1 / 13

Successfully Addressing the Problem of Student Participation in Course Assessments Mary Anne Baker

Successfully Addressing the Problem of Student Participation in Course Assessments Mary Anne Baker Christopher Gibbons. Outline. Background: Use of College Course and Instructor Evaluations Use of Course and Instructor Evaluations at Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar

herman-oneal
Télécharger la présentation

Successfully Addressing the Problem of Student Participation in Course Assessments Mary Anne Baker

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. Successfully Addressing the Problem of Student Participation in Course Assessments Mary Anne Baker Christopher Gibbons

  2. Outline • Background: Use of College Course and Instructor Evaluations • Use of Course and Instructor Evaluations at Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar • Evaluation Formats Used 2007-08 to 2011-12 • Student Response Rates • Blended Approach Introduced 2012-13

  3. Historical Context Evaluation of Instructors began about 80 years ago (e.g., Blum M. L., J. of Educational Psychology, 1936, 27, 217-221) 1960’s focus shifted to providing feedback to instructors from consumers (students) about how well instructor met his/her goals in teaching the course (McKeachie, W. J. Student ratings of faculty, AAUP Bulletin, 1969, 55, 439-444) --some studies found no relationship between student grades and evaluations other studies did -- similar findings for gender of instructor and gender of student

  4. Examples of Published Results Comparisons • Response rates for On-line evaluations with grade incentive equal to In-class rates • Response rates for On-line significantly lower without gradeincentive (Dommeyer, Baum, Hanna and Chapman, Assessment & Eval in HE, 2004, 5, 611-623)

  5. Survey Format Used 2007-08 to 2008-09

  6. WCMC-Q Phase One

  7. FEATURED DEVELOPMENTS

  8. Administration Process • Each student receives email morning of course final exam • Email reminder 3-5 days following exam from our office • Second reminder from our office one week later • If low response rate, instructor asked to send email to students

  9. FEATURED DEVELOPMENTS

  10. Blended Process Currently Being Used • Students have printed copy of evaluation on their desks when they begin taking final exam in course if computer not used in final exam • If computers available in test room, as student turns in test s/he is asked to return to computer and login to email and open message to complete evaluation online • Staff are present in room until last student completes evaluation

  11. Blended Process Currently Being Used • Evaluations completed on paper forms are entered into online system by office staff • For all courses all response data are stored in online system • Data, data summaries and are stored in online format • Year-end reports derived from these data files

  12. Blended Process – The Future • Can we maintain high response rates with this system? • Optimistic because having students respond before leave test room with observer present has a positive effect • While students vary in their interest in the evaluation process, many seem to become engaged in providing feedback once they begin • Faculty are encouraging student engagement

  13. Thank You

More Related