Online Course Evaluation Literature Review and Findings. Prepared by: Jessica Wode Jonathan Keiser

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Online Course Evaluation Literature Review and Findings. Prepared by: Jessica Wode Jonathan Keiser"

Transcription

1 Online Course Evaluation Literature Review and Findings Prepared by: Jessica Wode Jonathan Keiser Academic Affairs Columbia College Chicago Spring 2011

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Scholarly Research on Student Course Evaluations...2 Recommendations for Improving Response Rates...6 Additional Reading on Online Evaluations: Annotated Bibliography...7 1

3 SUMMARY OF SCHOLARLY RESEARCH ON STUDENT COURSE EVALUATIONS The validity and reliability of course evaluations Researchers generally consider student evaluations of instructors to be highly reliable and at least moderately valid. 1,2,3 Other methods of evaluation (such as evaluations by colleagues or trained observers) have not been found to be reliable and therefore not valid. 1 Student ratings of instructors have been found to be related to ratings of instructor s skills in course organization, rapport with students, and fair grading; variance in organizational skill (having an organized course plan and clearly identifying what students need to do) explained most variance in student evaluations. 4 Alumni rarely change their opinions of former teachers. 1,3 When instructors collect mid-term feedback from students and have an honest discussion about it with someone, it leads to higher evaluations at the end of the semester as well as higher final exam scores, providing evidence that good evaluations can lead to better teaching. 5 Although grades do have some effect on how students rate instructors, 6 its effect is fairly low 7 and can be statistically adjusted for. 8 Grades do not have as large of an effect as do how much students feel they ve learned, 9 how much they felt stimulated by the class, 10 and whether the class was appropriately difficult (courses are rated lower for being too easy or too difficult). 11 Contrary to the retaliation theory, students who do poorly in a class are equally or less likely than those who do well to complete course evaluations Centra, John Reflective faculty evaluation: enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness (Jossey Bass higher and adult education series). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc Pub. 2 Hobson, Suzanne M., and Donna M. Talbot. "Understanding Student Evaluations: What All Faculty Should Know." College Teaching 49, no. 1 (2001): Aleamoni, Lawrence M. "Student Rating Myths Versus Research Facts from 1924 to 1998." Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 13, no. 2 (1999): Jirovec, Ronald L., Chathapuram S. Ramanathan, and Ann Rosegrant-Alvarez. "Course Evaluations: What are Social Work Students Telling Us About Teaching Effectiveness?" Journal of Social Work Education 34, no. 2 (1998): Overall, J.U., and Herbert W. Marsh. "Midterm Feedback from Students: Its Relationship to Instructional Improvement and Students' Cognitive and Affective Outcomes." Journal of Educational Psychology 71, no. 6 (1979): Johnson, Valen E. "Teacher Course Evaluations and Student Grades: An Academic Tango." Chance 15, no. 3 (2002): Gigliotti, Richard J., and Foster S. Buchtel. "Attributional Bias and Course Evaluations." Journal of Educational Psychology 82, no. 2 (1990): Greenwald, Anthony G., and Gerald M. Gillmore. "Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings." American Psychologist 52, no. 11 (1997): Bard, John S. "Perceived learning in relation to student evaluation of university instruction." Journal of Educational Psychology 79, no. 1 (1987): Remedios, Richard, and David A. Lieberman. "I liked your course because you taught me well: the influence of grades, workload, expectations and goals on students' evaluations of teaching." British Educational Research Journal 34, no. 1 (2008): Centra, John A. "Will Teachers Receive Higher Student Evaluations by Giving Higher Grades and Less Course Work? " Research in Higher Education 44, no. 5 (2003): Liegle, J O and D S McDonald. Lessons Learned From Online vs. Paper-based Computer Information Students' Evaluation System. In The Proceedings of the Information Systems Education Conference 2004, v 21 (Newport): ISSN:

4 Online vs. paper course evaluations The one consistent disadvantage to online course evaluations is their low response rate 13,14 ; using reminder s from instructors and messages posted on online class discussions can significantly increase response rates. 15 Evaluation scores do not change when evaluations are completed online rather than on paper. 14,16 Students leave more (and often more useful) comments on online evaluations compared to paper evaluations. 13,16,17 Students, faculty, and staff generally view online evaluations more positively than paper evaluations. 13,16 13 Anderson, Heidi M., Jeff Cain, and Eleanora Bird. "Online Student Course Evaluations: Review of Literature and a Pilot Study." American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 69, no. 1, article 5 (2005). 14 Avery, Rosemary J., W. Keith Bryant, Alan Mathios, Hyojin Kang, and Duncan Bell. "Electronic Course Evaluations: Does an Online Delivery System Influence Student Evaluations?." Journal of Economic Education 37, no. 1 (2006): Norris, John, and Cynthia Conn. "Investigating Strategies for Increasing Student Response Rates to Online- Delivered Course Evaluations." Quarterly Review of Distance Education 6, no. 1 (2005): Donovan, Judy, Cynthia E. Mader, and John Shinsky. "Constructive Student Feedback: Online vs. Traditional Course Evaluations." Journal of Interactive Online Learning 5, no. 3 (2006): Kasiar, Jennifer B., Sara L. Schroeder, and Sheldon G. Holstad. "Comparison of Traditional and Web-Based Course Evaluation Processes in a Required, Team-Taught Pharmacotherapy Course." American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 66 (2002):

5 Student perceptions of course evaluations Students tend to feel that evaluations have no effect on teacher performance, and they don t seem to know if anyone other than the instructor sees the evaluations. 18 Surveys of students typically indicate that students believe faculty and administrators don t take their evaluations seriously. 19 This may be justified, as some studies have found that instructors do not view student evaluations as valuable for improving instruction 20 and very few report making changes to their courses as a result of course evaluations. 21 Students are more likely to complete course evaluations if they see value in them (e.g., understand how they are being used, believe that their opinions have an effect) Marlin, James W., Jr. "Student Perceptions of End-of-Course Evaluations." The Journal of Higher Education 58, no. 6 (1987): Spencer, Karin J., and Liora Pedhazur Schmelkin. "Student Perspectives on Teaching and its Evaluation." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27, no. 5 (2002): Nasser, Fadia, and Barbara Fresko. "Faculty Views of Student Evaluation of College Teaching." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27.2 (2002): Beran, Tanya N., and Jennifer L. Rokosh. "Instructors' perspectives on the utility of student ratings of instruction." Instructional Science 37.2 (2009): Gaillard, Franklin D., Sonja P. Mitchell, and Vahwere Kavota. "Students, Faculty, And Administrators Perception Of Students Evaluations Of Faculty In Higher Education Business Schools." Journal of College Teaching & Learning 3, no. 8 (2006):

6 Effects of allowing students access to course evaluation data Students who do not have access to course evaluating ratings rate course evaluations as more important to making a course selection than those who do have access. 23 This may indicate that students think course evaluation data will be more helpful than it actually is. If all else is equal, a student is twice as likely to choose an instructor with excellent ratings over an instructor with good ratings; however, students are willing to select a poor instructor if they believe they will learn a lot from the class. 24 Students will choose a highly rated course over less highly rated courses even if the workload is greater for that course than the others. 25 Results are mixed on whether receiving evaluation information influences how students consequently rate the instructor. 24 Some studies have indicated that students who receive information that an instructor was rated highly will rate that instructor highly, and vice versa. 26,27 Rulings involving the University of Wisconsin and University of Idaho found that students had a right to view the results of student evaluations of faculty Wilhelm, Wendy Bryce, and Charles Comegys. "Course Selection Decisions by Students on Campuses With and Without Published Teaching Evaluations." Practical assessment, research & evaluation 9, no. 16 (2004). (accessed February 15, 2010). 24 Wilhelm, Wendy Bryce. "The Relative Influence of Published Teaching Evaluations and Other Instructor Attributes on Course Choice." Journal of Marketing Education 26, no. 1 (2004): Coleman, Jeffrey, and W.J. McKeachie. "Effects of Instructor/Course Evaluations on Student Course Selection." Journal of Educational Psychology 73, no. 2 (1981): Perry, Raymond P., R. Ronald Niemi, and Keith Jones. "Effect of prior teaching evaluations and lecture presentation on ratings of teaching performance." Journal of Educational Psychology 66, no. 6 (1974): Griffin, B.W. "Instructor Reputation and Student Ratings of Instruction." Contemporary Educational Psychology 26.4 (2001): Haskell, R.E.. "Administrative Use of Student Evaluation of Faculty." Education Policy Analysis Archives 5, no. 6 (1997). (accessed February 22, 2010). 5

7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING RESPONSE RATES The literature suggest that there are three primary methods to improve response rates on end-of-course evaluations: 1) Make evaluation a part of the course (most effective) 2) Send reminder notices 2) Offer a small incentive 1. Make Evaluation Part of the Course The most effective method to maintain high-quality response rates is to make evaluation part of your course. Simply administering a mid-semester course evaluation and providing the results and your plan of action based on their feedback to the class will dramatically improve response rates at the end of the year. This is because it addresses students' primary complaint about course evaluation: No one looks or even cares about what I have to say about the course. Surveys and information suggest that students have little confidence that faculty or administrators pay attention to the results. If you show them that their feedback is important, studies show that they will provide that feedback to you. 2. Send Reminder Notices At Columbia, as part of the centrally administered option, three reminders are sent to the students through their university accounts each week the evaluation is open. There is also a pop-up reminder each time a student logs into OASIS. Instructors are encouraged to remind their own students of the importance of the evaluations and encourage their participation through whatever communication channel you have established for your course. 3. Offer a Small Incentive The literature stated that small incentives will boost the response rates from students. Examples that were provided were one-half of one percent grade enhancement or contests for prizes like an ipod. 6

