90 likes | 301 Views
Current status of Blue. Implementation of Blue is effective since October Presentations to Colleges/Schools and Departments are currently ongoing
E N D
Current status of Blue • Implementation of Blue is effective since October • Presentations to Colleges/Schools and Departments are currently ongoing • The Electronic Course Assessment Implementation (ECAI) committee (subcommittee of the FDAI committee) is supervising the implementation, in conjunction with the Provost’s Office and OIT • ECAI is the point of contact for the Faculty Senate with regard to all issues about electronic evaluation • You can find information about online course evaluation at: https://www.uaf.edu/provost/blue/
Adoption of Blue • What are the implications • What could be done to improve confidence on the survey for each class
Implications of adopting Blue Inter-system comparison • Consistency of evaluation over time • Quality Intra-system comparison • Representativeness • Accuracy • Quality
Inter-system comparison • Q: How my evaluation in Blue measures against IAS? • Qualitatively, the two questionnaire are different (no “effectiveness of teaching” is assessed). • Quantitatively, the scores are expected to be different because the structure and the content of the surveys are different. • Each Blue survey should be compared to Campus-wide Blue aggregate data. • Few rounds of evaluation will be needed to be able to make comparison with IAS, if needed. • Revise unit criteria for tenure and promotion.
Inter-system comparison: quality • Q: Students who are strongly negative about the course or the instructor have been the most likely group to complete the online evaluation. • Results from many studies on this topic have proven this to be a misconception, with results from online evaluations shown to be as trustworthy as those from paper-based evaluations (Liu, 2005; Thorpe, 2002; Johnson, 2002). • A large scale study of the results of the Individual Development and Educational Assessment (IDEA) student rating system between 2002 and 2008 (Benton et al., October, 2010) examined a total of 651,587 classes that used paper-based evaluations and 53,000 classes that used web-based evaluations. This comparison showed no meaningful differences between survey methods.
Intra-system comparison: representativeness • Q: Those who have responded to the survey have very different views than those who have not, hencethe results from the survey would not reflect the opinion of the population as a whole. • The link between response rate and non-response bias has not been established (Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, October 2003 and 2011; Curtin et al., 2000, Langer, 2003; Holbrook et al., 2005).
Intra-system comparison: accuracy • Q: Smallsample sizeleads to greater margin of error of the results. • Depends on the class size and the opinions’ skewness
What can be done to increase confidence toward this system • Response analysis will reveal biases and potential correlation with the polled cohort. • Results of the analysis will be shared with students and instructors. • If the wording and/or the content of one or more questions appear to skew quality of responses, those questions will be re-evaluated and re-worded or eliminated/substituted.
What can be done to increase confidence toward this system • Response rates: • Showing evaluation matters • Communication • Making it easy for students • Providing incentives • UAF evaluation portal: www.uaf.edu/inspireus • Intensify the use of Blue: • Mid-term evaluation • Department-specific questions