Best practices for administering SEIs via SmartEvals software
Summary
As with traditional paper SEIs, instructors are advised to designate a time for in-class
completion of evaluations during the final two weeks of the regular semester.
Encourage students to bring a smart device or computer to class in order to complete
the digital evaluations during the designated evaluation time.
Early in the semester, and again at evaluation time, explain to students the importance
of their participation by clearly highlighting the connection between student evaluations,
instructor retention, promotion, and recognition, and improvements in pedagogy.
If in-class administration of digital SEIs is impossible or undesirable, follow empirically
supported best practices (listed below) for increasing out-of-class student response
rates.
Details
Relative to administering paper SEIs during class time, administration of online SEIs
outside of class has traditionally resulted in decreased student participation. UWL’s
new digital SEI administration software, SmartEvals, retains the advantages of
electronic data collection, while predominantly restoring the in-class experience of SEI
administration. UWL’s IT personnel informally estimate that nearly every student on
campus owns a personal smart device or laptop computer. Because SmartEvals is
optimized for access via mobile devices or computers, students will be able to complete
evaluations during a designated portion of a class period, as has been traditionally done
with paper evaluations.
Consistent with the practices in UWL departments currently utilizing online SEIs,
students will continue to receive an email requesting they complete digital SEIs,
however instructors are encouraged to designate a portion of one class in the 12th or
13th week of the regular semester for in-class SEI completion.
Recommendations for administering SEIs via SmartEvals are consistent with the
guidelines for administering paper SEIs, approved by UWL faculty senate, 10/25/07,
with modified language pertaining to digital administration:
Guidelines for Administering SmartEvals SEIs in the Classroom
•
•
Students should be notified in advance that SEIs will be administered on a specific
date, and instructed to bring available mobile technology in order to participate
during the designated class time.
The instructor and any teaching assistants shall not participate in the administration
of student evaluations of instruction. Neither shall be present in the room when the
evaluations are completed. Departments shall create policies to ensure that other
•
•
•
individuals are available to coordinate SEI completion (Cashin, 1999, Marsh &
Roche, 1997).
Results will be reported to instructors only after final grades have been submitted
(Cashin, 1999).
All responses to the SEIs will be anonymous. SmartEvals will not associate specific
responses with students’ identities.
It is recommended that evaluations not be administered in courses with fewer than
five students, as it is difficult to protect student anonymity with fewer students.
The following instructions will be given to students (either in writing or read aloud):
“This course evaluation is an important means for you to express your view of your
classroom experience. Although we assess the quality of instruction in many ways, we
place great value on student input because of the unique perspective you have on what
occurs in the classroom throughout the semester. Thus you are important partners in
the process of making the course more effective, the instructor more attuned to his or
her strengths and weaknesses, and the university a better place to learn. As such we
ask you to treat the process professionally, seriously, sensitively, and collegially.
Carefully consider the questions and answer truthfully. Your responses are one
important factor in decisions affecting the career of your instructor. Instructors will not
have access to course evaluations until after grades have been posted. Student
responses via the SmartEvals system are completely confidential.”
These general guidelines also should be followed:
•
•
•
Departments and instructors can provide additional instructions for any items added
for teaching improvement or program evaluation.
Evaluations shall not be administered during the final exam period. It is
recommended that evaluations be administered during weeks 12 to 13 (Cashin,
1999).
The timing of evaluations should not coincide with special classroom events.
Administration of SmartEvals SEIs Outside of the Classroom
If an instructor does not wish to administer SmartEvals SEIs during class time, the
following empirically based suggestions can improve student response rates:
•
Emphasize the importance of student participation by explaining to students how SEI
data are used for both career progression purposes, as well as improvement of
instruction. Evidence suggests that showing students a specific example of how SEI
data have led to course improvements can increase student participation (Chen &
Hoshower, 2003; Svinicki, 2001).
•
Remind students early, and as often as possible, that SEI responses are valuable
tools for improving the quality of instruction at UWL (Norris & Conn, 2005).
•
Email non-responders, as students may miss or ignore the initial email solicitation
delivered by the SEI system (Johnson, 2002).
•
Provide a brief visual tutorial in class of how to complete the SmartEvals SEIs, which
will reduce barriers to student completion outside of class (Dommeyer et al., 2004).
•
If an instructor’s departmental policies allow, consider providing a very small grade
incentive (as low as ¼ of 1%) for completing online SEIs. Such incentives have
been found to elevate response rates to a level indistinguishable from those
obtained when administering paper SEIs during class time (Dommeyer et al., 2004).
•
If an instructor’s departmental policies allow, consider factoring SEI completion into
a “professional” or “participation” grade listed in the syllabus (Crews & Curtis, 2011).
References
Cashin, W.E. (1999). Student ratings of teaching: Uses and misuses. In P. Seldin
(ed.), Current Practices in Evaluating Teaching: A Practical Guide to Improved Faculty
Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Chen, Y. & Hoshower, L.B. (2003). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: An
assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 28(1): 71-88.
Crews, T. B., & Curtis, D. F. (2011). Online course evaluations: Faculty perspective and
strategies for improved response rates. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education,
36(7), 865-878.
Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Hanna, R. W., & Chapman, K. (2004). Gathering faculty
teaching evaluations by in-class and online surveys: Their effects on response rates
and evaluations. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5): 611-623.
Johnson, T. (2002). Online student ratings: Will students respond? Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
2002.
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students' evaluations of teaching
effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American
Psychologist, 52(11), 1187-1197.
Norris, J., & Conn, C. (2005). Investigating strategies for increasing student response
rates to online-delivered course evaluations. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
6:13-29.
Svinicki, M. (2001). Encouraging your students to give feedback. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 87, 17-24.