ONLINE COURSE EVALUATIONS

(1)

O

NLINE

C

OURSE

E

VALUATIONS

O

NLINE

C

OURSE

E

VALUATIONS

Introduction

Most academic institutions regularly conduct student evaluations of faculty teaching performance. Since the results of these evaluations are often used to make promotion, tenure, and merit pay decisions, the topic can generate significant controversy among faculty. Most early research focused on the reliability and validity of the questions or appropriate usage of the results, but with the advent of online evaluations, there is also an increasing need to address how the evaluation data is collected.

In a typical online evaluation, students are provided with a web site address where they can access the survey instrument. Prior to giving their responses, students are informed that instructors will not have access to any student’s individual responses and that instructors will receive the results of the evaluation only after the final grades have been posted. After students log on to the online system, typically using a student ID number, they are able to indicate their responses to multiple-choice items and type their answers to open-ended questions. After students submit their responses, they receive a printed document that verifies they have completed the evaluation. Students are generally given at least two weeks to provide their evaluations, usually near the end of the term.

Schools usually consider switching from paper evaluations to online evaluations because they are easier to administer and the results are easier to analyze. Online evaluations also provide a feedback mechanism that is universally accessible to students and less susceptible to faculty influence. Despite these potential advantages, two major concerns are frequently raised regarding online evaluation systems:

• Response rates may be significantly lower than paper evaluations

• Results may be biased and therefore significantly different than paper evaluations

These two concerns are related, but they must be evaluated separately. No assumptions can be made about the results of an evaluation based solely on the response rate. Furthermore, even when the results are different, the smaller sample is not always biased. Relatively small samples may still be an accurate, unbiased representation of the students in the class. Ultimately, the main concern is not whether the response rate is lower or even whether the responses are different, but whether the evaluation method has somehow impacted the validity of the results.

Assessing the feasibility of online evaluations involves answering five fundamental questions: 1. Is the response rate for online evaluations significantly lower than paper evaluations? 2. Do online evaluations provide a representative sample of students in the class? 3. Is it possible to increase the response rate for online evaluations?

4. Are the results for online evaluations significantly different than paper evaluations? 5. Are the results for online evaluations biased?

In most published research studies, the response rate for online evaluations is lower than paper

evaluations. However, in most cases, the response rate increased considerably after the research study was completed and online evaluations were officially adopted. Higher response rates may be a natural

(4)

specific strategies can also be employed to boost response rates. Grade incentives are particularly effective, although some instructors may consider other incentives to be more appropriate. Even if specific

incentives are not offered, response rates can be improved by repeatedly encouraging students to participate and designing the evaluation system to facilitate student responses.

With the implementation of proper administrative procedures and various incentives to encourage student participation, many schools have achieved online response rates that are equivalent to paper. In addition, none of the studies found that a lower response rate or any other characteristics of the

evaluation method caused the results to be invalid. The ratings obtained with online evaluations were similar to paper ratings and there was no evidence that the online ratings were biased.

Online course evaluations are also known as online student ratings and online surveys. The term online is considered synonymous with electronic and the term evaluation is synonymous with assessment. For example, electronic student assessments would be considered the same as online course evaluations. Also, the term online does not imply that the evaluation is conducted on the Internet or a web-based university computer system. The evaluation could also be administered with clickers, interactive voice response (IVR) systems, or other technology that does not require the student to use a computer.

Review of Published Research Literature

The Office of University Planning and Analysis (UPA) at North Carolina State University maintains a large list of Internet resources for higher education outcomes assessment. The list includes sections for the following specific topics:

• Student assessment of courses and faculty

• Using the Web for student evaluation of courses and faculty • Comparing online and paper evaluation systems

The list includes a link to the Online Student Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education (OnSET) site maintained by Brigham Young University, which contains an extensive bibliography of articles related to online student evaluations. To identify the most useful articles, the OnSET bibliography was

cross-referenced against the bibliographies from three well-regarded research studies conducted at the following institutions:

• Augsburg College (Scott Krajewski and Diane Pike) • McGill University (Dr. Laura Winer and Rittu Sehgal)

• Murdoch University (David Collings and Christina Ballantyne)

Six articles are referenced in two of these bibliographies (none are referenced in all three). The OnSET bibliography references all six of the most popular articles, so the OnSET bibliography is considered a comprehensive list of relevant articles on the topic. Each of the other bibliographies references four of the six articles, so the other bibliographies are considered an equal cross-section of relevant articles.

