1. Time to Go Online!

2. Why go online? Paper vs. Online

3.  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.

4.  The timing of paper evaluations is not optimal, but must be conducted in mid- November to allow processing time.  Online evaluations could be conducted anytime during the last two weeks of class.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  Current paper process allows for evaluation of only two sections per full- time 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.

8.  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.

9.  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.

11.  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%.

12.  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.

13.  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.

14.  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.

15.  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.

17.  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?

18.  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?

19.  Please contact your dean with ideas, concerns, or other input!

20.  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 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 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 https://www.irpa.umd.edu/Assessment/crs_eval.shtml

21.  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 http://www.csus.edu/acse/archive/0910/ECETF_Interim_Report.pdf

22.  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 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.pdfhttp://www.airweb.org/forum02/550.pdf

23.  Question or Concerns?