminate informal (individualized) evaluations at any time, in an attempt to solicit immediate feedback on courses that are in process. Faculty should confer with course directors beforehand to be sensitive to “survey fatigue” by ICOM students and should be judicious in the frequency and length of such informal (individualized) evaluations. Such surveys should always be optional for the students. Faculty must keep the identity of students who elect to participate in informal evaluations confidential.
  6. Oversight Responsibilities for Formal (Institutional) Evaluations: 
    1. The Dean and Chief Academic Officer maintains overall authority for the formal (institutional) evaluation process. 
    2. Collectively, faculty have a voice and role in the evaluation process through their representation on the Curriculum Committee, Academic Leadership Council, and Faculty Senate. The primary faculty role is in reviewing and approving the actual questions from which the surveys are created. All survey questions that appear in formal (institutional) evaluations should be approved by a simple majority of the Curriculum Committee.
    3. The Associate Dean of Academic Affairs (OMS I and II) and the Associate Dean of Clinical Affairs (OMS III and IV) create and manage the policy, guidelines, and procedures regarding course and faculty evaluations. Additionally, they manage the process by which students are regularly solicited for the evaluation of ICOM courses and faculty, which may occur through various learning management systems or other survey software. They also manage the distribution of the results of these evaluations to the appropriate faculty, course directors, and administrators.
    4. The Associate Dean of Academic Affairs (OMS I and II) and the Associate Dean of Clinical Affairs (OMS III and IV) reserve the right to redact certain comments present in evaluations that are especially harmful, aggressive, unprofessional, or inappropriate.
    5. All faculty who teach at ICOM are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the policies and expectations related to student evaluation of courses and faculty.

 

  1. Use of Information Resulting from Evaluations  
    1. The identity of individual students in the course and faculty evaluation process is kept confidential, except in severe cases where a student exhibits extreme unprofessionalism, such as threatening or suggesting violence to themselves or others. The Associate Dean of Academic Affairs or Associate Dean of Clinical Affairs must approve of any case where the identity of a student is revealed for investigation due to unprofessionalism.  
    2. Informal and formal student feedback will be used in a reflective manner by faculty to continuously improve the student learning experience. Additionally, this feedback provides the faculty member and the College with longitudinal data which may be used to: (1) Identify opportunities to improve learning environments and teaching practices; (2) Improve student learning experiences; (3) Record, and iteratively enhance, the quality of courses and teaching.  
    3. To mitigate against bias and misuse, course and faculty evaluations will not be used to make direct comparisons between faculty members or between courses. Student course evaluations and faculty evaluations will not be used as the sole or primary evidence for assessing teaching performance or course success. 

 

PRIMARY POLICY OWNER:  

Dean and Chief Academic Officer 

 

APPROVAL:

Effective: 1/1/24

Last Reviewed: 2/15/24

Review Requirement: 5 Years

Related articles