In his role as Interim Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Gary Behm assures that the college is centered around student and faculty/staff success, from enrollment through degree completion, to job placement after graduation. Academic Affairs is a collaborative organization that includes:
Ten academic departments
The Academic Affairs office is responsible for implementing numerous college functions and initiatives:
The NTID Curriculum Committee (NCC) is generally responsible for ensuring that the principles as adopted by the faculty of NTID as basic to all curriculum actions are adhered to. In particular, the NCC is required to review: course additions, course modifications, course deletions, new concept papers, program additions, program modifications and program discontinuances, and certificate additions and modifications. This is done in concert with each of the academic departments and the VP/Dean's Office from both a disciplinary and inter-disciplinary perspective. The NCC looks at curriculum development from a college-university wide perspective (anticipating the requirements of the Institute Curriculum Committee (ICC) and Graduate Council (GC) and New York State Education Department) and serves as a feasibility review panel for the VP/Dean. [Elected three-year term]
Each of the active and discontinued programs listed above was converted from quarters to semesters during Academic Year 2010-2011. Proposals were approved by the department, the NTID Curriculum Committee, the RIT Intercollegiate Curriculum Committee and the RIT Academic Senate and then sent to the New York State Education Department (NYSED). In the Fall of Academic Year 2011-2012 all course outlines and the associated program proposals were reviewed to assure accuracy and consistency of course names and numbers within and across documents. Necessary changes were made to Tables 1 & 2 by the Registrar’s office and are reflected in the attached NYSED/Program Proposal Forms. Each PDF includes:
Information from the NYSED form for requesting a change to a program
An overview of Program Revisions and Improvements
Alignment with the RIT Academic Program Profile
Proposed changes to the Program Goals, Objectives, Focus and/or Design
In May 2015 RIT replaced LAS Foundation 1-First Year Seminar with First Year LAS Elective in all BS, AS and AAS programs.
AS programs revised: Applied Computer Technology, Business, Hospitality and Service Management and Applied Liberal Arts. AAS programs revised: Accounting Technology, Administrative Support Technology, Applied Computer Technology, Applied Mechanical Technology, Digital Imaging Technology, Computer Aided Drafting Technology, and Laboratory Science Technology.
Freshman Seminar Addition to AAS/AS Programs
NCC approved the addition of the 1 credit Freshman Seminar (NCAR-100) to NTID AAS and AS programs. Note: RIT added a non-credit first-year experiences course (YearOne ACSC-010) to all baccalaureate programs.
AS programs revised: Applied Computer Technology, Business, Hospitality and Service Management and Applied Liberal Arts. AAS programs revised: Accounting Technology, Administrative Support Technology, Applied Computer Technology, Applied Mechanical Technology, Digital Imaging Technology (formerly called Arts & Imaging Studies), Computer Aided Drafting Technology, and Laboratory Science Technology.
Reduction of General Education Credits in AOS Programs
NCC approved the reduction of the AOS General Education requirement from 24 to 15 credits (five 3-credit courses).
AOS programs revised: Applied Computer Technology, Visual Communications Studies, Business Technology, Computer Aided Drafting Technology, Computer Integrated Machining Technology, and Laboratory Science Technology.
Departments at NTID/RIT can decide to participate in Mid-Semester Course Evaluation via the SRATE/SmartEvals system or use a Qualtrics Survey. The differences between the two options can be found at this link: Qualtrics and SRATE/SmartEvals.
Mid-Course Feedback (MCF) is a process initiated in response to students’ desire to see that their opinions are valued by teachers and can impact what happens in their courses. Students rarely have the opportunity to observe improvements that directly result from their end-of-term evaluations such as NTID’s SRATE/SmartEvals and the Services Rating System (SRS1:1). MCF is a strategy that can lead to more meaningful, mutually satisfying, and potentially higher end-of-term student ratings, while also impacting a course while it is still in progress.
Student feedback solicited several weeks into the semester can lead to mid-course corrections regarding communication, teaching strategies, materials, assignments, pace and rigor. Instructors have the opportunity to improve their teaching effectiveness and student satisfaction in a timely way.
Mid-Course Feedback is a private process conducted between teachers and students and is not intended to be shared with anyone else unless an instructor chooses to do so. MCF is facilitated by the SRS Advisory Group in NTID Academic Affairs but it is not a part of the student rating systems. Unlike the SRS, MCF is an informal evaluation process with no formal data collection or reporting.
Mid-Course Feedback Sections
See FAQ for information and timelines about the Mid-Course Feedback (MCF).
See Guidelines for how to share students’ feedback (survey results) with them and make plans for responding to concerns.
See Research to learn more about the importance and benefits of MCF.
SRATE Mid-Course Feedback Survey
See RIT's MCF Survey Sample below for a list of statements and comment boxes used in the MCF SRATE/SmartEvals survey and guidance in creating your own survey.
Mid-Course Feedback (MCF) is an initiative of NTID Academic Affairs to provide tools for classroom instructors to solicit useful feedback from their students mid-way through the term. The primary tool is an online survey administered to students. The SRATE MCF includes five Likert agreement-scale items, each paired with an optional comment box for students to explain their answers regarding these topics:
Communication between instructor and student
Communication among students
Difficulty level and pace
Homework and projects
Two comment boxes allow students to indicate what is “best” and “worst” about the course.
A Qualtrics Survey will also be made available to faculty, that contains additional questions and opportunities to comment. Qualtrics offers the opportunity for the survey to be customized based on a student's responses, by automatically skipping inapplicable sections or providing additional applicable questions based on a certain prior response by the student.