The McGill University study was chosen as the best starting point. It contains fewer references, but the references are considered an adequate cross-section of the most popular articles. The McGill University study is also the most recent. It was published in April 2006, while the Augsburg College study was published in April 2005 and the Murdoch University study was published in November 2004. The

(5)

bibliographies for the McGill University and Augsburg College studies contain useful summaries of each reference, while the Murdoch University study does not.

Benefits of Online Evaluations

Administration Costs

Online evaluations are usually easier and cheaper to administer than paper evaluations, since they use less paper and require less time from highly-paid faculty and administrators. Faced with the reality of

shrinking budgets, academic institutions are seeking more efficient ways to operate under increasingly constrained administrative support resources. Online technology offers huge efficiencies in the execution of course evaluations and other repetitive administrative tasks, especially for departments with significant undergraduate enrollment in basic large-service courses.

Once an online evaluation system is established, many of the costs associated with traditional evaluations can be avoided, including the cost of printing, distributing, collecting, scanning, and storing the paper forms, typing student responses to open-ended questions, and delivering hard-copy summary reports to faculty. Larger-scale evaluations could generate even more cost savings, since the variable costs associated with online evaluations are minimal or nonexistent.

Data Quality

Online evaluations usually improve the quality of student responses, thereby improving the timeliness and overall value of the analysis that is performed and the reports that are distributed. Most online

evaluation systems include features that reduce or eliminate errors in completed evaluations. For example, the system can verify that all required questions have been completed and that each response is in the correct format. Responses to open-ended questions are also easier for faculty and administrators to manipulate, since handwriting is not an issue and grammar mistakes are less likely. Still, written comments usually need to be categorized before they can be adequately analyzed. Another potential advantage of the online method is that it provides greater flexibility in the design of the evaluation. Some online evaluation systems allow instructors to generate questions specifically designed for their courses and to have complicated skipping and branching patterns that are not possible with paper evaluations. In research studies comparing online and in-class responses to open-ended questions, students provided much more information online. Paper evaluations often suffer from a lack of written comments, especially when students fill out the questionnaires at the end of class. Students are not constrained by time during an online session, so they can provide a more complete response. Also, since their responses are typed, online respondents do not have to worry about someone identifying their handwriting.

Relevant findings from published research literature

• During the BYU study, 63% of the online forms contained written comments, compared to less than 10% of the paper forms. In addition, the online comments were generally longer.

• During the McGill University study, 70% of the online respondents submitted at least one written comment. 87% of the comments contained at least five words and 75% contained at least 10 words. No comparable data was available for paper evaluations, but the apparent increase in

(6)

comment quality was consistent with previous literature and confirmed by anecdotal feedback from instructors.

• During the study at an unnamed university, 76% of the online evaluations contained written comments, compared to 50% of the paper evaluations.

Student Accessibility

Online evaluations are considered more accessible than paper evaluations, since students are not required to attend class to complete the evaluation. With paper evaluations conducted in the classroom, students have only one opportunity to provide their opinion—during the class period when the evaluations are distributed. With online methods of evaluation, students can provide their opinion over a much longer period of time.

However, if the online evaluation is implemented on the Internet or a university computer system, then students who do not have access to a computer will not be able to complete the evaluation. Most schools provide access to computers, but if students are not required to use the computer system for other course activities, then it may be unfair to require a computer for course evaluations. This is also true for clickers and other similar technology that could be used for course evaluations, but may not be required for the course itself. Also, instructors may be able to overcome accessibility issues with paper evaluations by allowing students to submit their evaluation to the department outside of normal class time.