8 ADDITIONAL READING ON ONLINE EVALUATIONS: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Note:ThisliteraturereviewisbasedonthebibliographyofCollings,D.&Ballantyne,C.S.(2004,November24 25). Onlinestudentsurveycomments:Aqualitativeimprovement? Anderson,H.,Cain,J.,Bird,E.(2005) OnlineStudentCourseEvaluations:ReviewofLiterature andapilotstudy. AmericanJournalofPharmaceuticalEducation2005;69(1)Article5. Theliteraturereviewrevealedseveralstudiesthatfoundnostatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetween deliverymodes.twoalsonotedthatstudentsprovidedmorecommentsintheonlineforms.responserates variedwidely.theuniversityofkentuckycollegeofpharmacy,drivenbythefaculty sdesireformoretimely returnofresults(3 4monthstypically),launchedapilotstudyofonlineevaluationsin3courses.Theresponse ratesforthe3courseswere85%,89%,and75%.the9coursesusingthepaperformsaveragedan80%response rate(consistentwiththe2previousyearsalsoabout80%).thecommentsontheonlineformsweremore frequentandlongerthanthepaperforms.studentslikedtheonlineformbetterthanthepaperformand thoughttheycouldprovidemoreeffectiveandconstructivefeedbackonline. Anderson,J.,G.Brown,andS.Spaeth.(2006) OnlineStudentEvaluationsandResponseRates Reconsidered. Innovate2(6).http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=301 SynopsisfromInnovate: Manyadministratorsaremovingtowardusingonlinestudentevaluationstoassess coursesandinstructors,butcriticsofthepracticefearthattheonlineformatwillonlyresultinlowerlevelsof studentparticipation.joananderson,garybrown,andstephenspaethclaimthatsuchaconcernoftenfailsto acknowledgehowtheevaluationprocessalreadysuffersfromsubstantiallackofengagementonthepartof studentsaswellasinstructors;theonlineformat,theyassert,merelyinheritsthefundamentalproblemof perceivedirrelevanceintheprocessitself.afteraddressingthereasonsbehindthisproblemanddiscussing howwell designedonlineevaluationscanstillmakeapositivedifference,theauthorsdescribethedevelopment andimplementationofacomprehensive,college wideonlineevaluationsurveyatwashingtonstateuniversity's CollegeofAgricultural,Human,andNaturalResources.Inreviewingthesurveyresults,theyfoundthatclasssize, academicdiscipline,anddistributionmethodplayedanegligibleroleinstudentresponserates.however,they foundthatvariancesinresponserateweresignificantlyinfluencedbytherelativelevelofparticipationamong facultymembersanddepartmentheadsintheoriginaldevelopmentofthesurvey.theauthorsmaintainthat onlinesurveyscanmaketheprocessmorerelevantandmeaningfultostudents,buttheyconcludethateliciting greaterresponserateswillstillrequiresustainedsupport,involvement,andadvocacybyfacultymembersand administrators. Ardalan,A.,Ardalan,R.,Coppage,S.,andCrouch,W.(2007) Acomparisonofstudentfeedback obtainedthroughpaper basedandweb basedsurveysoffacultyteaching. BritishJournalof EducationalTechnology.Volume38Number Thispaperprovidesasummaryofthecurrentresearchinonlinevs.paperevaluationsaswellasresultsfroma studenttocomparethefeedbackresults.thesameformwasgivento46sectionpairings onepaperandone online.theonlineresponseratewas31%(392outof1276possibleresponses)andthepaperwas69%(972 outof1415).nosignificantdifferencewasfoundinthequantitativeratingsbetweenthetwomethods.they examinedthedifferencesonan overalleffectiveness questioninratingforfacultywhowereabovethecollege averageandthenforfacultywhowerebelowthecollegeaverage.facultywhowereabovetheaveragewere scoredslightlyloweronlineandthefacultywhowerebelowthecollegeaveragewerescoredhigheronline. Therewasnosignificantdifferenceinthenumberofstudentsgivingopen endedfeedbackonline;however, therewasasignificantincreaseinthelengthofopen endedfeedbackonline. 7

9 8 Avery,RosemaryJ.,BryantW.K.,Mathios,A.,Kang,H.,andBell,D.(2006). ElectronicCourse Evaluations:DoesanOnlineDeliverySystemInfluenceStudentEvaluations? Journalof EconomicEducation.Washington:Winter2006.Vol.37,Iss.1p21 38(ProQuestdocumentID ). TheDepartmentofPolicyAnalysisandManagementaCornellUniversitydidastudyofcourseevaluationdata from Usingthesameform,datawasanalyzedfrom29courses(20usingthepaperversion,9using theonlineversion).thestudyexaminedresponseratesandmeanscoresbetweenthemethods.whilespecific responseratesvaried,onlinewastypicallylowerthanthepaperform.forexample,infall2000paperwas69% comparedwith47%online.usinga5 pointscaleontheir13questions,4questionshadasignificantdifference inmeanscoresbetweenmethods.thiswasagreaterthan0.10differencewiththewebhavingthehighermean score.theother9questionshadalessthan0.10differenceinmeanscoresagainwithwebhavingthehigher means. Ballantyne,C.S.(2003).Onlineevaluationsofteaching:Anexaminationofcurrentpracticeand considerationsforthefuture.insorenson,d.l&johnson,t.d(eds)onlinestudentratingsof Instruction,NewDirectionsforTeachingandLearning,No.96,Winter2003,Jossey Bass Thisarticlesummarizessomeoftheknownissuesrelatedtoonlinesurveys,usingMurdochUniversity s implementationofanonlinecourseevaluationsystemasacasestudy.responseratesareoftenlowerthan desiredbutcanbeincreasedwithstrategiessuchasprovidingcomputeraccess,havingfacultysupportforthe system,andlettingstudentsknowhowtheirfeedbackisused.onlinesystemsneedtobedesignedtoprevent multipleratingsofacoursebythesamestudentwhilestillprotectingstudents anonymity.quantitativeratings aresimilartothosecompletedonpaper,whilecommentsaremoreplentifulandmorethoughtful.onlinerating systemsaresignificantlylessexpensivethanpaperevaluationsystems. Ballantyne,C.S.(2004).Onlineoronpaper:Anexaminationofthedifferencesinresponseand respondentstoasurveyadministeredintwomodes.paperpresentedtotheaustralasian EvaluationSocietyAnnualConference,Adelaide,SouthAustralia,13 15October, In2003MurdochUniversitycarriedoutasatisfactionsurveyofallstudents.Initialcontactwasvia asking studentstorespondonline.follow upsofnonrespondentsusedthemoretraditionalmailout/paperformat.a responserateoffiftypercentwasachievedwithsixty threepercentofresponsescomingviatheonlinemode. Malestudents,youngerstudents,undergraduatesandfull timestudentsweremorelikelytorespondonline. Studentsrespondingonlinewerelesslikelytocomment,butonlinecommentswerelengthierthanpaper comments. Bothell,T.W&Henderson,T.2003 Doonlineratingsofinstructionmake$ense? InSorenson, D.L&Johnson,T.D(Eds)OnlineStudentRatingsofInstruction,NewDirectionsforTeachingand Learning,No.96,Winter2003,Jossey Bass Researcherscomparedthecostofanonlineevaluationsystemcomparedtopaperevaluations.Theyfoundthat whenbrighamyounguniversityswitchedtoonlineevaluations,itsavedthem$235,000ayear.theestimated costatbyuforpaperevaluationsis$1.06perstudentrating form,comparedwith$0.47peronlinestudent rating form.thesavingscomefromareductioninprintingcosts,adecreasedneedforpersonnelhelpwith collection,processing,andreporting,andfewertimetakenawayfrominstructorsintheclassroom.

10 BrighamYoungUniversityStudentratings:Frequentlyaskedquestions.Retrieved15thApril 2010fromhttps://studentratings.byu.edu/info/students/faq.asp ProvidesinformationtostudentsabouttheBYUonlinecourseevaluations.Studentscannotratecoursesafter finalexaminationsbegin.studentsareassuredofanonymitybutgiventheoptiontoprovidetheirnametothe instructorif,forexample,theinstructorsoffersextracreditforcompletingevaluations(thenameisnot associatedwithresults,andisonlyvisibletotheinstructorifatleast5studentscompleteevaluationsforthat class).studentscanseetheresultsforonlyfouritems,whichareassociatedwithstudentlearning,andonlyif theycompleteevaluationsforalltheirclasses. Carini,R.M,Hayek,J.C.,Kuh,G.D.&Ouimet,J.A.(2003)."Collegestudentresponsestoweband papersurveys:doesmodematter?",researchinhighereducation,2003,44,(1),p1 19 Retrieved13thSeptember2004fromhttp://www.kluweronline.com/issn/ /contents Weexaminedtheresponsesof58,288collegestudentsto8scalesinvolving53itemsfromtheNationalSurvey ofstudentengagement(nsse)togaugewhetherindividualsresponddifferentlytosurveysadministeredviathe Webandpaper.Ourfindingssuggestthatmodeeffectsforfirst yearandseniorcollegestudentsgenerallytend tobesmall.anotableexceptioninvolvesitemsrelatedtocomputingandinformationtechnology,whichexhibit morefavorableresponseswhenansweredviatheweb.however,ourdatadonotallowustodiscernwhether thisisatruemodeeffectorwhetherthosemostengagedincomputingandinformationtechnologyarealso thosewhogravitatetowardtheweb basedmodes. Cates,W.M.(1993).Asmall scalecomparisonoftheequivalenceofpaper and penciland computerizedversionsofstudentend of courseevaluations.computersinhumanbehavior,9, Thisstudycomparedresponsestotwoversionsofanend of courseevaluationinstrumentcompletedby graduatestudents:thetraditionalprintedformcompletedusingpencilandpaper,andamicrocomputer based formthatpresentedequivalentitemsandacceptedstudentresponses.afindingofnosignificantdifferencein favorablenessofcompositeratingsbetweenthetwoversionspromptedtheresearchertoperformitem by item analysesofthetwoinstruments.theseanalysesrevealedthatratingsoftheindividualitemsononeinstrument werehighlycorrelatedwiththeratingsoftheirmatchedcorrespondingitemsontheotherinstrument.the paper and pencilandcomputerizedevaluationinstrumentswerefoundtobeofalmostidenticallyhigh reliability. Chen,Y.&Hoshower,L.B.(2003)."Studentevaluationofteachingeffectiveness:anassessment ofstudentperceptionandmotivation."assessment&evaluationinhighereducation28,(1) Overthepastcentury,studentratingshavesteadilycontinuedtotakeprecedenceinfacultyevaluationsystems innorthamericaandaustralia,areincreasinglyreportedinasiaandeuropeandareattractingconsiderable attentioninthefareast.sincestudentratingsarethemost,ifnottheonly,influentialmeasureofteaching effectiveness,activeparticipationbyandmeaningfulinputfromstudentscanbecriticalinthesuccessofsuch teachingevaluationsystems.nevertheless,veryfewstudieshavelookedintostudents'perceptionofthe teachingevaluationsystemsandtheirmotivationtoparticipate.thisstudyemploysexpectancytheoryto evaluatesomekeyfactorsthatmotivatestudentstoparticipateintheteachingevaluationprocess.theresults showthatstudentsgenerallyconsideranimprovementinteachingtobethemostattractiveoutcomeofa teachingevaluationsystem.thesecondmostattractiveoutcomewasusingteachingevaluationstoimprove coursecontentandformat.usingteachingevaluationsforaprofessor'stenure,promotionandsalaryrise decisionsandmakingtheresultsofevaluationsavailableforstudents'decisionsoncourseandinstructor 9

