1 / 8

Faculty Senate Committee Report 2/18/2010

Detailed report on successful implementation of electronic teaching evaluations, including process, response rates, feedback, and future plans for Phase II of the pilot program. Contact sfitch@mst.edu for details.

tmelvin
Download Presentation

Faculty Senate Committee Report 2/18/2010

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. Faculty Senate Committee Report 2/18/2010 Ad Hoc Committee for Teaching Evaluations

  2. Electronic Evaluation Pilot:Purpose and Setup Phase I of a pilot program to test the feasibility of electronic teaching evaluations is complete. • 9 faculty with 12 undergraduate class sections participated in Fall 2009. • Class size 21-190. • Included upper and lower level courses in a variety of disciplines.

  3. Electronic Evaluation Pilot:Process • Evaluations were created using Qualtrics, an online survey tool. • Students received an email including a link to the evaluation survey. • The survey was opened to students on December 2, and remained open until the last class day in December 2009 (almost two weeks). • Students completed the survey on their own time. • Instructors received a Word document summarizing results and listing written student comments.

  4. Electronic Evaluation Pilot:Response Rates • There was an expectation of significantly lower response rates if electronic evaluations were used. • Response rates for sections in the pilot ranged from 52-100%. • The average response rate for sections in the pilot was 69%. • As per the CET, response rates in the recent past using paper forms is about 70-74%. • Self-reported response rates from participating instructors were comparable to their usual rates for the same courses.

  5. Electronic Evaluation Pilot:Participant Feedback Feedback was requested from participants. 6 of 9 instructors and 127 of 599 students responded between 2/8 and 2/11, with the following results. • Student confidence in privacy: 89% same or higher (65% same, 24% higher) than with paper • Student confidence in accuracy: 90% same or higher (57% same, 33% higher) than with paper • Student willingness to switch to electronic: 93% willing (69% prefer electronic, 24% no preference) • Instructor willingness to switch to electronic: 100% willing (83% prefer electronic, 17% no preference)

  6. Electronic Evaluation Pilot:Student Feedback • Easier to do this on my own time • No pressure to complete evaluation in a certain time period • Saves paper • Can be more thoughtful and thorough with comments • Good that it does not take up class time

  7. Electronic Evaluation Pilot:Instructor Feedback • More and better quality student comments • Easier to read, no handwriting issues or privacy concerns • Does not use class time • Much easier administratively

  8. Electronic Evaluation Pilot:Future Plans • Phase II of the pilot will be implemented this semester. • An in-house evaluation will be developed through IT instead of the Qualtrics tool. • The question of participant eligibility for teaching awards will be discussed with the CET. • Faculty interested in participating should contact Steph Fitch at sfitch@mst.edu. Participation may be limited.

More Related