Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Online course evaluations: Nonresponse and ClassEval in Fall 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Online course evaluations: Nonresponse and ClassEval in Fall 2009


Published on

EAC 786 presentation at NC State University. …

EAC 786 presentation at NC State University.

Adams, M. J. D. (17 November 2010). Online course evaluations: Nonresponse and ClassEval in Fall 2009. Presentation to EAC 786 (Teaching in College) class at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Realistic Majors =
  • INSTRUMENT: Lab questions then the lab is surveyed too.
    ADMIN: Cut down on opportunity costs (off-campus students, athletes)
    ENVIRONMENT: Smart et al., 2000 (academic disciplines book)
  • Transcript

    • 1. Online Course Evaluations: Nonresponse and ClassEval in Fall 2009
    • 2. COURSE EVALUATIONS Paper versus Online Ratings Can they? Why? How?
    • 3. METHODS OF ANALYSIS • Study measured likelihood of response • Hierarchical modeling techniques • 30 variables – Students (demographics, housing, number of surveys students completed) – Course (if department of course and student’s major matched; grade earned)
    • 4. RESULTS Statistically significant characteristics associated with nonrepsonse: – Gender (Male) – Ethnicity (African-American, Asian) – Housing (off- campus/commuters) – Athletes – Grades (Ds, Fs, ungraded students/courses) – Age (traditional age) – Nontransfers – Class rank (sophomores & juniors) – Students with more than 10 SETs to complete
    • 5. 48% response rate (overall)
    • 6. RESULTS (continued) • Using Holland’s six major academic types – Realistic majors were more likely to respond than social, artistic, conventional, enterprising, and investigative disciplines. – Social majors were less likely to respond than all other students if the course was in the same department as the student’s major. • Most variables were no longer statistically significant when the course was in the same department as their major.
    • 7. DISCUSSION • Mostly aligned with previous research and theories of survey participation* – Exceptions = Environment of major/course, class rank • Survey Fatigue – Are we oversurveying? • Introduced new potential influences on participation – Campus housing, athletes, transfer status, * Avery et al., 2006; Cohen, 1981; Clarksberg, et al., 2008; Dey, 1997; Dillman et al., 2002, 2009; Fidelman, 2007; Groves et al., 2004, 2009; Johnson et al., 2002; Jones, 2009; Kaplowitz et al., 2004; Lepkowski & Couper, 2002; Marsh, 2007; Moore & Tarnai, 2002; Porter et al., 2004; Porter & Umbach, 2006a; Porter & Whitcomb, 2005; Sax et al., 2003, 2008
    • 8. TO INCREASE RESPONSE RATES • Faculty attitudes and efforts are key to obtaining higher response rates* • The instrument and administration of it • Target students unlikely to respond • Evaluate the environment – Are course evaluations online accessible? – Is the instructor encouraging response? Is the discipline? * (Ballantyne, 2003; Dillman, 1978; Dillman et al., 2002, 2009; Dommeyer et al., 2004; Groves et al., 1992)
    • 9. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS • Obtain more information about the course, the faculty, class size, etc.
    • 10. FOR MORE INFORMATION Full study available online at