In the late spring of 2017 provost Kaivola charged a working group of faculty and staff to:<\/p>\n
“review the current course evaluation system and propose a revised process that better serves the institution and its members”.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A group was formed\u00a0to bring expertise and\u00a0motivation for the\u00a0task from their respective roles.\u00a0 The working group\u00a0consists of<\/p>\n
\n
- Kristen Chamberlain, Associate Professor of Communication Studies and Director of Assessment<\/li>\n
- Crystal Comer, Registrar (retired from\u00a0group 01-2018)<\/li>\n
- Ben Denkinger, Assistant Professor of Psychology<\/li>\n
- Scott Krajewski, Director of IT and CIO<\/li>\n
- Terrance Kwame-Ross, Associate Professor of Education<\/li>\n
- Kelsey Richardson-Blackwell, Assistant Director of Academic Advising, Technology Solutions (joined 01-2018)<\/li>\n
- \n
Diane Pike, Professor of Sociology<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Why<\/h2>\n
The current form and process<\/a> was developed in 2004 and reflects the best thinking of that time for Augsburg College.\u00a0 The time is right to evaluate the form and process and determine what is the best\u00a0approach for Augsburg University 14 years later.<\/p>\n
The Work\u00a0in fall 2017<\/h2>\n
The\u00a0working group began meeting in earnest in the fall of 2017, building on an initial review of the literature by some members over the summer.\u00a0 The work of the fall included the following.<\/p>\n
\n
- A review and discussion of the current literature and research issues.\u00a0 This 46 minute literature review by Rice University provides a succinct review for anyone interested.<\/li>\n
- Extensive discussions about Augsburg’s distinctiveness and history in relation to this topic.<\/li>\n
- Initial meetings and conversations with numerous campus groups including Chairs, Faculty Senate, Student Government, Grad Council, Deans, Gage Center departments, and others.<\/li>\n
- Open sessions in November and December<\/a> to discuss the topic with interested individuals.<\/li>\n
- A pilot on changing response rates.<\/li>\n
- Initial work on defining the purpose of the instrument.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
University Course Survey<\/h3>\n
An\u00a0important characteristic of the instrument\u00a0is purpose<\/strong>.\u00a0 What is the purpose of the instrument at the university-wide level? The research points to having clarity on this issue in order to meet institutional goals and to ensure that results are interpreted appropriately.\u00a0 The workgroup\u00a0discussed renaming the post-term institution-wide instrument the University Course Survey<\/em> to reflect a redefined purpose.<\/p>\n
\n
- The purpose of the survey will be\u00a0to provide reliable and valid data on students’ perceptions of course experiences.<\/em><\/li>\n
- Therefore, the working group sees the form as\u00a0one part<\/em> of fulfilling the needs of the University to\u00a0measure our promise to students<\/em> through a focus on what we should know about the experiences our students are having in our courses<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Response Rate Pilot, Fall 2017<\/h3>\n
One important theme in the literature and our conversations\u00a0during fall 2017 was the issue of response rates<\/a>.\u00a0 To address this and learn more a pilot project was launched in December.\u00a0 The pilot tested using in-class time to complete the surveys.<\/p>\n
\n
- Piloteers dedicated class time for students to complete the surveys using their mobile devices, laptops or the classroom PC.<\/li>\n
- This strategy has been very effective in the PA Program.<\/li>\n
- Each piloteer received an email<\/a> with a set of instructions.<\/li>\n
- Response rates\u00a0were compared between piloteers and all fall courses, all last fall courses, and piloteers last fall courses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The Work for spring 2018<\/h2>\n
The working group activities in spring were:<\/p>\n
\n
- An update to the faculty, including data on the response rate pilot project<\/a>.\u00a0Some highlights\n
\n
- Dedicating\u00a0class time increased response rates – on average, a 75% response rate in the pilot vs 39% response rate not in the pilot<\/li>\n
- There was not a significant difference in mean scores in three “overall” questions between pilot members courses in fall 2017 and the previous fall 2016.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Drafting\u00a0a framework for feedback.<\/li>\n
- Drafting a revised instrument based on the redefined purpose.<\/li>\n
- Developing a way to get feedback on and test a revised instrument.<\/li>\n
- Preparing a proposal for the faculty to vote on in the fall of 2018.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Draft v1 Form Pilot,\u00a0Spring 2018<\/h3>\n
Nearly 30 faculty signed up to pilot a draft form<\/a> in their spring courses. The results of the pilot will be analyzed over the summer and shared with the greater faculty in the fall. Additionally, based on the positive results of the fall response rate pilot all faculty are being encouraged to adopt the practice of using in-class time for completion of the course survey.<\/p>\n
The Work for summer 2018<\/h2>\n
The activities in the summer include:<\/p>\n
\n
- Additional pilots of revised form drafts.<\/li>\n
- Meetings with the graduate program directors and the deans.<\/li>\n
- Drafting\u00a0a proposal for the faculty to vote on in the fall of 2018.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Draft v2 Form Pilot, Summer 2018<\/h3>\n
Based on feedback on the first form draft, a slightly revised form<\/a> was piloted with three faculty in time 1. The only changes were slight wording\u00a0edits to the questions on cancelling class.<\/p>\n
Final Draft of Form, Summer 2018<\/h3>\n
After feedback from graduate programs, Deans, and the Provost a final draft<\/a> was developed. The changes were minor and included wording refinement on several items to improve clarity.<\/p>\n
Frequently Asked Questions<\/h3>\n
The working group developed a frequently asked questions document<\/a> based on conversations with various groups.<\/p>\n
A Framework for feedback<\/h3>\n
With defining the purpose of the University Course Survey it became clear through discussions within the working group and with the various groups across campus that there are multiple needs.\u00a0 A single instrument cannot be all things.\u00a0 To\u00a0address that challenge the working group is drafting a framework for feedback for faculty.\u00a0 That framework includes:<\/p>\n
\n
- A University Course Survey that is an end-of-term instrument that provides reliable and valid data on students’ perceptions of course experiences for faculty, chairs, and administration.<\/li>\n
- Support for two within course instruments administered by the faculty member for the faculty member\u2019s practice. CTL and the Assessment Committee would provide examples and models of the more qualitative forms that would be ready to use or be adapted to specific courses be they labs, graduate level, multiple delivery methods, etc.\n
\n
- Best practices recommend doing a mid-course correction activity during which the instructor gets feedback on what is working as the course is developing. This benefits the students in the course, not those who will take it next time.<\/li>\n
- Faculty should collect course-specific data toward the end of the term on paper in class or using Moodle to provide information on particular assignments, texts, use of class or lab time and any other aspects of the course about which the instructor would benefit from feedback.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Who In the late spring of 2017 provost Kaivola charged a working group of faculty and staff to: “review the current course evaluation system and propose a revised process that better serves the institution and its members”. A group was formed\u00a0to bring expertise and\u00a0motivation for the\u00a0task from their respective roles.\u00a0 The working group\u00a0consists of Kristen … Continue reading “Course Survey Working Group 2017-2018”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":37,"featured_media":0,"parent":1804,"menu_order":1,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2220","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.augsburg.edu\/ctl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2220","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.augsburg.edu\/ctl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.augsburg.edu\/ctl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.augsburg.edu\/ctl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/37"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.augsburg.edu\/ctl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2220"}],"version-history":[{"count":35,"href":"https:\/\/sites.augsburg.edu\/ctl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2220\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3981,"href":"https:\/\/sites.augsburg.edu\/ctl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2220\/revisions\/3981"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.augsburg.edu\/ctl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1804"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.augsburg.edu\/ctl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}