Faculty Influence

Online evaluations are less susceptible to faculty influence than in-class evaluations. Complaints about paper evaluations often include instructors manipulating ratings through their comments or actions during the evaluation or altering the responses prior to turning them in. With a typical in-class

evaluation, faculty members can perform an activity on the day of the evaluation that is designed to elicit a favorable response from students. For example, have a pizza party, announce that the workload

requirements have been reduced, or announce a new way to earn extra credit. The mere presence of the faculty member during an in-class evaluation could affect a student’s response, especially if the student fears that their response could be identified. Online methods of evaluation are less susceptible to these influences, since the student responds to the online evaluation in an environment that is somewhat distant from the classroom experience. Moreover, since the faculty member does not have any contact with the completed forms, there is no opportunity for them to alter the data after it has been collected.

Online Response Rates

Comparing Online and Paper Response Rates

Despite the potential advantages of online evaluations, many instructors are hesitant about switching to online evaluations because they think it will drastically reduce the number of students responding to the evaluation. Paper evaluations are usually completed at one time, in the classroom, when there is little competition for the attention or time of the student. High response rates for paper evaluations may also be encouraged by perceived social pressure to respond, since the instructor is typically present while the evaluations are filled out. On the other hand, online evaluations are usually completed during free time, in

(7)

the personal space of the respondent, and are not subject to social pressure to respond. This allows students more time to fill out the form, but it also gives them more freedom to decide whether or not to fill it out at all.

In most published research studies, the response rate for online evaluations is significantly lower than paper evaluations. However, lower response rates don’t always result in lower ratings. In many cases, the ratings are the same or even higher, even though the response rates are lower. As mentioned earlier, it is important to avoid evaluating the response rate by itself. If the response rate is lower, it is still necessary to evaluate the actual results. If the results are considered statistically valid, then any variation in the

response rate is essentially irrelevant.

Relevant findings from published research studies

• During the BYU pilot, the response rate was 50% for online evaluations and 71% for paper evaluations.

• During the Cornell University study, the response rate was 50% for online evaluations and 78% for paper evaluations. The response rate for online evaluations was lower than paper evaluations for every course and the differences in response rates were all considered statistically significant. • During the California State University study, the response rate was 43% for online evaluations

and 75% for paper evaluations. The response rate for online evaluations was lower than paper evaluations for all but one of the instructors and 10 of the 16 differences were considered

statistically significant. When no incentive was offered for the online evaluation, the response rate was 29% and all but one of the instructors received a significantly lower response rate than their paper evaluations.

• During the McGill University study, the response rate was 45% for online evaluations and 55% for paper evaluations. The response rate for online evaluations was lower than paper evaluations for approximately two-thirds of the courses.

• During the unnamed study, the response rate was 48% for online evaluations and 61% for paper evaluations.

Potential Impact of Lower Response Rates

The question that is commonly asked regarding the response rate is whether or not the sample is large enough for the results to be accurate. In other words, are there enough responses for the results to be a true representation of all students? These concepts are related to the confidence interval, which represents the level of certainty associated with the results. If the confidence interval is too large, then more data is needed before any definite conclusions can be reached. The approach typically involves determining if online evaluation methods are “accurate enough” based on some minimum level of confidence.

In reality, it is almost impossible to determine if the responders are a random sample from the full class. In comparing the responses for an online evaluation to a paper evaluation, it is very possible that neither sample is truly representative of the class. There is no way to tell, without obtaining responses from all students. The most anyone can do is compare online with paper evaluations to determine if they are different. In other words, we can’t determine if online evaluations are representative enough, but we can determine if they are less representative than paper. Even then, while response rate is an indicator of the

(8)

representativeness of the responses, a lower response rate for online evaluations doesn’t always mean that the samples obtained electronically are less representative than paper. In most published research studies, lower response rates did not result in wider confidence intervals or samples that were not representative. Lower response rates can also have an impact on the evaluation of faculty by raising the standard error of estimates, which results in fewer statistically significant differences in performance. If one of the purposes of the evaluation is to test differences among instructors, then the lack of variation between scores could become problematic.