11 selectionwerelessimportantfromthestudents'standpoint.students'motivationtoparticipateinteaching evaluationsisalsoimpactedsignificantlybytheirexpectationthattheywillbeabletoprovidemeaningful feedback.sincequalitystudentinputisanessentialantecedentofmeaningfulstudentevaluationsofteaching effectiveness,theresultsofthisstudyshouldbeconsideredthoughtfullyastheevaluationsystemisdesigned, implemented,andoperated. Collings,D.&Ballantyne,C.S.(2004,November24 25).Onlinestudentsurveycomments:A qualitativeimprovement?paperpresentedatthe2004evaluationforum,melbourne,victoria. Giventhatonlineevaluationstendtohaveadecreaseinresponseratebutanincreaseincommentscompared topaperevaluations,theseresearchersquestionedwhetheranincreasedresponserateonlinewouldleadto lessvaluablecomments.thiswouldbelikelyifthestudentsmosteagertoparticipatewerealsomostlikelyto comment.however,theyfoundthatregardlessofwhenstudentsrespondedtothesurvey,thepercent commentingandthelengthofcommentswerenearlythesame,withaslightdecreaseforthoseresponding neartheendofthetimeperiod.theysuggestthatqualitativefeedbackmaybemorevaluablethanquantitative feedback,andincreasingresponseratesisn tnecessaryforqualityfeedback. Cummings,R.andBallatyne,C.(1999). Studentfeedbackonteaching:Online!Ontarget? PaperpresentedattheAustralisianSocietyAnnualConference,October,1999. MurdochUniversitySchoolofEngineeringranapilotin1999ofonlinecourseevaluationsusingthesameform onlineasonpaper.studentsfoundtheonlineformeasier,faster,andfeltitofferedgreateranonymity.the schoolhasa50%mandateforresponserateincourseevaluations.typicallypaperevaluationshada65% responserate.theonlinepilotaveraged31%with4ofthe18coursesoverthe50%mandate.theresponse raterangewasawide3%to100%.becausethepilotwasinadequatelypromoted,somefacultydidn tknow theywereusingonlineformsanddidn tadequatelypreparestudents.studentsnotedthattheyfeltnopressure tofillouttheonlineevaluations.theinvestigatorsconcludedthatthequalityofresponseswasthesame becausetheyreceivedthesameamountofcommentsonline,whichiswhatisusedmostfromtheevaluation form. Dommeyer,CJ.,Baum,P.,Chapman,KS.,andHanna,RW.(2003). Anexperimental investigationofstudentresponseratestofacultyevaluations:theeffectoftheonlinemethod andonlinetreatments. PaperpresentedatDecisionSciencesInstitute;Nov.22 25,2003; Washington,DC. TheCollegeofBusinessAndEconomicsatCaliforniaStateUniversity,Northridgedidastudywith16professors toseehowthemethodofevaluationaffectsresponserateandifonlinetreatments(incentives)affectthe responserate.eachprofessortaught2sectionsofthesameundergraduatebusinesscourse.thesameformwas usedinbothmethods.instructorswererandomlyassignedinto1of4groupsusingdifferentincentives:0.25% gradeincentiveforcompletionofanonlineevaluation(4courses),in classdemonstrationonhowtodothe onlineevaluation(2courses),if2/3oftheclasssubmittedonlineevaluationsstudentswouldreceivetheir finalgradesearly(2courses),oracontrolgroup(8courses).theonlineevaluationsaverageda43%response rateandthepaperevaluationsaveraged75%.lookingatjustthecontrolgroup,theiraverageresponseratewas 29%.Intheindividualcasestheincentiveshadtheeffectofincreasingresponserate(gradeincentive87% responserate,demonstration53%,andearlyfinalgrade51%). 10

12 Dommeyer,C.J.,Baum,P.Hanna,R.W.,&Chapman,K.S.(2004)"Gatheringfacultyteaching evaluationsbyin classandonlinesurveys:theireffectsonresponseratesandevaluations" Assessment&EvaluationinHigherEducation29,(5) Thisstudycomparesstudentevaluationsoffacultyteachingthatwerecompletedin classwiththosecollected online.thetwomethodsofevaluationwerecomparedonresponseratesandonevaluationscores.inaddition, thisstudyinvestigateswhethertreatmentsorincentivescanaffecttheresponsetoonlineevaluations.itwas foundthattheresponseratetotheonlinesurveywasgenerallylowerthanthattothein classsurvey. Additionally,thestudyfoundthatonlineevaluationsdonotproducesignificantlydifferentmeanevaluation scoresthantraditionalin classevaluations,evenwhendifferentincentivesareofferedtostudentswhoare askedtocompleteonlineevaluations. Donovan,J.,Mader,C.,andShinsky.J.,(2006) Constructivestudentfeedback:Onlinevs. traditionalcourseevaluations. JournalofInteractiveOnlineLearning.Volume5,Number3, Winter2006. Abstract:Substantialeffortshavebeenmaderecentlytocomparetheeffectivenessoftraditionalcourseformats toalternativeformats(mostoften,onlinedeliverycomparedtotraditionalon sitedelivery).thisstudy examines,notthedeliveryformatbutrathertheevaluationformat.itcomparestraditionalpaperandpencil methodsforcourseevaluationwithelectronicmethods.eleveninstructorstookpartinthestudy.each instructortaughttwosectionsofthesamecourse;attheend,onecoursereceivedanonlinecourseevaluation, theotheratraditionalpencilandpaperevaluation.enrollmentinthese22sectionswas519students. Researchersanalyzedopen endedcommentsaswellasquantitativerankingsforthecourseevaluations. Researchersfoundnosignificantdifferencesinnumericalrankingsbetweenthetwoevaluationformats. However,differenceswerefoundinnumberandlengthofcomments,theratioofpositivetonegative comments,andtheratioofformativetosummativecomments.studentscompletingfacultyevaluationsonline wrotemorecomments,andthecommentsweremoreoftenformative(definedasacommentthatgave specificreasonsforjudgmentsothattheinstructorknewwhatthestudentwassuggestingbekeptor changed)innature. Emery,L.,Head,T.,Zeckoski,A.,andYuBorkowski,E.(2008) DeployinganOpenSource, OnlineEvaluationSystem:MultipleExperiences. PresentationatEducause2008,October31, Orlando,FL. Fourinstitutions,UniversityofMichiganAnnArbor,VirginiaTech,UniversityofCambridgeandUniversityof Maryland,collaboratedonanopensourceonlineevaluationsystemwithinSakai.Responseratesinthevarious pilotsrangedfrom32%to79%.theyfoundthekeybenefitsofonlineevaluationstobesecurity,validity, efficiency,costsavings,rapidresultsturnaroundandhigherqualitystudentcomments. Ernst,D.(2006) StudentEvaluations:AComparisonofOnlinevs.PaperDataCollection. PresentationatEducause2006,October10,Dallas,TX. TheCollegeofEducationandHumanDevelopmentattheUniversityofMinnesotadidastudyon314classpairs (14,154studentevaluations)fromfall2002tofall2004.Thegoalsweretoseeifthereisadifferenceinresponse rate,adifferenceinresponsedistributions,adifferenceinaverageratingsbetweenthetwomethodsandwhat arethecommonperceptionsofeachmethod.inthestudygrouptheonlineformaverageda56%response ratewhereasthepaperversionaveraged77%.slightlymorestudentsrespondedonthehighandlowendsof the7 pointscalethandidinthemiddle.therewasnosignificantdifferenceinthemeanratingon4required questions. 11

13 12 exploranceinc., AFreshLookatResponseRates. WhitePaper. 0Rates.pdf Thiswhitepaperoutlines9bestpracticesformovingtoonlinecourseevaluations.Keybenefitstomoving onlinearelistedaswellasstrategiestobuildresponserates. Fraze,S.,Hardin,K.,Brashears,T.,Smith,J.,Lockaby,J.(2002) TheEffectsOfDeliveryMode UponSurveyResponseRateAndPerceivedAttitudesOfTexasAgri ScienceTeachers. Paper presentedatthenationalagriculturaleducationresearchconference,december11 13,Las Vegas,NV, TexasTechUniversitystudied3modesofsurveyingarandomgroupofTexasAgri Scienceteachers.The3modes weree mail,web,andpaper.nosignificantdifferenceinthereliabilityoftheresponseswasfound.however, theresponserateswere60%,43%and27%forpaper,webande mailrespectively. Handwerk,P.,Carson,C.,andBlackwell,K.(2000). On linevs.paper and pencilsurveyingof students:acasestudy. Paperpresentedatthe40thAnnualMeetingoftheAssociationof InstitutionalResearch,May2000(ERICdocumentED446512). TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaatGreensborodidastudyofusingandonlineversionofafeedbacksurveyfor determiningwhystudentsselectedordidnotselectgreensboro.theyfoundtheonlineversiongeneratedmore commentsthoughhadalower(26%)responseratethanthepaperversion(33%).nosignificantdifferencewas foundintheresponsecontentbetweenthetwomethods. Hardy,N.2003 Onlineratings:Factandfiction. InSorenson,D.L&Johnson,T.D(Eds)Online StudentRatingsofInstruction,NewDirectionsforTeachingandLearning,No.96,Winter2003, Jossey Bass ThisstudyuseddatafromNorthwesternUniversity simplementationofanonlineevaluationsystemtorefute mythssurroundingonlinecourseevaluations.contrarytothefearsofsomefacultymembers,onlineratings werenotmorelikelythanpaperevaluationstoproducenegativeratingsorcomments,andstudentswrote substantiallymorecommentsontheonlineevaluations.additionally,anygivenclassmayhaveahigher,lower, orsimilarresponseratewhenswitchingfrompapertoonline. Hmieleski,K.andChampagne,M.2000"Pluggingintocourseevaluation."Assessment, September/October2000. TheIDEALaboratorysurveyedthenation's200mostwiredcollegesasidentifiedbyZDNet.Surprisingly,98%of the"mostwired"schoolsuseprimarilypaper basedevaluationforms.oftheschoolsrequiringsomeformof courseorfacultyevaluation,allcurrentlyadministertheevaluationformssolelyattheendoftheterm(the "autopsyapproach").sixty sevenpercentofschoolsreportedreturnratesof70%orhigherforpaper based evaluation.schoolsusingorpilot testingaweb basedevaluationsystemreportedreturnratesrangingfrom 20%togreaterthan90%.Only28%ofrespondentsratedtheirfacultyasverysupportiveoftheirschool's currentevaluationsystem.ninety fivepercentofschoolsreportedthattheirfacultymembersareinvolvedin thedevelopmentofcourseevaluations,typicallythroughparticipationinthefacultysenateorbydeveloping evaluationquestions.thirty onepercentofschoolsreportedthatstudentsareinvolvedinthedevelopmentof theircollege scourseevaluationsystem,typicallythroughparticipationinthestudentsenate,and36%of schoolsallowtheirstudentstoviewtheresultsofcourseevaluations,typicallyviatheinternetandstudent

