E-Student Evaluation of Teaching Report to Faculty Senate January 12, 2012 Gita N. Ramaswamy, Director Academic Programs, Assessment, and Accreditation Adjunct Professor, Department of Design and Human Environment College of Public Health and Human Sciences

eSET Response Rate: Of 151,546 total evaluations uploaded, 133,914 were either completed or declined by our students. 88 percent completed the evaluation and 12 percent did not. Of the 88 percent, 67 percent were completed by students and 21 percent declined to answer the survey. 4,036 courses uploaded; 4,010 evaluated. Of the 1,592 instructors, 1,590 were evaluated.

Student Concerns a. Students could have been provided more information about the eSET process and procedures. Creating an eSET webpage with sample questions page and instructions for students, faculty, advisors, and administrators. Website will be part of the Assessment webpage and will be sent to students, faculty, advisors, and administrators before the Winter 2012 eSET.

Student Concerns b. Students were really concerned about their ‘holds on grades’ being lifted on time. Initially, holds were lifted every 24 hours, Soon we realized we need to speed things up Registrar’s office released holds three times a day to help students with access to grades, transcript order fulfillment, and degree order access This should reduce student anxiety over ‘holds’.

Student Concerns c. The confusion over having to decline evaluations for all the unnecessary sections of laboratories and recitations they received. The first issue that needs to be fixed, by working closely with departments to make sure all entries in the BANNER system are correctly entered or updated accurately every term and the ‘coding’ is correct. Students should get alert for evaluations for only the classes they are enrolled in.

Faculty Concerns a. Accessing reports b. Browser problems c. Loading was very slow The eSET launch team took care of the problems and help was provided immediately.

Faculty Concerns d. UG/GR course evaluations—were combined, but the P&T guidelines require separate reporting We are looking into the coding in BANNER and how it can be fixed, maybe provide a combined value and then separate values for UG and GR courses.

Faculty Concerns e. Structure of reports: Courses with several sections taught by several instructors or GTAs, but the ‘Instructor of record” is receiving the combined evaluation scores We will be working with departments and registrar’s office to find solutions/options.

Faculty Concerns f. Structure of Reports: Interpretation of reports College Level Comparators We will be working with CollegeNet to find solutions/options Have detailed instructions for ‘Report format’

Faculty Concerns g. Minor technical issues We were able to solve immediately for faculty/advisors/administrators—thanks to immediate attention from each member of the team. They were alert and available.

eSET Post Mortem meeting On January 19, 2012 OSU eSET launch team is meeting to discuss all issues and intent is to have it all taken care of by the next round of eSET (Winter 2012). Maybe present a detailed report to the Faculty Senate by the end of Spring Term

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the eSET launch team at OSU for the successful launch of the eSET. Kent Kuo, Susie Brubaker-Cole Amy Flint Cheryl Hagey Shari Tanguay Laura Driscoll Deborah Macguire Ray Grant THANK YOU!