• In the McGill University study, some confidence intervals were narrower and some were wider. In other words, there did not seem to be a systematic increase or decrease in precision with online evaluations.

Changes in Response Rate over Time

Lower response rates documented during research studies is often temporary. There is evidence that once adopted, online evaluation systems will yield higher response rates over time. As students and faculty adjust to the new system, response rates may increase significantly, eventually nearing or exceeding the response rates observed with paper systems. On the other hand, students could be more likely to respond to the online evaluation if they know it’s part of a formal research study. Either way, the response rate from the research study may not be an accurate indicator of the response rate that would be obtained after the system is fully implemented.

• After a campus-wide implementation of online evaluations at BYU, response rates are currently approaching 70%, which is only 1% lower than paper evaluations.

• After online evaluations were adopted for all courses at Cornell University, the response rate has increased in each successive semester. During the most recent semester included in the published report, the average response rate was 72%, which is only 6% lower than paper evaluations, and every course had a response rate greater than 50%.

• At McGill University, the online response rate has increased from 31% after the first pilot to 51% during the most recent semester included in the published report, which is only 4% lower than paper evaluations.

Correlation of Online and Paper Results

Comparing Online and Paper Results

As mentioned earlier, no assumptions can be made about the results of an online evaluation based solely on the response rate. Regardless of the response rate, online responses must be analyzed to determine if they are qualitatively different from paper responses. The goal is to determine if the evaluation method affected faculty ratings and other feedback obtained from the evaluation.

(9)

Many instructors believe that a different subset of students will respond to the online evaluation,

compared to a paper evaluation distributed to the same students. Specifically, they think students who are particularly upset or disappointed with the instructor are more likely to participate. Therefore, the online evaluation method would yield a negative bias in the results, causing the average rating to be much lower than paper evaluations. This type of response bias can also occur in both positive and negative directions. If students who really like the instructor and students who really dislike the instructor are both more likely to respond than other students, then the distribution of scores will be different than an unbiased evaluation, but the average score may turn out to be the same. In this situation, the plot is bimodal, with one peak for high ratings and another peak for low ratings, rather than one peak centered on the overall mean. When compared to paper evaluations, the distribution of responses for online evaluations could also have one peak, but more spread. In other words, the online evaluation is not completely biased toward the extremes, but it’s more biased than the paper evaluation. Therefore, to fully determine if the online evaluation is biased, the mean response, distribution of responses, and standard deviation of responses must all be evaluated.

Relevant findings from Cornell University research study

Method 1: Compare the average scores for online and paper evaluations.

• The scores for online and paper evaluations were similar, with only four of the questions having a statistically significant difference. Even when significant differences were found, in practical terms, the scores were quite similar. For 9 of the 13 questions, the scores were within 0.1 of each other on a five-point scale. When scores were compared between different paper evaluations for the same instructor, the differences often exceed this amount.

• For each question, the average online score was higher than the paper score. However, these aggregate measures can hide important differences across courses, since the courses were not the same size and each course was not evaluated the same number of times.

Method 2: Same as method 1, but compare each course separately.

• 51% of the comparison tests resulted in a negative value and 49% resulted in a positive value, where a negative value indicates that the online score was lower than the paper score and a positive value indicates that the online score was higher than the paper score. Some of the individual values were statistically significant, but since the results were evenly split between positive and negative values, the cumulative value was not statistically significant.

• When the test results for each course were combined, six of the eight courses had significant differences in scores, but again, these differences were not in the same direction. Some courses had significantly lower scores and some courses had significantly higher scores. Overall, four of the cumulative values were positive and four were negative.

