Review of SUNY Oneonta Course Evaluation Form Report and Recommendations from The Committee on Instruction: Part I March 16, 2009.

Review of SUNY Oneonta Course Evaluation Form

Report and Recommendations from

The Committee on Instruction: Part I

March 16, 2009

Literature Review

Research Data

• One concern frequently expressed in published studies is the response rate

Oneonta’s Response Rates

81% 82% 82% 84% 82% 83% 85%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Spring2005

Fall2005

Spring2006

Fall2006

Fall2007

Spring2008

Fall2008

Res

po

nse

Rat

e

Layne et al. (1999)

61%

48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Paper Evaluations(Enrollment = 1,246)

Electronic Evaluations(Enrollment = 1,207)

Res

po

nse

Rat

e

Thorpe (2002)

50%46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Paper Evaluations(Enrollment = 414)

Electronic Evaluations(Enrollment = 430)

Res

po

nse

Rat

e

Dommeyer et al. (2003)

75%

43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Paper Evaluations (withno incentives)

Electronic Evaluations(some with incentives)

Res

po

nse

Rat

e

Incentives for electronic evaluations (randomly assigned):

1) modest grade incentive

=> 87% response rate

2) in-class demonstration


3) early grade notification


4) no incentive


Dommeyer et al. (2003)

70%

29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Paper Evaluations (withno incentives)

Electronic Evaluations(with no incentives)

Res

po

nse

Rat

e

Kulik (2005), Study 1

75% 74%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Paper Evaluations (18classes)

Electronic Evaluations(18 classes)

Res

po

nse

Rat

e

Kulik (2005), Study 2

80%

65%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Paper Evaluations (57graduate classes)

Electronic Evaluations(70 graduate classes)

Res

po

nse

Rat

e

Donovan et al. (2006)

83%76%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Res

po

nse

Rat

e

Avery et al. (2006)

68%

46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Res

po

nse

Rat

e

Heath et al. (2007)

82%

72%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Res

po

nse

Rat

e

Ardalan et al. (2007)

69%

31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Res

po

nse

Rat

e

?

Whose voice is not heard?

Is there a non-response bias?

Richardson (2005)

“It is therefore reasonable to assume that students who respond to feedback questionnaires will be systematically different from those who do not respond in their attitudes and experience of higher education.”

(p. 406, emphasis added)

Layne et al. (1999)

• Statistically significant predictors of responding to electronic course evaluations:– GPA– class– subject area

Dommeyer (2002)

• Statistically significant predictors of responding to electronic course evaluations:– none!

• Variables examined:– gender– expected grade– rating of professor’s teaching

Thorpe (2002)

• Statistically significant predictors of responding to electronic course evaluations:– final grade– gender– GPA

Avery et al. (2006)

• Statistically significant predictors of responding to electronic course evaluations:– anticipated final grade– gender– race/ethnicity– class size

Conclusion

• There is a fairly consistent, documented history of bias in response rates, resulting in some groups being under-represented

Are paper forms biased?

Perhaps, but the response rates are much higher, so whatever bias exists is not as

problematic as with electronic forms that yield much lower response rates

Are the averages different with fewer responses?

Does an electronic format result in higher or lower overall average ratings?

Conclusion

• Some studies show that electronic evaluations result in higher overall averages, some lower, and some not statistically different than paper-based forms

Responses fromSurvey of Teaching Faculty

February 4 - 13, 2009

Procedure

Wednesday, February 4:Survey opened; e-mail invitation sent to all teaching faculty

