Best Practices and Common Evaluation Criteria in Distance Education

Read the report
View the PowerPoint presentation
View the questionnaire

Rules of Thumb for CE Student Evaluations

Based on Presentations at UCEA Philadelphia 2001

Presenters

Roland Holstead, University of the District of Columbia
Susan Nesbitt, Saint Joseph’s College of Maine
Ann Millner, Weber State University, Utah

The three institutions were quite different in size, scope, geographic location and mission. The University of the District of Columbia is a 1862 historically black land-grant university in a major metropolitan area. Saint Joseph’s College of Maine is a small liberal arts college with a large distance education program; the College was founded by the Sisters of Mercy and is located in a very rural area. Weber State University is a comprehensive public university with an urban-suburban service area. Though the institutions are quite different there were some notable similarities in defining a few standard practices for their continuing education student evaluations.

Evaluations were noted to be most successful when they were easy to complete, relevant to student interest, and not administered too often. There was agreement that the design of the evaluation instrument is crucial to getting the results one needs to improve programs. As Dr. Millner stated "You get what you measure."

The development of the instrument requires careful and thoughtful planning. Trying to do things quickly often leads to mistakes and inadequate survey instruments. All parties, students completing the evaluation, staff handling the evaluation and faculty facilitating the evaluation should all have an understanding of the goals for the evaluation process and be trained to administer the evaluation properly. The evaluation process should be integrated into the culture of the organization. A tracking process should be in place to make sure the data gathered is accurate and complete. The evaluations should be reviewed by all appropriate parties with an understanding that there will be action taken as needed. There should be a mechanism in place for assuring accountability for any required changes.

There were three major cautions with the process of evaluations. First, things should not be undertaken without careful planning. Acting too quickly causes problems. Second, one should not promise more than one can deliver. If one plans to change based on the evaluations, then one should only commit to that which is possible. Finally, evaluation requires consistency. If there is no accountability with the evaluation process, it will lack effectiveness.

In short one should:

pay attention to evaluation & assessment
plan carefully
understand why evaluation & assessment are important
train for a successful evaluation process
track evaluation process
review evaluation instruments
use completed instruments for program improvement
be accountable for improvements.

Though widely diverging in approaches, the three speakers did agree on the above set of steps as the basis for a successful quality continuing education assessment process.