• When the test results for each question were combined, there were no significant differences for any of the questions. Six of the cumulative values were positive and seven were negative.

• When the course that was taught twice in the same semester was analyzed separately, there was no statistical difference between scores in one semester and a significant difference in the other semester. Again, the resulting values were of different signs. In one semester, the instructor had higher online scores, and in the other semester, they had higher paper scores. When the results

(10)

for this course were combined, the cumulative value was not statistically significant. 14 of the individual values were positive and 12 were negative.

Method 3: Compare the actual scores for all possible combinations of online and paper evaluations, rather than comparing the average scores for each evaluation method.

• 80% of the comparison tests resulted in a difference that was not statistically significant. Of the comparisons that were statistically significant, 51% had an online score that was higher than the paper score and 49% had an online score that was lower than the paper score.

Relevant findings from other published research literature

• During the BYU study, there was no evidence that lower response rates for online evaluations resulted in lower ratings. The overall course and instructor ratings were 0.1 point higher than paper evaluations on a seven-point scale. For 68% of the courses, the online rating was the same or higher than the paper rating. The other 32% had ratings within 0.1 to 0.5 points of the paper rating. The results for online evaluations were not highly correlated to the response rates, which suggests that online ratings are less susceptible to bias than paper ratings.

• During the California State University study, online evaluations did not produce significantly different mean scores than paper evaluations, even when different incentives were used. No significant variations were found for the eight instructors who used an incentive, indicating that there were no significant differences between their online and paper evaluations. Among the eight instructors who didn’t use an incentive, only one showed a significant difference.

• During the McGill University study, there was no systematic tendency for results to be either higher or lower with online data collection, even when response rates were much lower. There was no significant difference in the mean rating, shape of distribution, or standard deviation for any of the courses.

• During the unnamed study, there was no significant effect for the method of data collection. The response distributions did not vary according to whether an online or paper evaluation is used.

Potential Impact of Biased Results

If the results for online evaluations are significantly different than paper evaluations, then the online ratings may be flawed, most likely due to a bias introduced by the evaluation method. However, biased responses are not completely unusable. Schools can choose to accept the bias, but only if all faculty members are using the same method or there is no need to compare the results between methods. If the results are not correlated, then it’s very difficult to compare an instructor’s online ratings to their previous paper rating. Teaching portfolios forming part of tenure and promotion files often consist almost

exclusively of reports on standardized course evaluation scores from year to year. Many academic institutions may be slow to change their evaluation systems because of the significant cost of reconciling data generated before and after the changes are implemented. In addition, if some instructors are using online evaluations, but others are not, then the results for those instructors can’t be reliably compared. The focus at this point is solely on bias that may exist, as identified by the variability of the results. The overall accuracy of the method is not in question, since the response rate has already been analyzed. In addition, this form of bias is different than non-response bias, which involves determinants such as

(11)

gender, expected grade in the class, and opinion of the instructor’s teaching performance. Non-response bias, which is also known as response-rate bias, can impact the response rate, while negative bias impacts the actual results.

Data Collection Methods

To avoid confusion during research studies comparing online evaluations to paper evaluations, students should not be asked to complete two evaluations for the same course. Students can be asked to complete an online form for one course and a paper form for another course, but they should not be asked to complete both forms for the same course. To obtain reliable data without confusing students, most published research studies utilize one of following approaches:

• Split individual classes into two separate groups. Ask one group of students to complete an online evaluation and the other group to complete a paper evaluation.

• Identify instructors that are teaching multiple sections of the same course in the same term. Ask one section to complete an online form and the other section to complete a paper form.

• Identify instructors that are teaching the same course in different terms. If reliable data for paper evaluations is available from previous terms, the online evaluation can be administered in the current term and then compared to the previous term. Otherwise, the study must be conducted over two upcoming terms.

• Compare different courses taught by different instructors in the same term. This method may shorten the study, but it makes the analysis more difficult.

