Transcript Student Evaluations - Montgomery College

Time to Go Online!
STUDENT EVALUATIONS
STUDENT EVALUATIONS
Why go online?
Paper
vs.
Online
PAPER VS. ONLINE

Our current paper process costs about
$25,000 per year, plus staff time.

An online process would be virtually free—
no processing costs and very little staff
time after first iteration.
PAPER VS. ONLINE

The timing of paper evaluations is not
optimal, but must be conducted in midNovember to allow processing time.

Online evaluations could be conducted
anytime during the last two weeks of
class.
PAPER VS. ONLINE

Our current paper process takes
considerable staff time and effort:
generating course lists
 soliciting and approving two sections per faculty
member
 printing and sorting forms
 distributing, collecting, and logging forms.


An online process would eliminate nearly all
processing time.
PAPER VS. ONLINE

Current paper process is not available for
evaluation of part-time faculty—time and
cost prohibitive.

An online evaluation process would be
available to both full- and part-time faculty
and would allow us to use the same
instrument for both.
PAPER VS. ONLINE

Current paper process allows for
evaluation of only two sections per fulltime faculty member per year—a sample
size of about 20%.

An online process would allow for
evaluation of every class, every faculty
member, every semester—a sample size of
about 53% given average return rates.
PAPER VS. ONLINE

Results from paper evaluations are slow
and distribution of results is unwieldy.

Online evaluation results would be
available as soon as grades are submitted
and directly accessible by faculty.
PAPER VS. ONLINE

Our paper process uses about 95,000
sheets of paper per year—not to mention
a whole bunch of large envelopes.

An online process is environmentally
responsible.
MYTHS VS. FACTS
MYTHS VS. FACTS

Myth #1: Return rates on online course
evaluations are abysmally low.

Fact: The average return rate at other
universities is about 53%. That compares to an
average paper return rate of 78% and a current
MC sample rate of less than 20%.
MYTHS VS. FACTS

Myth #2: If evaluations are online, only the
outliers (the very satisfied or very dissatisfied)
will respond.

Fact: Other institutions report that even when
response rates are lower, the faculty member’s
average rating does not change.
MYTHS VS. FACTS

Myth #3: If evaluations are online, students will
rush through them even more than they do with
paper evaluations.

Fact: Research shows that, when provided a
free response section, students write longer
comments on electronic forms than on paper
forms.
MYTHS VS. FACTS

Myth #4: Many of our students don’t have
access to computers for completing their
evaluations.

Fact: A 2003 report indicated 92% of Maryland
households had computer access to the Net.
Plus, students can always use a lab on campus.
MYTHS VS. FACTS

Myth #5: MC will have to use draconian
measures, such as withholding final grades, to
get students to complete the online
evaluations.

Fact: Many schools are getting very respectable
return rates with awareness campaigns,
friendly competitions, incentives, and other
positive strategies.
FACULTY INPUT NEEDED!
FACULTY INPUT NEEDED!
What is the best timeline for implementing this
change?
 Would it be possible to reduce the number of
evaluation questions from 25 to 10?
 If so, what is the best mechanism for selecting
the 10 most important questions?
 What strategies should we use to increase
return rates? What should we avoid?

FACULTY INPUT NEEDED!
What quality safeguards or comparative data
would make faculty more comfortable with this
change?
 What are the best venues for soliciting faculty
suggestion?
 What other question or concerns should we be
addressing?

FACULTY INPUT NEEDED!

Please contact your dean with ideas, concerns,
or other input!
SOURCES

Corragio, James, and Magaly Tymms. “Transiting to an Online Course
Evaluation Model: The Online Student Survey of Instruction.” St. Petersburg
College. St. Petersburg, FL. February 2010.
www.spcollege.edu/central/AE/PowerPoints/FAIR_SSI_Presentation.ppt

“Facilitating Response Rates in IDEA Online.” IDEA Center. Manhattan, KS.
August 2008.
http://www.theideacenter.org/sites/default/files/Best%20Practices%20for
%20Online%20Response%20Rate.pdf

“Information on University-wide Course Evaluations.” University of Maryland.
College Park, MD. 2011.
https://www.irpa.umd.edu/Assessment/crs_eval.shtml
MORE SOURCES

Miller, Mary Helen. “Online Evaluations Show Same Results, Lower
Response Rates.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 6 May 2010.

“Online Faculty and Course Evaluation FAQ.” Ball State University. Muncie,
IN. 2011.
cms.bsu.edu/About/AdministrativeOffices/Provost/FacResources/CrseResp
onseFAQs.aspx

“Pilot Study for Assessing the Viability of Using Online Course Evaluations at
California State University Sacramento.” Sacramento, CA. 8 October 2009.
http://www.csus.edu/acse/archive/0910/ECETF_Interim_Report.pdf
EVEN MORE SOURCES

Sorenson, Lynn, and Trav Johnson. “Online Student Ratings of Instruction.”
Brigham Young University. Salt Lake City, UT. 12 April 2006.
www.sjsu.edu/serb/docs/Online_Student_Ratings_of_Instruction.ppt

Thorpe, Stephen W. “Online Student Evaluation of Instruction: An
Investigation of Non-Response Bias.” Paper presented at the 42nd Annual
Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. Toronto, Canada. June,
2002. http://www.airweb.org/forum02/550.pdf
TIME TO GO ONLINE!
Question
or Concerns?