14 publications.theysuggesta feedback and refinement bywhichstudentscanprovidefeedbackthroughout thecoursetoallowinstructorstomakerapidchangestothecourse,andfoundthatwhenusingafeedback andrefinementsystem,commentstendtobemoreplentifulandinsightful.additionally,theynotethatwhen responsesarerequired,responseratesapproach100%butvaluablecommentsdropdramatically. Hoffman,K.M.2003 Onlinestudentratings:Willstudentsrespond? InSorenson,D.L& Johnson,T.D(Eds)OnlineStudentRatingsofInstruction,NewDirectionsforTeachingand Learning,No.96,Winter2003,Jossey Bass ThisinvestigationwasintendedasanupdatetoHmielskiandChampagne(2000) sarticleoncollegesusingpaper oronlineevaluationforms.oftheinstitutionssurveyed,90%werestillusingaprimarilypaper based evaluationprocess,and12%wereusingnonscannablepaperforms.however,56%wereusingtheinternetfor theevaluationofonlinecoursesorwereplanningtoimplementanonlineratingssystemforonlinecoursesin 2003.MoreschoolsusedtheInternettoreportevaluationresultstofacultythanusedtheInternettocollect ratingsfromstudents;additionally,12%ofinstitutionsallowedstudentstoviewevaluationresults. Johnson,T.D.2003 Onlinestudentratings:Willstudentsrespond? InSorenson,D.L& Johnson,T.D(Eds)OnlineStudentRatingsofInstruction,NewDirectionsforTeachingand Learning,No.96,Winter2003,Jossey Bass BrighamYoungUniversityexperimentedwithdifferentstrategiesforincreasingresponseratestoonlinecourse evaluations.wheninstructorsassignedstudentstocompletecourseevaluations,whetherornottheygave pointsfortheassignment,therewasalargejumpinresponserates.additionally,whentheevaluationform wasshort,studentstookthetimetowritemoreopen endedcomments.studentswhodidnotrespondmost oftendidnotknowabouttheonlineevaluations.infocusgroups,students topsuggestionforincreasing responserateswastoallowearlyaccesstogradesforthosewhocompletedtheevaluations. Kasiar,J.B.,Schroeder,S.L.&Holstad,S.G.(2002).Comparisonoftraditionalandweb based courseevaluationprocessesinarequired,team taughtpharmacotherapycourse.american JournalofPharmaceuticalEducation,66(3), Inateam taughtcourse(enrollment=169),studentswererandomlyassignedtocompleteevaluationsonline(n =50)orbytraditional,paper basedmethods(n=119).web basedandtraditionalevaluationswerecompared forlikertscore,quantityandqualityofstudentcomments,studentsatisfaction,andconsumptionofstaffand facultytime.of252questionsaskedofeachstudent,72(29percent)hadasignificantlydifferentlikertscore.in allbuttwoquestions,however,themedianand/orrangewasdifferentbyonlyonepointandinmostcasesdid notchangetheoverallmeaningoftheresponse(e.g.,amedianresponseof StronglyAgree ratherthan Agree. )Thenumberofcommentswassignificantlyhigherintheweb basedgroupcomparedtothe traditionalgroup.students,facultyandstaffallratedthewebprocessasmoreconvenientandlesstimeconsumingthanthetraditionalmethod.aweb basedevaluationsystemusingsubsetsofstudentstocomplete eachevaluationcanbeemployedtoobtainrepresentativefeedback.theweb basedprocessyields quantitativelyandqualitativelysuperiorstudentcomments,enhancedstudentsatisfaction,andmoreefficient useoffacultyandstafftime. 13

15 Laubsch,P.(2006). Onlineandin personevaluations:aliteraturereviewandexploratory comparison. JournalofOnlineLearningandTeaching,2(2). TheMasterofAdministrativeScienceprogramatFairleighDickinsonUniversityperformedastudyoncourses taughtbyadjunctfaculty.theonlineevaluationsreceiveda61%responserateandthein classevaluations receiveda82.1%responserate.theyfoundthattheonlineevaluationsreceivedtwiceasmanycomments (countingtotalwords)asthein classevaluations.onthequestionabout materialsbeingclearlypresented (focusedonthefacultymember)thevariationinmeanscoresinonlineandin classwas0.33ona5 pointscale withonlinehavingaless positiverating.thisisastatisticallysignificantdifference.administratorsnotedthat bothmeanswerebetterthanthe agree andwerenotconsideredpoorratings. LayneB.H.,DeCristoforJ.R.,McGintyD(1999). Electronicversustraditionalstudentratingsof instruction. ResHigherEduc.1999;40: Atasoutheasternuniversity66coursesmadeupof2453studentsdidacomparisonofresponseeffectsbetween paper and pencilandonlineusingthesameform.halfdidonlineandhalfdidpaper and pencilforms.the onlineresponseratewas47%andthetraditionalgroupwas60%.also,76%oftheonlineformsprovided commentscomparedto50%ofthetraditionalforms.nosignificantdifferencewasfoundinmethods. Liegle,JOandDSMcDonald.LessonsLearnedFromOnlinevs.Paper basedcomputer InformationStudents'EvaluationSystem.InTheProceedingsoftheInformationSystems EducationConference2004,v21(Newport): 2214.ISSN: (Alaterversionappearsin InformationSystemsEducationJournal3(37).ISSN: X.) GeorgiaStateUniversityCollegeofBusinessranavoluntarypilotfrom2002to2003usinganidenticalonline versionoftheirpapercourseevaluationforminthedepartmentofcomputerinformationsystems.faculty fearedanonlineformwouldyieldlowerscoresandlowerresponserates.inparticular,thefearwasthatfew studentswouldsubmitonlineevaluations,poorstudentswould takerevenge onthefacultyandgoodstudents wouldn tbother.thepaperformhada67%responserateandtheonlineformhadan82%responserate.this likelyduetothefactthatthecisdepartmenthadeasyaccesstocomputerlabsforstudentstotakethe evaluationsonline.usingaquestiononteachereffectiveness,thestudyfoundnosignificantdifference betweenthemethods.goodstudentsparticipatedinthesamenumbersandweakerstudentsdidfewer onlineevaluations. Lovric,M.(2006).Traditionalandweb basedcourseevaluations comparisonoftheirresponse ratesandefficiency.paperpresentedat1stbalkansummerschoolonsurveymethodology. rade.pdf Thepaperpresentsashortliteraturereviewcomparingonlineevaluationswithpaper.TheEconomics departmentatuniversityofbelgrade,serbiaconductedasmallpilotinacourseof800studentsinmayof2006. Halfthestudentsreceivedpaperevaluationsinclassandhalfweredirectedtocompleteanidenticalonline evaluation.thepaperevaluationreceiveda92.5%responserateandtheonlinereceiveda52%responserate afteranincentivewasintroduced.theyfoundthatnearlytwiceasmanystudentsfilledouttheopen ended questiononlinewhencomparedtothepapergroup.ontheinstructor relatedquestionstheyfoundavariation of0.09to0.22ona10 pointscale.nostatisticalanalysiswasdoneforsignificance. 14

16 15 Matz,C.(1999). Administrationofwebversuspapersurveys:Modeeffectsandresponse rates. MastersResearchPaper,UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill.(ERICdocument ED439694). InasurveyofacademicreferencelibrariansinNorthCarolina,Matzfoundnosignificantdifferenceinresponse contentsbetweenthemethodsused.theonlineformhada33%responserateandthepaperformhada43% responserate. Monsen,S.,Woo,W.,Mahan,C.Miller,G.&W(2005). OnlineCourseEvaluations:Lessons Learned. PresentationatTheCALIConferenceforLawSchoolComputing2005. YaleLawstartedonlinecourseevaluationsin2001withalessthan20%responserate.Thecurrent8 question formisrunbystudentrepresentativesandhasa90%responserate.studentscannotseetheirgradesuntil theyfillouttheevaluation.northwesternuniversityschooloflawstartedonlinecourseevaluationsin2004. Sofartheyhavea68%responseratewhichcomparestoa70 80%paperresponserate.Northwesternisagainst usinganypenalties(withholdinginformationfromastudentuntiltheyfilloutanevaluation).theuniversityof DenverSturmCollegestartedonlinecourseevaluationsin2002withapilotof10courses.Thepilothadan83% responserate.continuinginto2003thepilotexpandedto80courses(withan81%responserate)andthen expandedtoalloftheirofferings(witha64%responserate).currentlytheymaintainaresponseratearound 70%.DukeLawstartedonlinecourseevaluationsin2003whentheirscantronmachinebrokeandtheexpense ofreplacingwastoogreat.theyproposedagoalof70%responserateandusedthesameformonline.thefirst termaverageda66%responserate(with29%ofthe82coursesreachingthe70%goal).inspring2004the averagewas60%(with30%ofthe119coursesreachingthe70%goal).infall2004theaveragewas52%(with 8%ofthe93coursesreachingthe70%goal).Inspring2005,afterdroppingnon lawstudentsfromthepool, theaveragewas67%(with41%ofthe117coursesreachingthe70%goal).theschoolisconsideringseveral penaltiesforfailuretofilloutanevaluation withholdingregistration,withholdinggrades,orwithholdingfree printing. Norris,J.,Conn,C.(2005). Investigatingstrategiesforincreasingstudentresponseratestoon linedeliveredcourseevaluations. QuarterlyReviewofDistanceEducation2005;6(1)p13 32 (ProQuestdocumentID ). Thispaperreportsthefindingsof2studiesdoneatNorthernArizonaStateUniversity.Thefirststudylookedat historicdatafrom toexaminestudentresponsestoonlinecourseevaluationsin1108course sections.thisgrouphadanaverageresponserateof31%.afollow upquestionnairewassentto50facultyin thegrouptoexplorewhatstrategiesimprovedresponserate.theseresultsinformedthesecondstudyon39 onlinecoursesectionsand21sectionsofarequiredfreshmanface to facecourse.thesecondstudyusedsome basicstrategies(nopenaltystrategies)intheimplementationoftheonlinecourseevaluations:2weeksbefore theendofthecoursetheurltoevaluationwaspostedinthecoursemanagementsystem,anannouncement containingastatementofcourseevaluationvalueandduedatewassentinamethodappropriatetotheclass ( ,onlinesyllabusordiscussionboard),andareminder wassent1weekbeforetheclassended containingtheurlandduedate.the39onlinecoursesectionsaverageda74%responserateandthe21faceto facecoursesaverageda67%responserate.inaddition,11sectionsoftheface to facecourseusedpaper evaluationsandreceiveda83%responserate.thesesuggestionsareverysimilartotheemergingfindingsfrom thetltgroup sbetaproject.

