Transcript E-Student Evaluation of Teaching Presentation

E-Student Evaluation of Teaching
Report to Faculty Senate
January 12, 2012
Gita N. Ramaswamy, Director
Academic Programs, Assessment, and Accreditation
Adjunct Professor, Department of Design and Human Environment
College of Public Health and Human Sciences
eSET Response Rate:
• Of 151,546 total evaluations uploaded, 133,914
were either completed or declined by our students.
• 88 percent completed the evaluation and 12
percent did not.
• Of the 88 percent, 67 percent were completed by
students and 21 percent declined to answer the
survey.
• 4,036 courses uploaded; 4,010 evaluated.
• Of the 1,592 instructors, 1,590 were evaluated.
Student Concerns
a. Students could have been provided more
information about the eSET process and
procedures.
• Creating an eSET webpage with sample questions
page and instructions for students, faculty, advisors,
and administrators.
• Website will be part of the Assessment webpage
and will be sent to students, faculty, advisors, and
administrators before the Winter 2012 eSET.
Student Concerns
b. Students were really concerned about their ‘holds
on grades’ being lifted on time.
• Initially, holds were lifted every 24 hours,
• Soon we realized we need to speed things up
• Registrar’s office released holds three times a day to
help students with access to grades, transcript order
fulfillment, and degree order access
• This should reduce student anxiety over ‘holds’.
Student Concerns
c. The confusion over having to decline evaluations
for all the unnecessary sections of laboratories and
recitations they received.
• The first issue that needs to be fixed, by working
closely with departments to make sure all entries in
the BANNER system are correctly entered or
updated accurately every term and the ‘coding’ is
correct.
• Students should get alert for evaluations for only the
classes they are enrolled in.
Faculty Concerns
a. Accessing reports
b. Browser problems
c. Loading was very slow
• The eSET launch team took care of the problems
and help was provided immediately.
Faculty Concerns
d. UG/GR course evaluations—were combined, but
the P&T guidelines require separate reporting
• We are looking into the coding in BANNER and how
it can be fixed, maybe provide a combined value
and then separate values for UG and GR courses.
Faculty Concerns
e. Structure of reports:
Courses with several sections taught by several
instructors or GTAs, but the ‘Instructor of record” is
receiving the combined evaluation scores
• We will be working with departments and registrar’s
office to find solutions/options.
Faculty Concerns
f. Structure of Reports:
Interpretation of reports
College Level Comparators
• We will be working with CollegeNet to find
solutions/options
• Have detailed instructions for ‘Report format’
Faculty Concerns
g. Minor technical issues
• We were able to solve immediately for
faculty/advisors/administrators—thanks to
immediate attention from each member of the
team. They were alert and available.
eSET Post Mortem
meeting
On January 19, 2012
• OSU eSET launch team is meeting to discuss all
issues and intent is to have it all taken care of by
the next round of eSET (Winter 2012).
• Maybe present a detailed report to the Faculty
Senate by the end of Spring Term
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the eSET launch team at OSU for the
successful launch of the eSET.
Kent Kuo,
Susie Brubaker-Cole
Amy Flint
Cheryl Hagey
Shari Tanguay
Laura Driscoll
Deborah Macguire
Ray Grant
THANK YOU!