Course and Instructor Critique Policy

I. Purpose

The purpose of the Course and Instructor Critique Program is to ensure continuous improvement in the quality of teaching, learning and its assessment at SGU . Student feedback is an important element for the evaluation of instructional effectiveness, course design, assessment adequacy and alignment and overall academic experience.

II. Policy Statement

Participation in the Course and Instructor Critique Program is a mandatory component of all credit bearing degree courses offered at SGU. Completion of required evaluations is considered an academic responsibility equivalent to participation, examinations, and other mandatory course activities.

III. Student Responsibilities

1. When notified by the Critiques Coordinator/Course Director, students must complete all assigned module/course and instructor evaluations within the designated evaluation window.
2. The course and instructor critiques must include an opportunity for students to provide feedback on module/course delivery, assessment, as well as instruction.
3. Failure to complete all required critiques constitutes non-completion of course requirements and may result in administrative action as determined by the relevant school or program.
4. Student responses must be professional, constructive, and respectful in tone.

IV. Faculty and Course Leadership Responsibilities

1. Course directors should ensure that all instructors teaching on a module/course are evaluated through the SGU system.
2. Provide accurate lists of courses, faculty names and contribution, and departments.
3. Encourage student participation in the critique process and provide course announcements.
4. Inform incoming students of previous terms feedback and any changes to the course. 

V. Administration of Evaluations

1. The Critiques Coordinator will notify students when evaluation periods open and issue periodic reminders to ensure timely submission.
2. Evaluations must be completed within the announced time frame; late submissions will not be accepted.
3. All evaluations are confidential, and individual responses are kept confidential to encourage honest and thoughtful feedback.

VI. Use of Evaluation Results

1. Course directors will summarize the results of the prior term’s course and instructor critiques for their curriculum committee.
2. The summary will include:
   1. Areas that received high ratings and positive student feedback; and
   2. Areas that received low ratings or constructive criticism.
3. For areas identified as needing improvement, the course director will describe specific changes planned and implementation dates to address student concerns.
4. This closing-the-loop process ensures that student feedback directly informs course design, instructional methods, and assessment strategies.
5. Course directors or department chairs should also meet with Student Government Representative once a term for each course to discuss student feedback.

VII. Evaluation Content

1. Each evaluation instrument must solicit student feedback on course delivery, teaching effectiveness, and assessment practices within the course.
2. Surveys should include items related to:
   1. Instructor clarity, engagement, and accessibility.
   2. Course organization, relevance, and workload.
   3. Quality, fairness, and alignment of assessments with learning objectives.
   4. Overall learning experience and recommendations for improvement.
   5. Each school and program will utilize a common core survey with common rating categories so that cross school comparisons can be made.
   6. Schools and programs can add to the common survey questions as appropriate to their needs.

VIII. Importance of Participation

Evaluation is an essential element of academic quality assurance. Just as students expect a fair and accurate assessment of their academic performance, SGU relies on comprehensive, candid course and instructor critiques to achieve the following:

1. Maintain consistent instructional standards across programs.
2. Recognize excellence in teaching; and
3. Identify opportunities for pedagogical and curricular enhancement.

IX. Review and Oversight

This policy will be reviewed periodically by the Office of the Provost to ensure that the evaluation process remains valid, effective, and aligned with best practices in higher education quality assurance.

X. Authority

Office of the Provost; reviewed every 3 years.

XI. Version History

(1025018)