By: Scott Bergstrom

Earlier this year the BYU-Idaho Assessment Committee¹ was tasked to review and update the instrument used to evaluate faculty and courses at BYU-Idaho. This instrument was originally developed and used at BYU. It had not been reviewed or substantially updated for more than 15 years. Members of the committee reviewed the instrument with the aim of eliminating non-useful items, rewriting items to clarify and to modernize, and adding items that would measure key elements of the Learning Model. This article summarizes the major updates that were made.

The most significant change was the addition of a new section to the course evaluation instrument that would ask students to assess their own performance in the class. Because this section would be the first part of the course evaluation, it frames the entire course evaluation by asking students to first think about what they had done to make the course a successful experience. Of the eight items in this new section, items 1-7 are new and item 8 is retained from the old instrument. They are:

   1) I was prepared for each class.
   2) I arrived at class on time.
   3) I was an active participant in online or face-to-face class discussions.
   4) I sought opportunities to share my learning with others outside of class.
   5) I worked hard to meet the requirements of this class.
   6) I sought opportunities to reflect on what I had learned in the class.
   7) I feel that I made important contributions to the learning and growth of fellow classmates.
   8) This course as a whole has produced new knowledge, skills, and awareness in me.

Several other new items were added to different sections of the course evaluation instrument to reflect key areas of the Learning Model These included:

• The course provided opportunities to learn from and teach other students.
• Group work, if assigned, was beneficial and meaningful.
• Students were actively involved in this class through discussions, group work, and teaching.
• The instructor held me accountable for coming to each class prepared.
• The instructor provided appropriate opportunities to be an active participant in the class.
• The instructor provided opportunities to reflect upon my learning and experiences in the class.

A number of questions were eliminated because they were judged to be less useful to teachers. For example, Seldom misses class, was eliminated because presumably a teacher would already know about that and would not really need student feedback about it. Some items were eliminated because they required students to make judgments which, frankly, they were not able to make. For example, the item, Is genuinely interested in helping me understand the subject matter, and the item, Is well prepared for each class, were eliminated because they asked students to make inferences about a teacher which they were not in a position to make very well. Multiple items about certain teaching practice were combined into one item. For example, the old instrument contained three questions about examination practices: Exams are clearly worded; Exams concentrate on important points of the course; and Exams are good measures of my knowledge, understanding, or ability to perform. These were combined into one item which reads: Assessment activities – exams, quizzes, papers, hands-on demonstrations, presentations, etc. – accurately and fairly measured the knowledge and abilities I acquired from the course.

Both the old and the new instruments are online for review.

The updated instrument can be viewed at: http://abish.byui.edu/berg/evaluation/FormForViewing.cfm.
The old instrument can be viewed at: http://abish.byui.edu/berg/evaluation/FormOldForViewing.cfm.

¹ Members of the Assessment Committee included Lynda Hawkes (Teacher Education), Adrian Baird (Mechanical Engineering), Gayle Lee (Nursing), Shawn Johansen (History/Geography/Political Science), Reese Nelson (Horticulture), Bruce Kusch (Business Management), Alan Young (Academic Technology), Robert Colvin (Foreign Language), David Belka (Art), Paul Cox (Math), and Scott Bergstrom (Institutional Research).