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

193

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.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
193
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
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 meredith_adams@ncsu.edu Full study available online at http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/handle/1840.16/6364

    ×