1 / 16

Improving the Online Evaluation Process and Response Rates

Improving the Online Evaluation Process and Response Rates. SAIR 2011. WCU. 9,352 students Master’s Comprehensive Mountain location Resident and Distance. History of Evaluations at WCU. No university-wide policy on administration, instruments, courses covered, and use of results

jill
Télécharger la présentation

Improving the Online Evaluation Process and Response Rates

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Improving the Online Evaluation Process and Response Rates SAIR 2011

  2. WCU 9,352students Master’s Comprehensive Mountain location Resident and Distance

  3. History of Evaluations at WCU • No university-wide policy on administration, instruments, courses covered, and use of results • Scanned, paper forms administered during class time • Long wait for results • No flexibility in types of reports • Poor security– esp. comments

  4. Implementation Timeline 2002 through 2006 • Faculty Senate establish ‘teaching evaluation committee’ • Provost mandated online evaluations (PACE initiative) • Developed SAI instruments based on course types • Developed guidelines for results usage • Researched available options for administering evals and selected ConnectEdu’s CoursEval Faculty “own” the evaluation process!

  5. Timeline cont.: Course Evaluation Pilot – Spring 2007 • 5 departments • 328 courses (5689 surveys) • 45% response rate • Problems: log-in and email issues lack of experience

  6. Timeline cont.: Establishing Procedures (2007-2008) • Scheduling guidelines • Low-enrolled courses • Student incentives • Refined SAI instruments • Planned validity study Faculty Senate Implementation Committee • Advertising/incentives • Faculty training • Summer parts-of-term • Instrument defaults • Student email policy • Login issues

  7. Lessons Learned • Lesson 1: Involve everyone with a stake in the evaluation procedures and results; everyone with experience in processing & administering evaluations • Lesson 2: Consider all issues before implementing • Lesson 3: Build a strong communication system between faculty and survey administrators

  8. IR Responsibilities • Set-up & administer each semester’s evaluations • “Help desk” for faculty and students • Learn about new tools and related software, reporting, and response rates • Communicate to Faculty Senate any issues arising affecting senate policies and survey administration

  9. Overview of Current Policies • All course sections, all terms • Open period set by course length • University-wide incentives allowed • Low-enrolled courses • Crosslistedcourses • Periodic response rates & student reminders • Faculty evaluation (not course content) • Results availability • Use in faculty AFE/TPR process • IR office responsible for administration • Department heads have final say in instrument used

  10. Response Rates over time

  11. Marketing

  12. “Early” Grade Release • Students are encouraged to complete evaluations in order to receive their final grades “early” • A list of all students who complete evaluations is sent to the Registrar • Emails go out to students as faculty members submit grades • Those who do not complete evaluations get final grades after exam week is over

  13. Overall, what works for us • Faculty Senate owns the process • Changes are made slowly, with much deliberation • Small, centralized survey administration • SaaS – few technical issues on our end, backed up data, no questions about data integrity

  14. Features of CoursEval that we like • Students and Faculty – Find all associated courses and surveys with one click • Consolidation of people without deleting anything • Active Directory login • Automated emails, open/close, results release • Response rates – real time, easy to locate and email • Easy to use administrative tools • Customizable emails and log-in site

  15. Features we would like • More flexibility with reports • Advance notice of outages and problems • Ability to access individual student responses (for research purposes) • Faculty member attached to course cannot be changed • More stream-lined set-up

  16. Contact Information WCU’s Course Evaluation website: http://www.wcu.edu/8356.asp “Guidelines & Procedures for Administration & Oversight of Student Assessment of Instruction” Institutional Planning & Effectiveness: http://www.wcu.edu/12829.asp 828-227-7239 Elizabeth Snyder ecaveny@email.wcu.edu 828-227-2570 Alison Joseph ajoseph@email.wcu.edu 828-227-3042 ConnectEduwebsite: http://www.connectedu.com/

More Related