17 OfficeofInstitutionalResearchandAssessment,MarquetteUniversity, On linecourse EvaluationPilotProjectatMarqetteUniversity. Spring MarquetteUniversitymovedfromacopyrightedinstrument,IAS,totheirowninstrument,MOCES.Becauseof thecopyrightconcernsthenewinstrumenthasre wordeditemsthatmaintaintheintentoftheiasitems.in springsemesterof2008apilotwasconductedin124coursesectionswith3837students.theyevaluatedthe effectivenessofanonlineapproachversuspaperandpencilandthesoftwareusedtodelivertheevaluations. Responseratesonlinewerelowerin3ofthe5pilotdepartments,comparablein1andhigherin1when comparedto3semesteraveragesofpaperandpencilforms.a poweranalysis oftheresponseratesrevealed therateswerehighenoughof95%confidenceintheresults.therewasnosignificantdifferenceinthemean ratingsforthe4corequestionsbetweentheoldiasformandthemocesonlineform. OnlineCTEProjectTeam.(2005).Onlinecourseandteachingevaluation:Reportonatrialrun withrecommendations.teachingandlearningcenter,lingnanuniversity. Apilotof18classesusedanonlinecourseandteachingevaluation(CTE)atLingnanUniversity.Formostclasses, amemberoftheprojectteamwenttoascheduledclassduringtheevaluationperiodandexplainedtostudents thenatureandpurposeoftheonlinectetrial.theaverageresponserateforthe18classeswas69.7%.classes withlowresponseratescorrespondedtothosethathadalargenumberofundeliverablee mailorhadnot receivedabriefingfromaprojectteammember.nosignificantdifferenceswerefoundinmeanscores betweenonlineevaluationsandpreviouspaperevaluationsforthesameinstructorandcourse.only3ctes recordedmorecommentsbystudentsthaninthepreviouspaper basedctes;however,theonlinectes containedmoreelaboratecomments.studentfeedbackindicatedthatstudentsgenerallypreferredtheonline CTE;concernswereprimarilyabouttheanonymityoftheirresponsesbecausetheywererequiredtologinto theevaluationsystem. Sax,L.,Gilmartin,S.,Keup,J.,Bryant,A.,andPlecha,M.(2002).Findingsfromthe2001pilot administrationofyourfirstcollegeyear(yfcy):nationalnorms.highereducationresearch Institute,UniversityofCalifornia. TheYFCYdistributeditssurveythatassessesstudentdevelopmentduringthefirstyearincollegeusing3 methods:online,onlineorpaper,andpaper.inapoolof57schools,16usedthealternativemethodsof distribution.thestudyfoundnosignificantdifferenceinresponsesbetweenthemethods.theresponserate overallwas21%.theonlineonlymethodresponseratewas17%andtheonlineorpapergrouphada24% responserate. Schawitch,M.(2005) OnlineCourseEvaluations:OneInstitute ssuccessintransitioningfrom apaperprocesstoacompletelyelectronicprocess! PresentationattheAssociationfor InstitutionalResearchForum,June2005. TheRose HulmanInstituteofTechnologypilotedanonlinecourseevaluationin2002withasmallgroupof faculty.overtheacademicyearthepilothada70%responserate.77%ofstudentspreferredtheonlinemode andfacultyreactedpositivelytothepilot.in2003theentirecampusadoptedtheonlineform.overthe3 terms,theonlineevaluationshadresponseratesof86%,78%and67%.in2004the3termshad75%,71%and 67%.Historicallypaperevaluationshadan85 87%responserate.Theyareinvestigatingvariousincentive possibilities. 16

18 Spencer,K.&Schmelkin,L.P.(2002)"StudentPerspectivesonTeachinganditsEvaluation." Assessment&EvaluationinhigherEducation,27(5) Theresearchonstudentratingsofinstruction,whilevoluminous,hashadminimalfocusontheperceptionsof thestudentswhodotheratings.thecurrentstudyexploredstudentperspectivesoncourseandteacherratings aswellassomeissuesrelatedtoteachingeffectivenessandfacultyroles.itwasfoundthatstudentsare generallywillingtodoevaluationsandtoprovidefeedback,andhavenoparticularfearofrepercussions. Thorpe,S.W.(2002).Onlinestudentevaluationofinstruction:Aninvestigationofnon response bias.paperpresentedatthe42ndannualforumoftheassociationforinstitutionalresearchin TorontoCanada.Retrieved9thNovember2004,fromhttp://www.airweb.org/forum02/550.pdf DrexelUniversitystudiedwhethersignificantdifferencesexistinstudentresponsestocourseevaluationsgiven onpaperandonlinein3courses.responseratesinthe3classesforpaperandonline(respectively)were37% and45%,44%and50%,70%and37%.incomparingstudentswhorespondedtotheevaluationsacrossthe3 coursesthestudyfoundthatwomenweremorelikelythanmentorespond,studentswhoearnedhigher gradesweremorelikelytorespond,andstudentswithahigheroverallgpaweremorelikelytorespond.for twocoursestheonlineevaluationshadaslightlyhigheraverageitemrating.fortheothercourse2significant differenceswerefound:studentsdoingtheonlineevaluationwerelesslikelytoparticipateactivelyand contributethoughtfullyduringclassandtoattendclasswhencomparedtothepaperevaluationgroup.butthe responsesoverallwerenotsignificantlydifferent. 17

Constructive student feedback: Online vs. traditional course evaluations. Judy Donovan, Ed.D. Indiana University Northwest

Constructive student feedback: Online vs. traditional course evaluations. Judy Donovan, Ed.D. Indiana University Northwest www.ncolr.org/jiol Volume 5, Number 3, Winter 2006 ISSN: 1541-4914 Constructive student feedback: Online vs. traditional course evaluations Judy Donovan, Ed.D. Indiana University Northwest Cynthia E. Mader,

More information

SIR II Student Instructional Report

SIR II Student Instructional Report Testing the Invariance of Interrater Reliability Between Paper-Based and Online Modalities of the SIR II Student Instructional Report David Klieger, John Centra, John Young, Steven Holtzman, and Lauren

More information

This list is not exhaustive but can serve as a starting point for further exploration.

This list is not exhaustive but can serve as a starting point for further exploration. Compiled by Scott Krajewski, Augsburg College, krajewsk@augsburg.edu An initial bibliography on online course evaluations This list is not exhaustive but can serve as a starting point for further exploration.

More information

"Traditional and web-based course evaluations comparison of their response rates and efficiency"

Traditional and web-based course evaluations comparison of their response rates and efficiency "Traditional and web-based course evaluations comparison of their response rates and efficiency" Miodrag Lovric Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade, Serbia e-mail: misha@one.ekof.bg.ac.yu Abstract

More information

Interpretation Guide. For. Student Opinion of Teaching Effectiveness (SOTE) Results

Interpretation Guide. For. Student Opinion of Teaching Effectiveness (SOTE) Results Interpretation Guide For Student Opinion of Teaching Effectiveness (SOTE) Results Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research and Student Evaluation Review Board May 2011 Table of Contents Introduction...

More information

Administering course evaluations online: A summary of research and key issues

Administering course evaluations online: A summary of research and key issues Administering course evaluations online: A summary of research and key issues Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education June 2009 Prepared by: J. David Perry IUB Evaluation Services & Testing

More information

Report to the Senate: Spring 2013 Online Evaluations Pilot at Humboldt State University. Richard W. Bruce. Humboldt State University.

Report to the Senate: Spring 2013 Online Evaluations Pilot at Humboldt State University. Richard W. Bruce. Humboldt State University. Report to the Senate: Spring 2013 Online Evaluations Pilot at Humboldt State University Richard W. Bruce Humboldt State University September 2013 2 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Methods... 3 Results...

More information

Student Perceptions of Online Learning: An Analysis of Online Course Evaluations

Student Perceptions of Online Learning: An Analysis of Online Course Evaluations Lowenthal 1 Preprint: Student Perceptions of Online Learning: An Analysis of Online Course Evaluations to appear in American Journal of Distance Education. Lowenthal, P. R., Bauer, C., & Chen, K-Z. (2015).

More information

A Rasch measurement approach to analyzing differences in pencil-and-paper and online formats. for higher education course evaluations

A Rasch measurement approach to analyzing differences in pencil-and-paper and online formats. for higher education course evaluations A Rasch measurement approach to analyzing differences in pencil-and-paper and online formats for higher education course evaluations Leslie A. Sweeney 1, University of Kentucky Kathryn Shirley Akers, University

More information

Samuels, B. (2013). Increasing Number of Academic Departments Use Online Course Evaluations, CampusWest, April 30, 2013.