In selecting a method of data collection, the goal is to minimize any normal variation that exists between the two samples, so most or all of the variation can be attributed to the evaluation method. In other words, if the results are different, we want to ensure that the difference is caused by the evaluation method, not some other factor. Normal variation can exist between any two samples that are not exactly the same, but choosing samples that are closely related will minimize it.

Two groups of students from the same class offers the clearest comparison, but this method is only feasible if the class is large enough. Normal variation increases with any other method of data collection, even if the evaluations are administered in multiple sections taught by the same instructor, since students in different sections of the same course may have significantly different characteristics. For example, students in an evening course may be markedly different from students in a daytime course. Variation can also occur due to the order in which the sections are taught. Instructors, because of learning effects, may consistently perform better in the second section. Still, comparing courses taught by the same instructor is generally better than comparing courses taught by different instructors, since normal variation can be very high between instructors. However, if historical data for paper evaluations is not already available, this method can greatly increase the length of the study, since new evaluations will have to be

(12)

Improving Online Response Rates

Determinants of Response Rate

Understanding the determinants of online responses may help identify ways to increase response rates in the future. In some research studies, there appeared to be some predictability about who responds to online evaluations, based on factors such as class performance, gender, race, and class size. For example, during the Cornell University study, students who anticipated low final grades had a lower probability of submitting an evaluation than students who anticipated high final grades. This implies that instructors will receive less feedback from students who perform poorly. If those students are more likely to submit negative feedback, then the results could be biased in a positive direction, causing the instructor’s rating to be artificially high. However, the relationship between performance and response rates may be equally strong for both online and paper evaluations.

Other factors that can influence the response rate for online evaluations include the length of the

evaluation and the overall perception of anonymity. During the California State University study, students who complained about online evaluations were most likely to think that the evaluations were too time consuming or fear that their responses were not anonymous. Some students felt that the integrity of the online system could be compromised, causing their ID number or other identifying information to be revealed with their responses. However, the lack of an anonymous response is also a concern for students using traditional paper evaluations, as they sometimes fear that the instructor will be able to identify their handwriting in answers to open-ended questions. One way to ensure students that their response is truly anonymous is to develop a set of access codes for the web site. In the classroom, the instructor could randomly distribute the access codes to students and explain that it is impossible for the access codes to be tied to a particular student. An educational endorsement may also be effective in assuring students that online evaluations are confidential and anonymous. For example, institutional guarantees of

confidentiality could be published and endorsements could be provided by the student government.

• During the BYU study, the length of the form did not appear to be an important factor for students deciding whether or not to complete it, although there would undoubtedly be a threshold at some point. The longest form was 18 questions.

• During the Cornell University study, students who anticipated low final grades were less likely to submit an evaluation than students who anticipated high final grades. In addition, women were 18% more likely to submit an evaluation than men, Asian students were 12% less likely to submit an evaluation than students of other races, and students in larger classes were less likely to submit an evaluation than students in smaller classes.

• During the unnamed study, students with higher grade-point averages were more likely to complete an online evaluation than students with low grade-point averages. Out of the five class levels studied, sophomores were most likely to respond and seniors least likely. Science students, which include computer science, were more likely to respond than students from any of the other five academic areas. The mean anonymity rating was significantly higher for paper evaluations

(13)

than online evaluations, but high percentages of students in both groups—87% for paper and 72% for online—reported that they felt anonymous in completing the evaluation.

Grade Incentives

The most effective way to promote participation is to provide extra credit points to students who complete the online evaluation. When this type of incentive is used, response rates have been achieved that are comparable to paper evaluations. However, not all instructors are willing to use a grade incentive as an online response motivator. Some instructors believe that a grade incentive will bias the results in favor of students who are more concerned about their grades. Others argue that it is unethical to use a grade incentive, since a student’s participation in a faculty evaluation should be a voluntary event that has no bearing on the student’s grade. Instructors may also fear that grade incentives will attract responses from students who can’t provide a fair evaluation because they rarely attend class.

