Three Approaches to Optimizing Course Evaluation Response Rates

As we have discussed in previous posts, a common faculty concern in moving to online course evaluations is response rates. Research indicates that it is not the method itself (paper or online) that affects participation, but the institution’s procedures and faculty and student engagement.

Research conducted by Anderson, Brown and Spaeth (2006) found that when faculty were engaged with the process that online response rates increased from 41% to over 80%. Further, the study revealed that two-thirds of the students who did not complete the evaluations were disengaged or could see no benefit in participating.

In today’s post we will examine three different approaches you can implement to optimize your response rates from coercive or incentive-based to development-based.

1. Coercive or incentive-based:

   As the name of the approach suggests, students are forced or bribed to complete course evaluations. In the coercive method, student grades are delayed or blocked until all course evaluations are finished. With the incentive approach, students are rewarded for completing their course assessments (grade increase, extra credit, prize, etc.). The outcome of the coercive or incentive-based approached is high response rates as students are obligated to participate by an outside authority. However, this approach may only work in the short term as the tactics will have to continue to be intensified to yield the same results in subsequent years.

2. Transparency-based:

   In this approach, students and faculty are encouraged to participate due to the transparent nature of the process. All course evaluation results are revealed during the next registration cycle increasing student engagement (see point five of ‘5 Steps to Maximize the Value of Course Evaluations for Continuous Improvement’). In this method students are motivated as they feel they are making a contribution to fellow students. Faculty on the other hand are forced to participate by social pressures and because they fear public negative exposure. The outcome in the transparency-based method is also high response rates. However, this model forces instructors to participate through pressure and fear, which are not ideal motivators.

3. Development-based:

   To achieve the best results from course evaluations everyone must be engaged in the process: students, faculty and administrators alike. This is where the development-based model (or continuous improvement process) comes into place. In this approach, all stakeholders are engaged and no one is forced or bribed to participate. Students are motivated to participate as they see the benefits of their feedback. Instructors are motivated because the method focuses on the creation of development plans to improve teaching, courses, faculty, schools and the university as a whole. The outcome of the development-based approach is also high response rates as students and instructors are motivated by continuous improvement.