Online Course Evaluations Report from Ad hoc Committee.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
House Higher Education Study Committee Columbus State Community College September 9, 2013 Kristen Hurd Marketing Director.
Advertisements

Changing the Culture- Overcoming Obstacles with Faculty Kristy Britt University of South Alabama Mobile, Alabama.
Institutional Readiness Questionnaire Bonnie Luterbach, Raymond Guy, Kathleen Matheos Funding for this study was provided by HRSDC and CNIE.
Co-Teaching as a Methodology in Teacher Preparation
Research Needs Assessment in a Business Capstone Course Librarian and Faculty Partnerships.
ABET – An Update Willis King, ABET Director Feb. 17, 2007.
Learner-Centered Education Course Redesign Initiative Builds upon work of prior LCE grants Will award grants of $40,000 - $50,000, with the option.
Tammy Muhs-University of Central Florida
Online Internal Grant Process: An Effective Means to Infuse and Sustain General Education Goals University of Delaware Martha Carothers Catherine Davies.
1 GET SET FOR © 2010 by ACT, Inc. All rights reserved. College.
Pathway to Proficiency Chaffey Colleges Plan to Achieve Proficiency in Student Learning Outcomes March, 2010.
HERDING JAVELINAS : CoursEval Implementation at a Large Multi-Campus University.
Enterprise Course Evaluation at Georgetown: The Long Road from an All Paper to a Totally Online System CE3 User Conference September 29, 2011 Boston Charles.
SURVEY RESEARCH: BASIC METHODS OF COMMUNICATION WITH RESPONDENTS
Under New Management : Developing a Library Assessment Program at a Small Public University Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable,
Submit, feed back, publish: Using Blackboard to enhance students assessment experience and improve administrative process efficiencies Louise Thorpe Program.
Central Baltic program 2011 – 2013 Ralph-Johan Back.
Digital Textbooks An Abundant New Media Opportunity Kent Freeman VitalSource Technologies, Inc An Ingram Content Group Company.
Enhance student success Increase retentionIncrease retention Increase enrollmentsIncrease enrollments Address wide variation in knowledge/abilitiesAddress.
Should We Do It? BYOD. Group X06 NAH ZHENG XIANG PHILSONA M TAY WEN YIN (JASLYN)A U WONG CHIH YONGA E GOH AIK HWEEA L Our Team.
University-Wide Course Evaluation Committee Peter Biehl, Chair, Department of Anthropology Krissy Costanzo, Committee Staff Support; Academic Affairs March.
Troy University eTROY Colloquium April 17-18, 2012.
ONLINE Histology Course
Student Affairs Committee feasibility study Fall 2010 report to Academic Senate.
1. 2 Evaluation Report A preliminary report to the faculty and administrators of the online distance learning program in the Department of Educational.
Everyone can access. Contents Mer-links context The route of decision-making What is Mer-link? Lessons Learned.
Page 1 ADP Panel Presentation June 2007 ADP 2007 – OVF Presentation Democracy Begins at Home and Abroad: Voter Registration Tools for U.S. Students.
Physics Large-Course Redesign Project Introductory-level Algebra-based and Calculus-based Physics I and Physics II Courses PHYS 1101, PHYS 1102 Serve Pre-Med/Health.
UVic Libraries 2008 LibQUAL+ Survey Prepared for the UVic Senate Committee on Libraries.
Microsoft Business Value Planning Services Microsoft has launched a new Software Assurance benefit to help customers identify, unlock, and capture the.
Fundamentals of Cost Analysis for Decision Making
Review of SUNY Oneonta Course Evaluation Form Report and Recommendations from The Committee on Instruction: Part I March 16, 2009.
Team 6 Lesson 3 Gary J Brumbelow Matt DeMonbrun Elias Lopez Rita Martin.
Using Online Orientation to Meet the Needs and Exceed the Expectations of Transfer Students Presented By: Katie Granholm, M.S. University of Minnesota.
1 DIGITAL INTERACTIVE MEDIA Wednesday, October 28, 2009.
Kennedy-King College’s Assessment Academy Project Report October 2013.
Academic Program and Unit Review at UIS Office of the Provost Fall 2014.
First Steps for Student Success and Retention (FSSSR) Recommendations for Improving Student Success at Portland State University Progress Update Fall 2009.
STUDENT FEEDBACK PROCESS AND TIPS ON INCREASING RESPONSE RATES SHEA WANG, PH.D. INTERIM FACULTY EVALUATION COORDINATOR AUGUST 27, FACULTY DEVELOPMENT.
Everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask……..
Lokman I. Meho, Ph.D. University Librarian Associate Professor of Political Science February 8, 2012 AUB Libraries: New Faculty Orientation Fall 2011.
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration FAA Safety Team FAASafety.gov AMT Awards Program Sun ‘n Fun Bryan Neville, FAASTeam April 21, 2009.
Strategic Plan Briefing Session Progress and Challenges Spring
Institutional Course Evaluation Solution Faculty Senate Executive Committee September 12, 2012 Carol VanZile-Tamsen, Ph.D.; Associate Director, Office.
New Web-Based Course Evaluation Services Available to Schools and Departments Presentation to Faculty Council November 6, 2009.
August 2005UCCSC San Francisco “Challenges and Advantages of Online Class Evaluations.” Network & Academic Computing Services (NACS)
Conversion of Faculty Evaluations to an On- Line Format Catherine Hackett Renner SUNY Geneseo Larry Piegza Gap Technologies, Inc. OnlineCourseEvaluations.com.
Improving the Online Evaluation Process and Response Rates SAIR 2011.
Redesign of Beginning and Intermediate Algebra using ALEKS Lessons Learned Cheryl J. McAllister Laurie W. Overmann Southeast Missouri State University.
Chair Advisory Council April 11, Agenda Enhancements completed Notifications Job Opening Business Process Faculty Recruitment Portal Overview
Tammy Muhs, Ph.D. Assistant Chair, Mathematics Department University of Central Florida NCAT Redesign Scholar Getting Started with Course Redesign.
Electronic Graduate Admissions at Delaware John C. Cavanaugh University of Delaware Council of Graduate Schools and Canadian Association for Graduate Schools.
Teaching Council Recommendations to the Faculty Senate DRAFT 2/9/09 & 3rd DRAFT Feb 13, 2009 for use by the FS Exec Committee, March 4, 2009.
Dordt’s Institutionally- created Surveys Presented by Sheryl Sheeres Taylor.
Stefani Dawn Assistant Director of Assessment Office of Academic Program, Assessment and Accreditation eSET.
The Use of Formative Evaluations in the Online Course Setting JENNIFER PETERSON, MS, RHIA, CTR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SCIENCES.
STUDENT SURVEY OF INSTRUCTION (SSI) INSTRUCTOR WORKSHOP SARAH GORDON, JAMES KNECHT & ANNETTE MOORE UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT AND TESTING SESSION I: MONDAY,
Teaching Evaluations at Missouri S&T Yinfa Ma, Chair Faculty Senate CET Presentation for FS meeting on November 18, 2010.
Msjc’s adoption of canvas
OEI ONLINE COURSE EXCHANGE
Course Evaluation Ad-Hoc Committee Recommendations
Committee Charge (from 11/20/08 F. S
Faculty and Staff Research Support
Development and Deployment of a Web-Based Course Evaluation System
Academic Affairs Update Monday, November 20, 2017
Test Administrators Last updated: 08/20/09.
Administrative Review Committee
Fall 2016/Spring 2017 Administrative Review Process Update
Sessional orientation
COURSE EVALUATION Spring 2019 Pilot August 27, 2019.
Presentation transcript:

Online Course Evaluations Report from Ad hoc Committee

Overview The history at CofC An online evaluation system History Advantages Concerns Challenges Current status

History - Summary In 2001, an ad hoc committee was formed to investigate a transition from a paper-based evaluation system to an online version. In 2005, the FETC was charged with studying the feasibility of implementing an online course evaluation system at the College The FETC brought a motion to adopt an online evaluation system to the Faculty Senate; the motion was not approved. A pilot study was conducted in to determine the feasibility of implementing such a system. Online course evaluations were adopted and fully implemented in Fall 2010.

History Paper evaluations - manual multi-step delivery system involving multiple parties. Issues: Lack of security Confidentiality and privacy may be compromised – hand written student comments Data are difficult to analyze. Results printed in paper format – not easily extracted. Slow feedback - 15 weeks required to prepare, deliver, return and tabulate the paper forms. Static and inflexible system.

Issues with paper system - Labor Pre-evaluation labor (IT) Total: ~ 205 hours + Administrative Assistants time in each department (~8 hrs) Forms still had to be returned for additional processing/scanning by IT and AAPA once they had been completed. They also had to be copied at the departmental level.

Issues with the paper system – Financial considerations The process was expensive (paper and printer) ~ 50,000 – 70,000 evaluation forms per semester not including paper copies issued later to faculty. Printing: ~$7500 Purchasing forms: $3000 / year Printing forms: $3600 / year Errors in printing: $800 / year Hardware: $10,500 Grand Total = ~ $18,000 + labor costsGrand Total = ~ $18,000 + labor costs

Online System – Advantages Rapid feedback. Student comments are returned immediately after the semester ends for formative use before the next semester starts. Anonymity. Student comments are typed. Analysis. Results are returned electronically in a form more suitable for data analysis. Enhanced security. Less expensive to administer. No unusable forms (double-bubbling). forms

Concerns with an online system Response Rate The literature shows that student response rates decreases following implementation (although response rates of over % have been reported using online course evaluation systems). Response rate – paper-and-pencil forms is 67%. Response rates generally recover over a period of time, generally 3-4 years. Response rate can be encouraged with positive reinforcement incentives.

Pilot Program Vendor selected was Digital Measures. The FETC investigated 25 other institutions at the time of the pilot program. Many of the institutions surveyed (our competitors) had moved to an online system at that time.

Challenges The student body must be convinced that their information is of value. Incentives must be built into the system to encourage student participation. Faculty must buy into this system and sell this system in their classes. The system must be marketed / advertised intensively to make it work.

Ad Hoc Committee developed following implementation – Fall 2011 Deanna Caveny-Noecker (Academic Affairs; Mathematics; Co-chair) Bethany Goodier (Communication; Co-chair) Mark Hurd (Psychology) Claire Curtis (Political Science) Martin Jones (Mathematics)

Current Status Vendor – Blue Portal One metric – Response rates (RR) Spring 2013 – 37% Fall 2012 – 34% Spring 2012: 37% Fall 2011: 32% Spring 2011: 32% Fall 2010: 41% Mean = 36%

What have we done to improve RR? Shorten the form: Removed Student Course Information Publication (SCIP) questions to reduce form length (with student input). Blue Portal integrator purchased: Mobile app implemented. Working on better integration with OAKS for reminders to students.

What more can be done? No silver bullet to fix issues and improve RR. Improve marketing - use of social media Reduce the length of the form Other faculty committees and Senate must be involved. One option: Use of mobile app in class – students can use smart phone, tablet or computer to complete evaluations as they did with paper evaluations.