Samuels, B. (2013). Increasing Number of Academic Departments Use Online Course Evaluations, CampusWest, April 30, 2013. References Regarding Online Course Evaluations Samuels, B. (2013). Increasing Number of Academic Departments Use Online Course Evaluations, CampusWest, April 30, 2013. Most departments at Syracuse University

More information

AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF COLLEGE TEACHERS

AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF COLLEGE TEACHERS SBAJ: 8(2): Aiken et al.: An Analysis of Student. 85 AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF COLLEGE TEACHERS Milam Aiken, University of Mississippi, University, MS Del Hawley, University of Mississippi,

More information

Answers to Faculty Concerns About Online Versus In- class Administration of Student Ratings of Instruction (SRI)

Answers to Faculty Concerns About Online Versus In- class Administration of Student Ratings of Instruction (SRI) Answers to Faculty Concerns About Online Versus In- class Administration of Student Ratings of Instruction (SRI) The posting below compares online student ratings of instructors with in- class ratings.

More information

Philosophy of Student Evaluations of Teaching Andrews University

Philosophy of Student Evaluations of Teaching Andrews University Philosophy of Student Evaluations of Teaching Andrews University Purpose Student evaluations provide the s, or consumers, perspective of teaching effectiveness. The purpose of administering and analyzing

More information

Online Collection of Midterm Student Feedback

Online Collection of Midterm Student Feedback 9 Evaluation Online offers a variety of options to faculty who want to solicit formative feedback electronically. Researchers interviewed faculty who have used this system for midterm student evaluation.

More information

Online And Paper Course Evaluations Faruk Guder, Loyola University Chicago, USA Mary Malliaris, Loyola University Chicago, USA

Online And Paper Course Evaluations Faruk Guder, Loyola University Chicago, USA Mary Malliaris, Loyola University Chicago, USA Online And Paper Course Evaluations Faruk Guder, Loyola University Chicago, USA Mary Malliaris, Loyola University Chicago, USA ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to compare the results of paper and

More information

Journal College Teaching & Learning June 2005 Volume 2, Number 6

Journal College Teaching & Learning June 2005 Volume 2, Number 6 Analysis Of Online Student Ratings Of University Faculty James Otto, (Email: jotto@towson.edu), Towson University Douglas Sanford, (Email: dsanford@towson.edu), Towson University William Wagner, (Email:

More information

Online vs. Paper Evaluations of Faculty: When Less is Just as Good

Online vs. Paper Evaluations of Faculty: When Less is Just as Good The Journal of Effective Teaching an online journal devoted to teaching excellence Online vs. Paper Evaluations of Faculty: When Less is Just as Good David S. Fike 1ab, Denise J. Doyle b, Robert J. Connelly

More information

Student Senate Policy Proposal: Online Course Evaluations

Student Senate Policy Proposal: Online Course Evaluations Student Senate Policy Proposal: Online Course Evaluations Student Senate The University of Kansas August 2015 Jessie Pringle Zach George Tomas Green Student Body Student Body Policy and Development President

More information

Online Student Course Evaluations: Strategies for Increasing Student Participation Rates

Online Student Course Evaluations: Strategies for Increasing Student Participation Rates ; Online Student Course Evaluations: Strategies for Increasing Student Participation Rates TABLE OF CONTENTS RESEARCH ASSOCIATE Michael Ravenscroft RESEARCH DIRECTOR Christine Enyeart I. Research Parameters

More information

Gathering faculty teaching evaluations by in-class and online surveys: their effects on response rates and evaluations

Gathering faculty teaching evaluations by in-class and online surveys: their effects on response rates and evaluations Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 29, No. 5, October 2004 Gathering faculty teaching evaluations by in-class and online surveys: their effects on response rates and evaluations Curt J. Dommeyer*,

More information

Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness: Considerations for Ontario Universities

Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness: Considerations for Ontario Universities Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness: Considerations for Ontario Universities By Mary Kelly, Wilfrid Laurier University (With thanks to all the Academic Colleagues who provided institution-specific

More information

Best Practices for Increasing Online Teaching Evaluation Response Rates

Best Practices for Increasing Online Teaching Evaluation Response Rates Best Practices for Increasing Online Teaching Evaluation Response Rates Denise T. Ogden, Penn State University Lehigh Valley James R. Doc Ogden, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania ABSTRACT Different delivery

More information

Timothy M. Diette, Washington and Lee University George W. Kester, Washington and Lee University ABSTRACT

Timothy M. Diette, Washington and Lee University George W. Kester, Washington and Lee University ABSTRACT Student Course Evaluations: Key Determinants of Teaching Effectiveness Ratings in Accounting, Business and Economics Courses at a Small Private Liberal Arts College Timothy M. Diette, Washington and Lee

More information

Student Ratings of College Teaching Page 1

Student Ratings of College Teaching Page 1 STUDENT RATINGS OF COLLEGE TEACHING: WHAT RESEARCH HAS TO SAY Lucy C. Jacobs The use of student ratings of faculty has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Large research universities report 100

More information

Course-based Student Feedback Forms: Proposal for a New System Fall 2005

Course-based Student Feedback Forms: Proposal for a New System Fall 2005 Course-based Student Feedback Forms: Proposal for a New System Fall 2005 Introduction As part of Augsburg College s commitment to providing a high quality education, we have solicited feedback from students

More information

Pilot Study for Assessing the Viability of Using Online Course Evaluations at California State University Sacramento

Pilot Study for Assessing the Viability of Using Online Course Evaluations at California State University Sacramento 1 Pilot Study for Assessing the Viability of Using Online Course Evaluations at California State University Sacramento A Report from the Electronic Course Evaluation Task Force Fall 2010 2 Sacramento State

More information

V. Course Evaluation and Revision

V. Course Evaluation and Revision V. Course Evaluation and Revision Chapter 14 - Improving Your Teaching with Feedback There are several ways to get feedback about your teaching: student feedback, self-evaluation, peer observation, viewing

More information

Drawing Inferences about Instructors: The Inter-Class Reliability of Student Ratings of Instruction

Drawing Inferences about Instructors: The Inter-Class Reliability of Student Ratings of Instruction OEA Report 00-02 Drawing Inferences about Instructors: The Inter-Class Reliability of Student Ratings of Instruction Gerald M. Gillmore February, 2000 OVERVIEW The question addressed in this report is

More information

Supplemental Materials

Supplemental Materials Supplemental Materials How Can I Use Student Feedback to Improve My Teaching? Presented by: Ken Alford, Ph.D. and Tyler Griffin, Ph.D. 2014 Magna Publications Inc. All rights reserved. It is unlawful to

More information

RESEARCH ARTICLES A Comparison Between Student Ratings and Faculty Self-ratings of Instructional Effectiveness

RESEARCH ARTICLES A Comparison Between Student Ratings and Faculty Self-ratings of Instructional Effectiveness RESEARCH ARTICLES A Comparison Between Student Ratings and Faculty Self-ratings of Instructional Effectiveness Candace W. Barnett, PhD, Hewitt W. Matthews, PhD, and Richard A. Jackson, PhD Southern School

More information

ONLINE COURSE EVALUATIONS

ONLINE COURSE EVALUATIONS ONLINE COURSE EVALUATIONS Table of Contents Introduction Review of published research literature Benefits of online evaluations Administration costs Data quality Student accessibility Faculty influence

More information

Online Student Course Evaluations: Review of Literature and a Pilot Study

Online Student Course Evaluations: Review of Literature and a Pilot Study REVIEWS American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2005; 69 (1) Article 5. Online Student Course Evaluations: Review of Literature and a Pilot Study Heidi M. Anderson, PhD, Jeff Cain, MS, and Eleanora

More information

Teacher Course Evaluations and Student Grades: An Academic Tango

Teacher Course Evaluations and Student Grades: An Academic Tango 7/16/02 1:38 PM Page 9 Does the interplay of grading policies and teacher-course evaluations undermine our education system? Teacher Course Evaluations and Student s: An Academic Tango Valen E. Johnson

More information

Student Preferences for Learning College Algebra in a Web Enhanced Environment

Student Preferences for Learning College Algebra in a Web Enhanced Environment Abstract Student Preferences for Learning College Algebra in a Web Enhanced Environment Laura Pyzdrowski West Virginia University Anthony Pyzdrowski California University of Pennsylvania It is important

More information

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING TEACHING SCHEDULES, GRADING, AND ADVISING IN THE COLLEGE

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING TEACHING SCHEDULES, GRADING, AND ADVISING IN THE COLLEGE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING TEACHING SCHEDULES, GRADING, AND ADVISING IN THE COLLEGE Offices of the Dean of the College and the Dean of Students in the College COURSE REQUIREMENTS Students should

More information

How to Support Faculty as They Prepare to Teach Online Susan C. Biro Widener University Abstract: A survey, an in-depth interview, and a review of

How to Support Faculty as They Prepare to Teach Online Susan C. Biro Widener University Abstract: A survey, an in-depth interview, and a review of How to Support Faculty as They Prepare to Teach Online Susan C. Biro Widener University Abstract: A survey, an in-depth interview, and a review of the literature were used to explore the changes faculty

More information

Queens College Online Course Evaluation Pilot

Queens College Online Course Evaluation Pilot Queens College Online Course Evaluation Pilot Report of Results: April 2, 2009 Teaching Excellence and Evaluation Committee -Susan Croll, Chair -Chantal Bruno, student -Claudia Perry -Jill Frohmann, student

More information

Collecting and Using Student Feedback

Collecting and Using Student Feedback Collecting and Using Student Feedback CETL Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning October, 2009 Adapted from Collecting and Using Mid-semester Feedback Teaching Support Services by Jeanette McDonald

More information

Student Ratings of Teaching: A Summary of Research and Literature

Student Ratings of Teaching: A Summary of Research and Literature IDEA PAPER #50 Student Ratings of Teaching: A Summary of Research and Literature Stephen L. Benton, 1 The IDEA Center William E. Cashin, Emeritus professor Kansas State University Ratings of overall effectiveness

More information

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. stakeholders, and a subject that goes beyond the world of researchers, given its social,

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. stakeholders, and a subject that goes beyond the world of researchers, given its social, CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The evaluation of teaching in higher education is an area of strong interest for different stakeholders, and a subject that goes beyond the world of researchers, given its social,

More information

Restructuring a Masters Teaching Program

Restructuring a Masters Teaching Program Restructuring a Masters Teaching Program Marilyn Koeller National University This article will explain the process that Course Leads used to restructure the Masters in the Arts of Teaching program by working

More information

Policy on Student Ratings of Teaching

Policy on Student Ratings of Teaching May 5, 2015 Page 1 of 6 PURPOSE: To outline policy regarding the selection of a Student Rating of Teaching (SRT) instrument and how SRT rankings shall be viewed in faculty evaluation. Supersedes SP 07-12