MCF is optional, flexible and brief. Instructors can use the SRATE or Qualtrics survey, or they can create their own paper surveys using MCF questions on their own.
Mid-Course Feedback benefits both students and instructors.
Students gain because they feel they have some voice, some way to indicate a need for change before it’s too late. Many students indicated in a 2009 attitudes survey about the former course evaluations that they didn’t feel their ratings made any difference for themselves, and they couldn't see any changes over time across the term.
Instructors gain because they have an opportunity to improve their effectiveness (student learning) and student satisfaction in a timely way. A clear majority of instructors indicated in a 2011 survey that they were interested in soliciting and using mid-course student feedback. The MCF is an effort to facilitate that feedback.
Keeps private conversation going between the instructor and the students.
The MCF is not shared with anyone else, unless the instructor chooses to do so. It is not part of any formal evaluation process.
Classroom instructors from any academic program can use the MCF.
Suggested timeline for activities during Weeks 2 through 8 of a 14-week semester-based term:
Week 2: Qualtrics instructions sent to NTID
Week 3: SRATE MCF particpation lists requested from Department Chairs
Week 4: Department Chairs send SRATE participation lists to Student Ratings Coordinator
Week 5: If Qualtrics is used,Instructor imports survey to their site and edits according to their needs.
Week 6: Instructor administers MCF survey to students. Students complete MCF through SRATE or Qualtrics.
Week 7: Instructor summarizes the results and insights for the class from their SRATE or Qualtrics survey, considers how to respond to the feedback, and makes a reasonable plan with the students.
Week 8: Instructor follows up briefly with students in class to see how the plan is working.
Keep it short. Sharing MCF survey results with your students should take NO MORE THAN ten minutes of teaching time at the start of class!
Thank the students for participating! A better class can result with their help!
Briefly summarize the ratings. Begin with a summary and overall distribution of the ratings for each question. Don’t place any specific positive or negative value on the results. Students shouldn’t think you had an expectation for what the ratings would be.
IMPORTANT:DO NOT do ANYTHING that would reveal an individual student’s rating or comments! Don’t overemphasize comments from one person.
Bring up only one or two of the most important items and determine a possible plan of action. Summarize insights and consensus comments. Note the areas you think may need attention.Students need to know you read what they wrote and appreciate their feedback. It’s an attitude that you’re trying to convey. Be objective. Don’t take comments personally.Invite discussion to clarify comments. This can be a shared problem-solving session.
“I see several of you feel the homework is not helpful. What can we do?”
“A few people thought the pace was too slow. Would less repetition help?”
Students need to know you can’t change some things.
Example: A textbook, or a specific test might need to be part of the class.
Suggest ways students can participate in addressing the concerns.
Example: In-class participation, tutoring, study groups, or meeting with you.
Offer one-on-one meetingsas a follow-up. Some students may not want to share or disclose their comments in the group situation.
Follow up in class in a few weeks. Find out if what you and the students have been doing to address concerns has helped.
Research about student ratings and mid-course feedback
Benton, S. L., & Cashin, W. E. (2012).IDEA Paper No. 50: Student ratings of teaching: A summary of research and literature. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.
This IDEA Paper is an update of the IDEA Paper No. 32 Student Ratings of Teaching: The Research Revisited, (Cashin, 1995). It attempts to summarize the conclusions of the major reviews of the student ratings research and literature from the 1970s to 2010. While that literature is extensive and complex, this brief paper offers broad, general summaries and a good number of citations. As such, it is an excellent resource which draws several noteworthy conclusions.
Bullock, C.D. (2003). Online Collection of Midterm Student Feedback. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 96, 95-102.
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign created an electronic evaluation system (EON) for online courses which includes a mechanism for instructors to collect midterm (formative) feedback as well as end-of-term (summative) ratings. In this chapter, Bullock focuses on the midterm component, beginning with a review of pertinent literature. She describes a pilot program utilizing EON as well as a study that was conducted to gain an understanding of how and why instructors use midterm feedback. They found that instructors preferred this type of online system to paper-pencil evaluations and wanted consultative services for item development and for the interpretation of results.
Spencer, K. J. & Schmelkin, L. P. ( 2002). Student Perspectives on Teaching and its Evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27 (5), 397-409.
The study described in this article explored student perspectives on course and teacher ratings as well as some issues related to teaching effectiveness and faculty roles. Spencer and Schmelkin found that while students were generally willing to complete teacher evaluations and provide feedback they had little confidence that faculty or administration viewed or paid attention to the results. Noting that end-of-term instruments should not be the only formalized way for students to express their views, they support “mid-term formative evaluations.”
Medina, Brenda. ( 2011). As Emphasis on Student Evaluations Grows, Professors Increasingly Seek Midcourse Feedback. The Chronicle of Higher Education
A growing number of academics are asking students to evaluate their teaching midcourse rather than waiting for feedback at the end of the term. Midterm feedback from students gives professors a chance to adjust their courses to improve learning and student satisfaction.
If you are a faculty or staff member outside of NTID who needs to be able to see the names of deaf or hard-of-hearing students as a business function of your job, you need access to RIT N01 View.
Currently, all faculty have access (in the Faculty Center) to see the number of deaf or hard-of-hearing students enrolled in their classes. RIT N01 View allows the user to view the specific names of those deaf and hard-of-hearing students who are sponsored by NTID. Based on individual user security, the viewer will be able to identify deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the views that they can already access.
If you have a legitimate business need to know the specific names of deaf or hard-of-hearing students, you must fill out this form and return it to NTID's Associate Dean for Academic Administration (Katie Schmitz) to initiate the review and approval process. After she reviews your form with her committee, she will notify you and ITS of the decision.