Grade incentives require the instructor to determine which students completed the evaluation. To maintain confidentiality, the instructor must be able to obtain this information without seeing the individual responses, especially if the incentive will be provided to students before the final grades are posted. Even if steps are taken to ensure that the responses remain anonymous, revealing the names of the students who completed the evaluation may be considered a serious risk to the integrity of the evaluation.

• When points were given at BYU, the response rate was 87%, compared to 71% for paper evaluations.

• When a modest grade incentive was given at California State University, the response rate was 87%, which was the same as paper evaluations. The response rate for the grade incentive was significantly higher than any other incentive and it did not bias the results.

Other Incentives

Instructors can offer other positive incentives to encourage participation, such as contributing money to a charity for each form completed, giving students free coupons for food, or entering students in a drawing for various prizes. Instructors can also provide early access to grades or withhold the posting of a final grade until an evaluation is submitted. Withholding grades may seem unfair, but students in the BYU study supported this strategy, saying it would be effective and yet not too restrictive. If the registration system supports it, students who complete the online evaluation could also be assigned earlier registration times for the next term. These incentives could be offered to individual students or the entire class as a group. For example, students could receive early feedback on their course grades if at least two-thirds of the class completes the online evaluation.

• When an early grade feedback incentive was offered at California State University, the response rate was significantly higher than online evaluations without an incentive, but it was significantly lower than paper evaluations.

(14)

Instructors should be advised to show a personal interest in students completing the online evaluation, rather than simply distributing the evaluation because they are required to do so. Instructors can mention the evaluations repeatedly in class and let students know that they pay attention to the responses. They could also make the evaluation a formal assignment and dismiss students early to complete it, which sends an even stronger message that the feedback is particularly valued. When faculty members at BYU assigned students to complete the online evaluation, response rates greatly increased, even when points were not given for the assignment. Even if points are not awarded, students may think the evaluation affects their standing in the course, which is known to be a very strong response motivator.

If the instructor has access to the names of students who have completed the evaluation, they could send personal e-mail messages to students who have not completed it, encouraging them to complete it at their earliest convenience and reminding them that it is viewed as an important activity. As mentioned earlier, even if measures are taken to preserve student confidentiality, some students may be concerned that the instructor will be able to use the names to identify the student’s response. Providing the names also encourages the practice of awarding extra points, which the school may have already determined to be inappropriate. In these situations, the e-mail reminders could be sent by school administrators or

departmental staff who do not have any control over the grades. Some online evaluation systems can also send reminders automatically. These methods are not as effective as personal reminders from the

instructor, but they could help alleviate any concerns about confidentiality and other potential improprieties.

• When instructors assigned the online evaluation to students during the BYU study, the response rate was 77%. When they encouraged students to complete the evaluation, but did not make it a formal assignment, the response rate was 32%.

Training and Communication

Most online evaluation systems are very easy to use, but response rates can still be affected if adequate instructions are not provided. One option is to provide a live demonstration showing how to log on to the system, how to fill out the evaluation form, and how to log off. The demonstration can be performed in the classroom and recorded in a video for students to view later. At a minimum, complete written instructions should be provided, either online or as in-class handouts.

Students should also receive additional information about the online evaluation system to help them understand the importance of their input and how the results are used. This information can be shared with students through presentations during new-student orientation and meetings with various student groups. General advertising about the online evaluation can also be distributed via school newspapers, campus posters, and easy-to-find web pages on the school computer system. Any communication to faculty and students about the online evaluation system should be standardized to ensure that a clear and consistent message is provided. The frequency should also be reviewed to ensure that the message is adequately distributed without being annoying or overbearing to the intended recipients.

Ideally, course evaluation results should be available to students in a user-friendly online format. If necessary, the school can allow individual instructors to provide permission for their evaluations to be

(15)

posted for student consultation. Students can use this information to make informed decisions about which classes to take in upcoming terms and it also reinforces the notion that completing the evaluation is a valuable use of their time.