More information

The Effects Of Unannounced Quizzes On Student Performance: Further Evidence Felix U. Kamuche, (E-mail: fkamuche@morehouse.edu), Morehouse College

The Effects Of Unannounced Quizzes On Student Performance: Further Evidence Felix U. Kamuche, (E-mail: fkamuche@morehouse.edu), Morehouse College The Effects Of Unannounced Quizzes On Student Performance: Further Evidence Felix U. Kamuche, (E-mail: fkamuche@morehouse.edu), Morehouse College ABSTRACT This study explores the impact of unannounced

More information

USING STUDENT FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE TEACHING A Reflection

USING STUDENT FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE TEACHING A Reflection USING STUDENT FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE TEACHING A Reflection Junhu Wang School of Information and Communication Technology, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Gold Coast, Queensland 4222, Australia J.Wang@griffith.edu.au

More information

Formative Evaluations in Online Classes. course improvements is also increasing. However, there is not general agreement on the best

Formative Evaluations in Online Classes. course improvements is also increasing. However, there is not general agreement on the best The Journal of Educators Online-JEO January 2016 ISSN 1547-500X Vol 13 Number 1 1 Formative Evaluations in Online Classes Jennifer L. Peterson, Illinois State University, Normal, IL., USA Abstract Online

More information

Student Mood And Teaching Evaluation Ratings

Student Mood And Teaching Evaluation Ratings Student Mood And Teaching Evaluation Ratings Mary C. LaForge, Clemson University Abstract When student ratings are used for summative evaluation purposes, there is a need to ensure that the information

More information

The Science of Student Ratings. Samuel T. Moulton Director of Educational Research and Assessment. Bok Center June 6, 2012

The Science of Student Ratings. Samuel T. Moulton Director of Educational Research and Assessment. Bok Center June 6, 2012 The Science of Student Ratings Samuel T. Moulton Director of Educational Research and Assessment Bok Center June 6, 2012 Goals Goals 1. know key research findings Goals 1. know key research findings 2.

More information

Online Collection of Student Evaluations of Teaching

Online Collection of Student Evaluations of Teaching Online Collection of Student Evaluations of Teaching James A. Kulik Office of Evaluations and Examinations The University of Michigan December 5, 2005 1 More than a dozen universities now collect all their

More information

Linking Competencies and Curriculua

Linking Competencies and Curriculua Linking Competencies and Curriculua Presentation to the Faculty and Students of National Tsing Hua University Richard A. Voorhees, Ph.D. Principal, Voorhees Group LLC Littleton, Colorado USA rick@voorheesgroup.org

More information

Experiences with Tutored Video Instruction for Introductory Programming Courses

Experiences with Tutored Video Instruction for Introductory Programming Courses Experiences with Tutored Video Instruction for Introductory Programming Courses Richard Anderson and Martin Dickey and Hal Perkins Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington

More information

Are they the same? Comparing the instructional quality of online and faceto-face graduate education courses

Are they the same? Comparing the instructional quality of online and faceto-face graduate education courses Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 32, No. 6, December 2007, pp. 681 691 Are they the same? Comparing the instructional quality of online and faceto-face graduate education courses Andrew

More information

Brothers, Sheila C. Graduate certificate in Inclusive Education

Brothers, Sheila C. Graduate certificate in Inclusive Education Brothers, Sheila C From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Schroeder, Margaret [m.mohr@uky.edu] Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:19 AM Brothers, Sheila C Graduate Certificate in Inclusive Education Proposal

More information

A Comparison Between Online and Face-to-Face Instruction of an Applied Curriculum in Behavioral Intervention in Autism (BIA)

A Comparison Between Online and Face-to-Face Instruction of an Applied Curriculum in Behavioral Intervention in Autism (BIA) A Comparison Between Online and Face-to-Face Instruction of an Applied Curriculum in Behavioral Intervention in Autism (BIA) Michelle D. Weissman ROCKMAN ET AL San Francisco, CA michellew@rockman.com Beth

More information

Student Response to Instruction (SRTI)

Student Response to Instruction (SRTI) office of Academic Planning & Assessment University of Massachusetts Amherst Martha Stassen Assistant Provost, Assessment and Educational Effectiveness 545-5146 or mstassen@acad.umass.edu Student Response

More information

A Guide for Online Courses at The University of Virginia s College at Wise. Page 1 of 11

A Guide for Online Courses at The University of Virginia s College at Wise. Page 1 of 11 Guideline 1: Selection of faculty Is the faculty prepared to teach an online class? Faculty that are effective have high, but clear and reasonable expectations. For example: Approved faculty need to have

More information

Introduction to Personality Psychology 2320, Spring 2013 TTh 5:30-6:45 Arts and Science 110 (Allen Auditorium)

Introduction to Personality Psychology 2320, Spring 2013 TTh 5:30-6:45 Arts and Science 110 (Allen Auditorium) Introduction to Personality Psychology 2320, Spring 2013 TTh 5:30-6:45 Arts and Science 110 (Allen Auditorium) Instructor: Wendy Slutske, Ph.D. Office: 212A McAlester Hall Office Hours: by appointment

More information

Econ 593x. Practicum in Teaching the Liberal Arts (TA Training in Economics) Fall 2015

Econ 593x. Practicum in Teaching the Liberal Arts (TA Training in Economics) Fall 2015 Econ 593x Practicum in Teaching the Liberal Arts (TA Training in Economics) Fall 2015 Instructor: Jeffrey B. Nugent, Tel: (213) 740-2107; email: nugent@usc.edu Office: KAP 318C, Office Hours Mon 2:00-5PM,

More information

Undergraduate Students Perceptions of the Value of Online Discussions: A Comparison Between Education and Engineering Students

Undergraduate Students Perceptions of the Value of Online Discussions: A Comparison Between Education and Engineering Students Undergraduate Students Perceptions of the Value of Online Discussions: A Comparison Between Education and Engineering Students Peggy A. Ertmer Department of Curriculum and Instruction Purdue University

More information

Student Feedback: Improving the Quality through Timing, Frequency, and Format

Student Feedback: Improving the Quality through Timing, Frequency, and Format Student Feedback: Improving the Quality through Timing, Frequency, and Format Travis Habhab and Eric Jamison This paper was completed and submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master Teacher Program,

More information

HARRISBURG AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE PSYCHOLOGY 101-GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY. Dr. Jaci Verghese. Syllabus for CRN 31755 Meeting Times: Online Instruction

HARRISBURG AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE PSYCHOLOGY 101-GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY. Dr. Jaci Verghese. Syllabus for CRN 31755 Meeting Times: Online Instruction HARRISBURG AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE PSYCHOLOGY 101-GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY Dr. Jaci Verghese Syllabus for CRN 31755 Meeting Times: Online Instruction Spring 2015 Professor: Dr. Jaci Verghese Office Phone: 717-468-2619

More information

Establishing Guidelines for Determining Appropriate Courses for Online Delivery

Establishing Guidelines for Determining Appropriate Courses for Online Delivery www.ncolr.org/jiol Volume 4, Number 2, Fall 2005 ISSN: 1541-4914 Establishing Guidelines for Determining Appropriate Courses for Online Delivery Janet Smith Strickland Judy Butler University of West Georgia

More information

Student Engagement Strategies in One Online Engineering and Technology Course

Student Engagement Strategies in One Online Engineering and Technology Course Paper ID #7674 Student Engagement Strategies in One Online Engineering and Technology Course Dr. Julie M Little-Wiles, Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, IUPUI Dr. Julie Little-Wiles is a Visiting

More information

Putting It All Together

Putting It All Together 15 Putting It All Together Now that we ve taken a look at all the tools available in Moodle, I want to take a step back and look at the big picture. Moodle has a lot of nifty capabilities, but they are

More information

An Online Evaluation Pilot Study in the College of Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences. Richard W. Bruce. Humboldt State University.

An Online Evaluation Pilot Study in the College of Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences. Richard W. Bruce. Humboldt State University. An Online Evaluation Pilot Study in the College of Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences Richard W. Bruce Humboldt State University February 2013 2 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Literature Review...

More information

Achievement and Satisfaction in a Computer-assisted Versus a Traditional Lecturing of an Introductory Statistics Course

Achievement and Satisfaction in a Computer-assisted Versus a Traditional Lecturing of an Introductory Statistics Course Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3): 1875-1878, 2009 ISSN 1991-8178 2009, INSInet Publication Achievement and Satisfaction in a Computer-assisted Versus a Traditional Lecturing of an

More information

Evaluation in Online STEM Courses

Evaluation in Online STEM Courses Evaluation in Online STEM Courses Lawrence O. Flowers, PhD Assistant Professor of Microbiology James E. Raynor, Jr., PhD Associate Professor of Cellular and Molecular Biology Erin N. White, PhD Assistant

More information

Students Perception Toward the Use of Blackboard as a Course. Delivery Method. By Dr. Ibtesam Al mashaqbeh

Students Perception Toward the Use of Blackboard as a Course. Delivery Method. By Dr. Ibtesam Al mashaqbeh Students Perception Toward the Use of Blackboard as a Course Delivery Method. By Dr. Ibtesam Al mashaqbeh Abstract: The aim of this study was to investigate students perception toward the use of blackboard

More information

THE USE OF FOCUS GROUPS IN RECRUITMENT, ADVISEMENT, AND RETENTION.

THE USE OF FOCUS GROUPS IN RECRUITMENT, ADVISEMENT, AND RETENTION. THE USE OF FOCUS GROUPS IN RECRUITMENT, ADVISEMENT, AND RETENTION. James Anderson Divisional Advisor Human Services Division Oklahoma State University-Oklahoma City Lisa Dillon Division Head- Human Services

More information

The Videoconferencing Classroom: What Do Students Think? A. Mark Doggett Western Kentucky University. Introduction

The Videoconferencing Classroom: What Do Students Think? A. Mark Doggett Western Kentucky University. Introduction The Videoconferencing Classroom: What Do Students Think? A. Mark Doggett Western Kentucky University Introduction The advantages of video conferencing in educational institutions are well documented. Scholarly

More information

Engaging students in online courses

Engaging students in online courses ABSTRACT Engaging students in online courses Pearl Jacobs Sacred Heart University Online education is gradually being incorporated into college and university programs. It is proving to be an effective

More information

The Challenges and Potentials of Evaluating Courses Online

The Challenges and Potentials of Evaluating Courses Online The Challenges and Potentials of Evaluating Courses Online Mark Troy Texas A&M University Hossein Hakimzadeh Indiana University February 23, 2009 Trav D. Johnson Brigham Young University Dawn M. Zimmaro

More information

Strategies for Teaching Undergraduate Accounting to Non-Accounting Majors

Strategies for Teaching Undergraduate Accounting to Non-Accounting Majors Strategies for Teaching Undergraduate Accounting to Non-Accounting Majors Mawdudur Rahman, Suffolk University Boston Phone: 617 573 8372 Email: mrahman@suffolk.edu Gail Sergenian, Suffolk University ABSTRACT:

More information

Assessment METHODS What are assessment methods? Why is it important to use multiple methods? What are direct and indirect methods of assessment?