Monday, February 9:Reminder announcement in Senate

Wednesday, February 11:E-mail sent to all department chairs

Friday, February 13:Survey closed

Survey Responses

• Number of respondents: 178

Respondents’ Division

Behavioral and Applied Science, 45%

Science and Social

Science, 55%

Faculty Rank of Respondents

10%

22%

34%

13%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Full orDistinguished

Associate

Assistant

Lecturer

Adjunct

Respondents’ Length of Service

11%

12%

33%

23%

5%

16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

> 20 years

11-20 years

6-10 years

3-5 years

1-2 years

< 1 year

1. Are you in favor or opposed to the College conducting all course evaluations online?

35%

49%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

In Favor Opposed No Preference

1. Are you in favor or opposed to the College conducting all course evaluations online?

42%

58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

In Favor Opposed

2. How strongly do you feel about the College conducting all course evaluations online?

27%

21%

12%

19%

21%

0% 10% 20% 30%

Wholeheartedlyopposed

Opposed withreservations

Neutral

Conditionally infavor

Wholeheartedlyin favor

2. How strongly do you feel about the College conducting all course evaluations online?

55%

45%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Opposed

In favor

Summary of Written Responses

• Faculty (even some who are in favor of online evaluations) say they are “worried” about the following:– low response rates– lack of security– non-discrimination (all instructors get

rated the same)– biased sample (because of who might

not respond)

Summary of Written Responses, cont.

• One person reported previous positive experience with online evaluations at another institution


• Some faculty who oppose online evaluations have had experience with either the pilot project last summer, online course evaluations at previous institutions, or other online aspects of their courses

• Faculty speaking from first-hand experience explicitly mentioned their concern about low response rates


• Faculty are concerned about the emotional/mental state of students when completing evaluations online

• They also worry about whether students might be influenced by others around them at the time


• Overall, the language and tone of faculty opposed to online evaluations was far more strongly and emphatically voiced than the (rather muffled) approval of those in favor

Summer 2008 Pilot

Response Rates and Overall Experience

• No summary data available

• Anecdotal data (from the survey and personal conversations):

Percentage of faculty who participated in the pilot who are now in favor of online evaluations: 0%

Percentage of faculty who participated in the pilot who are now opposed to online evaluations: 100%

Student Feedback

Committee Conclusions

Data Sources

• Survey of teaching faculty

• Published, peer-reviewed literature

• Consultation with Patty Francis and Steve Johnson

• Anecdotal evidence from other institutions

• Local campus experience

Conclusions: Paper Forms

Advantages:– higher response rate, less likely for bias

in results– more faculty are confident about

obtaining valid results through this method

– controlled setting for administration– students are familiar with the format

Conclusions: Paper Forms

Disadvantages:– time required to process forms– delay in receiving results– use of paper resources

=> Note that none of these disadvantages is related to the validity or accuracy of the data

Conclusions: Digital Forms

Advantages:– results could be delivered to faculty

more quickly– saves paper and some processing time


Disadvantages:– lower response rate– no good options for incentives– more likely for bias in results, concerns

about validity– a majority of faculty have significant

reservations– concerns among both faculty and

students about security/privacy


Disadvantages, cont.:– questions about faculty being able to

opt out– questions about students being able to

opt out– student responses can be posted online

for others to see

One Final Consideration

SPI data are currently used to evaluate faculty for:– merit pay– contract renewal– tenure/continuing appointment– promotion– performance awards

=> If faculty lack confidence in the integrity and accuracy of course evaluation data, any decisions that are made on the basis of these data are likely to be questioned in a way that we believe is unhealthy for our institution.

Recommendation #1

All course evaluations should be administered

using paper forms.

We believe the current consensus among faculty and students will shift at some

point toward favoring an electronic format. But we are not nearly there yet.

Recommendation #2

Electronic course evaluations should not

even be an option.Aggregated results cannot be interpreted

meaningfully (especially if differential incentives are offered).

EXCEPTION: Distance-learning courses

Recommendation #3

Since significant man-hours are needed to process course evaluation forms for our campus, the College Senate should advocate strongly for allocating additional (seasonal) help for processing these forms.

Stay tuned...

... for Part II of our recommendations regarding changes to the form used for course evaluation.

Review of SUNY Oneonta Course Evaluation Form Report and Recommendations from The Committee on Instruction: Part I March 16, 2009.

Documents

response rate slide

respondents division

literature review slide

underrepresented slide

final grade gender gpa

electronic evaluations

gpa class subject area

electronic course evaluations