In January 2017, the campus purchased CoursEval as the recognized tool for online course evaluations on campus. Online course evaluations are not mandated, and departments determine how to implement evaluations. CoursEval was selected by the Academic and Research Services Portfolio committee, which under the CIO, manages a portfolio of applications and services that support faculty and students with our mission for teaching, learning and research. This committee, working with deans, chairs, and faculty, examined a variety of tools for course evaluations and piloted two separate products.
Strategies for improving response rates
- Tell students their opinions are valued and expected.
- Provide time in class for students to complete the online evaluation. Giving time in class reinforces the notion that course evaluations are important. Students bring devices to class and can use them to take the survey.
- Remind students their responses are anonymous.
- Halfway through with less than 75% response rate? Email your students, tell them how important it is for the credibility of the results that every student participate.
- Add Online Course Evaluation block or URL link to AsULearn site.
Common university wide questions
Likert scale questions
- Overall, I consider this individual to be an effective instructor.
- Overall, this course was a valuable learning experience for me.
- The instructor provided timely evaluation of student work.
- The instructor was available to students for help and support.
- The course contributed to my knowledge of/skills in the subject matter.
Open ended questions
- What were your instructor’s strengths?
- How could your instructor improve his/her/their teaching?
In 2013, during our SACSCOC review, the committee recommnded creating a standardized institution-wide process consistent with existing institutional policy for faculty evaluation.
The evaluation forms and other evidence presented did not consistently indicate compliance and enforcement of these policies. The format for faculty evaluations are not standardized in either form or content and do not always relate specific assignments, productivity, teaching evaluations and service activities to the final evaluation. Additionally, information was not always provided for the basis of evaluations. It is especially important for pre-tenure faculty to have an annual evaluation providing a critical assessment of their performance and progress toward earning tenure.
The committee recommends creating a standardized institution-wide process consistent with existing institutional policy for faculty evaluation. This process should apply the standards put forth in the Faculty Handbook, including assigned duties for the evaluation year, evaluation of that assignment (including student and peer review of teaching), and the assigned duties of the following year. Best practices include a second-level of review in the evaluation process. The committee respectfully suggests the inclusion of a review of annual faculty evaluations by the relevant college dean. [CS 3.7. (Faculty evaluation)]
(Report, page 45)
Appalachian State University Faculty Handbook (PDF)
4.3 Evaluation of Faculty
Administrative Memorandum Number 338 regarding “Tenure and Teaching in the University of North Carolina” requires that Appalachian establish “review procedures for the evaluation of faculty performance to ensure (1) that student evaluations and formal methods of peer review are included in teaching evaluation procedures, (2) that student evaluations are conducted at regular intervals (at least one semester each year) and on an ongoing basis, (3) that peer review of faculty includes direct observation of the classroom teaching of new and non-tenured faculty and of graduate assistants, and (4) that appropriate and timely feedback from evaluations of performance is provided to those persons being reviewed.