Assessment METHODS What are assessment methods? Why is it important to use multiple methods? What are direct and indirect methods of assessment? Assessment METHODS What are assessment methods? Assessment methods are the strategies, techniques, tools and instruments for collecting information to determine the extent to which students demonstrate

More information

19th Annual Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference Las Vegas, Nevada, USA March 5, 2008

19th Annual Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference Las Vegas, Nevada, USA March 5, 2008 19th Annual Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference Las Vegas, Nevada, USA March 5, 2008 Creating Online Learning Communities: A Cross Disciplinary Examination of

More information

Examining Students Performance and Attitudes Towards the Use of Information Technology in a Virtual and Conventional Setting

Examining Students Performance and Attitudes Towards the Use of Information Technology in a Virtual and Conventional Setting The Journal of Interactive Online Learning Volume 2, Number 3, Winter 2004 www.ncolr.org ISSN: 1541-4914 Examining Students Performance and Attitudes Towards the Use of Information Technology in a Virtual

More information

Student Advice for Online MBA Accounting Courses

Student Advice for Online MBA Accounting Courses Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching and Learning Volume 7 Article 3 11-1-2011 Student Advice for Online MBA Accounting Courses Barbara Scofield University of Texas of the Permian Basin Robert

More information

Division of Communication Disorders AP4 Strategic Plan (2015-2020)

Division of Communication Disorders AP4 Strategic Plan (2015-2020) AP4 CommDis Strategic Plan 1 Division of Communication Disorders AP4 Strategic Plan (2015-2020) 1. What is the current status of your Academic Unit? a. Constituencies served and constituent needs addressed.

More information

SE 333/433 Software Testing and Quality Assurance

SE 333/433 Software Testing and Quality Assurance Instructor Dennis Mumaugh College of Computing & Digital Media, DePaul University Office: CDM 432 Email: dmumaugh@cdm.depaul.edu Office hours: Tuesday 4:00-5:30 PM (CDM 428) Course Information SE 433 Section

More information

CREATING A SENSE OF PRESENCE IN ONLINE TEACHING: How to Be There for Distance Learners

CREATING A SENSE OF PRESENCE IN ONLINE TEACHING: How to Be There for Distance Learners GLOKALde July 2014, ISSN 2148-7278, Volume: 1 Number: 1 Book Review 2 GLOKALde is official e-journal of UDEEEWANA CREATING A SENSE OF PRESENCE IN ONLINE TEACHING: How to Be There for Distance Learners

More information

PSY 401: ADVANCED RESEARCH Fall 2014 Website: http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/seniors/

PSY 401: ADVANCED RESEARCH Fall 2014 Website: http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/seniors/ PSY 401 Fall 2014 Page 1 PSY 401: ADVANCED RESEARCH Fall 2014 Website: http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/seniors/ Meeting Time & Place: Faculty contact information MWF, 11-11:50am Ellen Altermatt x7317

More information

Assessment Project Proposal Spring 2006

Assessment Project Proposal Spring 2006 Assessment Project Proposal Spring 2006 1. Project Directors: Sara Horton-Deutsch, RN, APN, DNSc, Associate Professor & Angela McNelis, RN, APN, PhD, Assistant Professor 2. Department/Division and School:

More information

Students Perceptions of Effective Teaching in Distance Education

Students Perceptions of Effective Teaching in Distance Education Students Perceptions of Effective Teaching in Distance Education Albert Johnson, M.Ed. (IT) Senior Instructional Designer, Distance Education and Learning Technologies Trudi Johnson, PhD Associate Professor,

More information

Effective Course, Faculty, and Program Evaluation

Effective Course, Faculty, and Program Evaluation Effective Course, Faculty, and Program Evaluation Rena M. Palloff, PhD Managing Partner, Crossroads Consulting Group Faculty, Fielding Graduate University Keith Pratt, PhD Managing Partner, Crossroads

More information

University Senate Task Force on Faculty Evaluations FINAL REPORT January 9, 2015

University Senate Task Force on Faculty Evaluations FINAL REPORT January 9, 2015 Task Force Members: Andrew Baker, Marketing (Fall) University Senate Task Force on Faculty Evaluations FINAL REPORT January 9, 2015 Marcie Bober-Michel, Learning Design and Technology (Senate Officer Representative)

More information

Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) in Higher Education: How to Use SET More Effectively and Efficiently in Public Affairs Education

Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) in Higher Education: How to Use SET More Effectively and Efficiently in Public Affairs Education Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) in Higher Education: How to Use SET More Effectively and Efficiently in Public Affairs Education Koichiro Otani, B. Joon Kim, and Jeong-IL Cho Indiana University Purdue

More information

Essays on Teaching Excellence

Essays on Teaching Excellence Essays on Teaching Excellence Toward the Best in the Academy A Publication of The Professional & Organizational Development Network in Higher Education Vol. 19, No. 5, 2007-2008 Building Assignments that

More information

Cooperative Learning: Introduced in Three Different Levels of Electrical Engineering Courses at a Military Institution

Cooperative Learning: Introduced in Three Different Levels of Electrical Engineering Courses at a Military Institution Cooperative Learning: Introduced in Three Different Levels of Electrical Engineering Courses at a Military Institution Ellen C. Wooten Department of Electrical Engineering U.S. Naval Academy Annapolis,

More information

An Examination of Assessment Methods Used in Online MBA Courses

An Examination of Assessment Methods Used in Online MBA Courses An Examination of Assessment Methods Used in Online MBA Courses Shijuan Liu Richard Magjuka Xiaojing Liu SuengHee Lee Kelly Direct Programs, Indiana University Curtis Bonk Department of Instructional Systems

More information

Assessing the quality of online courses from the students' perspective

Assessing the quality of online courses from the students' perspective Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 107 115 Assessing the quality of online courses from the students' perspective Andria Young, Chari Norgard 1 University of Houston-Victoria, 3007 N. Ben Wilson, Victoria,

More information

Essays on Teaching Excellence. Attacking Ideas, Not People: Using Structured Controversy in the College Classroom

Essays on Teaching Excellence. Attacking Ideas, Not People: Using Structured Controversy in the College Classroom Essays on Teaching Excellence Toward the Best in the Academy Volume 7, Number 7, 1995-96 A publication of The Professional & Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (www.podnetwork.org).

More information

LANED-GE 2206.001 SECOND LANGUAGE THEORY AND RESEARCH. Spring 2013

LANED-GE 2206.001 SECOND LANGUAGE THEORY AND RESEARCH. Spring 2013 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY STEINHARDT SCHOOL OF CULTURE, EDUCATION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Department of Teaching and Learning Multilingual Multicultural Studies LANED-GE 2206.001 SECOND LANGUAGE THEORY AND RESEARCH

More information

College of Engineering and Petroleum Online Course Assessment

College of Engineering and Petroleum Online Course Assessment Kuwait University College of Engineering and Petroleum Office of Academic Assessment College of Engineering and Petroleum Online Course Assessment For Academic year 2007-2008 July, 2008 (Updated December,

More information

Assessment of Health and Wellness in General Education: An Example from James Madison University. Dena A. Pastor. James Madison University

Assessment of Health and Wellness in General Education: An Example from James Madison University. Dena A. Pastor. James Madison University Health & Wellness Assessment 1 Assessment of Health and Wellness in General Education: An Example from James Madison University Dena A. Pastor James Madison University For information contact: Dena A.

More information

College Students Attitudes Toward Methods of Collecting Teaching Evaluations: In-Class Versus On-Line

College Students Attitudes Toward Methods of Collecting Teaching Evaluations: In-Class Versus On-Line College Students Attitudes Toward Methods of Collecting Teaching Evaluations: In-Class Versus On-Line CURT J. DOMMEYER PAUL BAUM ROBERT W. HANNA California State University, Northridge Northridge, California

More information

Does ratemyprofessor.com really rate my professor?

Does ratemyprofessor.com really rate my professor? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 33, No. 4, August 2008, 355 368 Does ratemyprofessor.com really rate my professor? James Otto*, Douglas A. Sanford, Jr. and Douglas N. Ross Towson University,

More information

Essays on Teaching Excellence. The Meaning of College Grades

Essays on Teaching Excellence. The Meaning of College Grades Essays on Teaching Excellence Toward the Best in the Academy Volume 1, Number 7, 1989-90 A publication of The Professional & Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (www.podnetwork.org).

More information

GRADUATE FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE TEACHING

GRADUATE FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE TEACHING GRADUATE FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE TEACHING Sharon Santilli and Vesna Beck Nova Southeastern University The participants for this study were 47 doctoral faculty from Nova Southeastern University Fischler

More information

Redesigned College Algebra. Southeast Missouri State University Ann Schnurbusch

Redesigned College Algebra. Southeast Missouri State University Ann Schnurbusch Redesigned College Algebra Southeast Missouri State University Ann Schnurbusch Why redesign the course? Developmental courses previously redesigned College Algebra already in transition High failure rate

More information

NEW WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT MULTIMEDIA AND ONLINE TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

NEW WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT MULTIMEDIA AND ONLINE TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION NEW WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT MULTIMEDIA AND ONLINE TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION Ahmad Abuhejleh Computer Science & Information Systems University Of Wisconsin River Falls Ahmad.Abuhejleh@uwrf.edu Abstract

More information

THE NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ONLINE LEARNING IN ILLINOIS COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

THE NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ONLINE LEARNING IN ILLINOIS COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES THE NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ONLINE LEARNING IN ILLINOIS COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Prepared by Dr. John S. Washburn Southern Illinois University Carbondale January 2003 Contents Executive Summary

More information