Online Course Evaluations by ro2Qcqg


									Student Affairs Committee of the Academic Senate
                                  Feasibility Study
                                      March 2011
       Term Project activities
    Fall 2000 SF State began listing fully online classes in Class Schedule

    Fall 2009 Faculty Affairs Committee began investigation of online
              delivery methods.

 Spring 2010 Project handed to Student Affairs Committee

               Progress report presentations made to Academic Senate and
               Department Chairs meetings

               HR facilitated an informal discussion between CFA and SAC
               over the pilot project

               Define user requirements, definitions

Summer 2010 Conduct literature review & environmental scan

                                                               March 2011     2
The SF State online methods of student
  evaluation of teaching effectiveness
  feasibility study process:
 Rigorous
 Transparent
 Representative
 Needs-oriented
 Values-based

                                         March 2011   3
      Term Project activities
  Fall 2010 Refine needs statement, conduct informal Meet &
            Confer with CFA, compare potential solutions,
            prepare study

Spring 2011 Host vendor demos for possible solution (s)

             Select solution(s) for pilot study

             Select courses and faculty involved in pilot study

  Fall 2011 Conduct pilot study

Winter 2012 Share results, make recommendations

                                                        March 2011   4
   Study explores the potential of online course
    evaluation solutions to address issues
    identified by key stakeholders:

    ◦ Accessibility for faculty and students with
    ◦ Parity for fully online classes
    ◦ Improved efficiencies

                                                March 2011   5
   Literature review
    ◦   Response rates
    ◦   Evaluation scores
    ◦   Student satisfaction
    ◦   Increased efficiency & cost savings

   Environmental scan
    ◦ 13 of 16 CSU campuses that responded to survey
      are using or piloting online course evaluations
    ◦ Non-CSU campuses (e.g., Yale, Marquette) provided
      valuable information

                                              March 2011   6
   Research Questions
    1.   Comparability to current process
    2.   Integrity of the process
    3.   Security of the process
    4.   Student demographics influence on completion

   Research Methods
    ◦    Analyze data from Student Evals of Teaching
    ◦    Pre- and Post-evaluation surveys
    ◦    Focus groups

                                                 March 2011   7
   Fall 2011 pilot with multiple SF State departments
    ◦ Sufficient faculty volunteers who are
      full professors
    ◦ Multiple Departments and Colleges involved
    ◦ Multiple course types
    ◦ Varying enrollment sizes
    ◦ Multiple course class levels
    ◦ Multiple student levels

                                               March 2011   8
Some questions will be answered through the
  study, while others can be answered with a
  FAQ site.
Example of questions answered by study
 Do response rates differ based on delivery
  method (paper or online)?
Example of questions answered by FAQ
 What can we learn about online course
  evaluations from other campuses?

                                      March 2011   9
   Student Affairs Committee of 2009/10 and
   Faculty Affairs Committee of 2009/10
   Academic Technology
   Faculty Affairs
   Human Resources
   California Faculty Association
   California State University Employees Union
   Executive Technology Board
   Educational Technology Advisory Committee
   Campus Technology Committee

                                            March 2011   10
   Thank you!!!
   Questions and Discussion
   For more information, email Bridget
    McCracken, Chair of SAC at

                                       March 2011   11

To top