• When in-class demonstrations were performed at California State University, the response rate was lower than paper evaluations in one case and the same as paper evaluations in the other case. The response rate was significantly higher than online evaluations without a demonstration, but it was not significantly different than the early grade feedback incentive.

• During the McGill University study, four separate administrative reminders to encourage

students to complete their online evaluations proved to be very successful, increasing the number of submissions by over 1,000 on the day following the reminder.

• During the unnamed study, students who had not completed the online evaluation were sent a reminder along with a set of instructions, which resulted in another 156 completed evaluations.

Institutional Environment

There is evidence that electronic student evaluations can be successfully implemented in institutions of higher education where the student body is fairly computer literate and computers are readily available on campus. In addition, when completion of online evaluations is assigned or encouraged in more than one course, the likelihood that students will complete the evaluation for all their courses improves

considerably. To obtain these cumulative benefits, standard procedures should be adopted across all departments and broad implementation should be encouraged, if not required. Higher response rates may also be achieved by allowing students to complete the surveys somewhat earlier than the end of the term, before students are pressured with final exams. Since student evaluations of faculty are fairly stable from the middle of the term to the end of the term, it is conceivable that the online evaluations could start anytime after mid-term.

(16)

Appendix A: Data and Charts

In the Cornell University study:

• The average score for paper evaluations may not be completely accurate, since the raw data wasn’t always available, but it was determined to be a reasonable estimate.

• In method 2, the cumulative value for each question is calculated as the sum of the individual values for each course, while in method 1, the cumulative value is an aggregation. This results in different values, although the differences are consistent for most questions (see chart).

• For the course that was taught twice in two different semesters, some instances of the course are not included in the analysis. Specifically, the cumulative values do not include the paper

evaluations from Spring 1998, Spring 1999, and Spring 2000.

Different Methods Used to Evaluate Variability in Cornell University Study

-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Method 1 Method 2

(17)

Appendix B: References

Avery, R. J., Bryant, W. K., Mathios, A., Kang, H., & Bell, D. (2006). Electronic course evaluations: Does an online delivery system influence student evaluations? Journal of Electronic Education, 37(1), 21-38. Dommeyer, C.J., Baum, P., Hanna, R.W., & Chapman, K.S. (2004). Gathering faculty teaching evaluations by in-class and online surveys: Their effects on response rates and evaluations. Assessment and Evaluation

in Higher Education, 29(5), 611-623.

Johnson, T. D. (2003). Online student ratings: Will students respond? New directions for teaching and

learning: Online student ratings of instruction, 96(49-59).

Layne, B.H., DeCristoforo, J.R., & McGinty, D. (1999). Electronic versus traditional student ratings of instruction. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 221-232.

Winer, L.R. & Sehgal, R. (2006). Online Course Evaluation Analysis Report.

http://www.mcgill.ca/files/tls/online_course_evaluation_report.pdf

The Office of University Planning and Analysis (UPA) at North Carolina State University

http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/assmt/resource.htm

OnSET: Online Student Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education

ONLINE COURSE EVALUATIONS

O

NLINE

C

OURSE

E

VALUATIONS

Table of Contents

O

NLINE

C

OURSE

E

VALUATIONS

Introduction

Review of Published Research Literature

Benefits of Online Evaluations

Administration Costs

Data Quality

Student Accessibility

Faculty Influence

Online Response Rates

Comparing Online and Paper Response Rates

Potential Impact of Lower Response Rates

Changes in Response Rate over Time

Correlation of Online and Paper Results

Comparing Online and Paper Results

Potential Impact of Biased Results

Data Collection Methods

Improving Online Response Rates

Determinants of Response Rate

Grade Incentives

Other Incentives

Training and Communication

Institutional Environment

Appendix A: Data and Charts

Appendix B: References