Student Affairs Committee of the Academic Senate
Feasibility Study
March 2011
Term Project activities
Fall 2000 SF State began listing fully online classes in Class Schedule
Fall 2009 Faculty Affairs Committee began investigation of online
delivery methods.
Spring 2010 Project handed to Student Affairs Committee
Progress report presentations made to Academic Senate and
Department Chairs meetings
HR facilitated an informal discussion between CFA and SAC
over the pilot project
Define user requirements, definitions
Summer 2010 Conduct literature review & environmental scan
March 2011
2
The SF State online methods of student
evaluation of teaching effectiveness
feasibility study process:
 Rigorous
 Transparent
 Representative
 Needs-oriented
 Values-based
March 2011
3
Term Project activities
Fall 2010 Refine needs statement, conduct informal Meet &
Confer with CFA, compare potential solutions,
prepare study
Spring 2011 Host vendor demos for possible solution (s)
Select solution(s) for pilot study
Select courses and faculty involved in pilot study
Fall 2011 Conduct pilot study
Winter 2012 Share results, make recommendations
March 2011
4

Study explores the potential of online course
evaluation solutions to address issues
identified by key stakeholders:
◦ Accessibility for faculty and students with
disabilities
◦ Parity for fully online classes
◦ Improved efficiencies
March 2011
5

Literature review
◦
◦
◦
◦

Response rates
Evaluation scores
Student satisfaction
Increased efficiency & cost savings
Environmental scan
◦ 13 of 16 CSU campuses that responded to survey
are using or piloting online course evaluations
◦ Non-CSU campuses (e.g., Yale, Marquette) provided
valuable information
March 2011
6

Research Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.

Comparability to current process
Integrity of the process
Security of the process
Student demographics influence on completion
Research Methods
◦
◦
◦
Analyze data from Student Evals of Teaching
Pre- and Post-evaluation surveys
Focus groups
March 2011
7

Fall 2011 pilot with multiple SF State departments
◦ Sufficient faculty volunteers who are
full professors
◦ Multiple Departments and Colleges involved
◦ Multiple course types
◦ Varying enrollment sizes
◦ Multiple course class levels
◦ Multiple student levels
March 2011
8
Some questions will be answered through the
study, while others can be answered with a
FAQ site.
Example of questions answered by study
 Do response rates differ based on delivery
method (paper or online)?
Example of questions answered by FAQ
 What can we learn about online course
evaluations from other campuses?
March 2011
9










Student Affairs Committee of 2009/10 and
2010/2011
Faculty Affairs Committee of 2009/10
Academic Technology
Faculty Affairs
Human Resources
California Faculty Association
California State University Employees Union
Executive Technology Board
Educational Technology Advisory Committee
Campus Technology Committee
March 2011
10



Thank you!!!
Questions and Discussion
For more information, email Bridget
McCracken, Chair of SAC at birdem@sfsu.edu
March 2011
11