Center for Teaching and Learning - Response Rates and Processes
Nearly all processes for online evaluation of courses struggle with student response rates. Below are response rates for the terms that the system has been running.2004-2005 Pilot of new form items online
2004 Fall results
2 weeks prior to the last day of classes (before finals) the evaluations opened. Students were notified by email of the evaluations with a URL to the evaluation form. A reminder email of a similar format was sent 1 week later to students who had not completed evaluations. The response trends followed the sending of the email notifications as seen in this handout.
835 out of 1461 (or 57%) evaluations were submitted in the 89 participating course sections.
2005 Spring results
The same process was followed as above.
1121 out of 1800 (or 62%) evaluations were submitted in the 102 participating course sections.
2005-2009 Pilot of faculty-approved form across campus
2005 Fall results
3 weeks prior to the last day of classes (before finals) the evaluations opened. Students were notified by email of the evaluations with a URL to the evaluation website. A reminder email of a similar format was sent 1 week and then 2 weeks later to students who had not completed evaluations. The evaluations were advertised on the campus web portal for the last 3-4 days of the window. The response trends followed the sending of the email notifications as seen on this page. Instructors were notified as well when an evaluation was opened to their course. They also received an email when results were available for viewing online after the date for grade submittal had passed.
5856 out of 11144 (or 53%) evaluations were submitted in the 673 course sections. In particular the day program courses returned 4346 out of 8109 (or 54%) and the weekend/graduate program courses returned 1510 out of 3035 (or 50%).
2005 Winter results
2.5 weeks prior to the last day of classes the evaluations opened. Students were notified by email of the evaluations with a URL to the evaluation website. A reminder email of a similar format was sent 1 week and then 2 weeks later to students who had not completed evaluations. The evaluations were advertised in the course management system. Instructors were notified in the method as above.
Some winter trimester courses run for half of the trimester and some courses are shorter and have staggered start and stop dates during the trimester. These courses tend to be in graduate programs or in the health and physical education department. For these courses the evaluations opened for 1 week near the last class session and 2 email reminders were sent during that week.
1521 out of 2837 (or 54%) evaluations were submitted in the 204 course sections.
2006 Spring Semester results
2 weeks prior to the last day of classes the evaluations opened. Students were notified by email of the evaluations with a URL to the evaluation website. A reminder email of a similar format was sent 1 week and then 5 days later to students who had not completed evaluations. The evaluations were advertised on the campus web portal for the last 3-4 days of the window as well as continuously on the course management system. Instructors were notified in the method as above.
Some spring semester courses run for half of the semester and some courses are shorter and have staggered start and stop dates during the semester. These courses tend to be in graduate programs or in the health and physical education department. For these courses the evaluations opened for 1 week near the last class session and 2 email reminders were sent during that week.
3040 out of 6785 (or 45%) evaluations were submitted in the 395 course sections.
2006 Spring Trimester results
1531 out of 2771 (or 55%) evaluations were submitted in the 188 course sections.
2006 Summer Session results
486 out of 1144 (or 42%) evaluations were submitted in the 89 course sections.
2006 Fall results
2 weeks prior to the last day of classes the evaluations opened. This time they ran through finals week for a total of 3 weeks of access time. The calendar page has more details. Students were notified by email of the evaluations with a URL to the evaluation website. The emails were reworded this time to be short and to the point. The evaluations were advertised on the campus digital signs in the Christensen Center as well as with posters designed by students in a summer design course. The 3 posters designs were [1], [2], and [3]. Instructors were notified as well when an evaluation was opened to their course. They also received an email when results were available for viewing online after the date for grade submittal had passed.
In the day program courses returned 3915 out of 7920 (or 49%) and the weekend/graduate program courses returned 1952 out of 3432 (or 57%). These numbers include short courses that end before the end of the term.
2007 Winter results
2.5 weeks prior to the last day of classes the evaluations opened. Students were notified by email of the evaluations with a URL to the evaluation website. A reminder email of a similar format was sent 1 week and then 2 weeks later to students who had not completed evaluations. The evaluations were advertised in the course management system. Instructors were notified in the method as above.
Some winter trimester courses run for half of the trimester and some courses are shorter and have staggered start and stop dates during the trimester. These courses tend to be in graduate programs or in the health and physical education department. For these courses the evaluations opened for 10 days near the last class session and 2 email reminders were sent during that week.
1635 out of 2972 (or 55%) evaluations were submitted in the 228 course sections.
2007 Spring Semester results
2 weeks prior to the last day of classes the evaluations opened. They ran 3 weeks total through finals week. Students were notified by email of the evaluations with a URL to the evaluation website. A reminder email of a similar format was sent 1 week and then 2 weeks later to students who had not completed evaluations. The evaluations were advertised in the course management system. Instructors were notified in the method as above.
3044 out of 7947 (or 38%) evaluations were submitted in the 437 course sections.
2007 Spring Trimester results
1440 out of 2616 (or 55%) evaluations were submitted in 185 course sections.
2007 Summer Session results
715 out of 1416 (or 50%) evaluations were submitted in the 111 course sections.
2007 Fall results
2 weeks prior to the last day of classes the evaluations opened. They ran through finals week for a total of 3 weeks of access time. The calendar page has more details. Students were notified by email of the evaluations with a URL to the evaluation website. Instructors were notified as well when an evaluation was opened to their course. They also received an email when results were available for viewing online after the date for grade submittal had passed.
In the day program courses returned 3966 out of 8322 (or 48%) in 472 course sections and the weekend/graduate program courses returned 1771 out of 3255 (or 54%) in 237 course sections. These numbers include short courses that ended before the end of the term.
2008 Winter Trimester results
1675 out of 3166 (or 53%) evaluations were submitted in the 244 course sections.
2008 Spring Semester results
3013 out of 7350 (or 41%) evaluations were submitted in the 431 course sections.
2008 Spring Trimester results
1109 out of 2248 (or 49%) evaluations were submitted in 148 course sections.
2008 Summer Session results
A new informational email was tested to faculty that gave them their current response rate in their courses. For example, it would show for Math 101 that 5 out of 11 students had responded. This message was sent out a few days before the evalutions closed
1084 out of 2152 (or 50%) evaluations were submitted in the 180 course sections.
2008 Fall results
About 2 weeks prior to the last day of classes the evaluations opened. They ran through finals week for a total of 3 weeks of access time. The calendar page has more details. Students were notified by email of the evaluations with a URL to the evaluation website. Instructors were notified as well when an evaluation was opened to their course. They also received an email when results were available for viewing online after the date for grade submittal had passed.
Day, weekend and graduate courses were combined in the evaluation runs. So results are lumped together in one total. In 669 classes 5232 evaluations were submitted out of 11022 (or 47%). These numbers include short courses that ended before the end of the term.
2009 Winter Trimester results
1498 out of 2934 (or 51%) evaluations were submitted in the 218 course sections.
2009 Spring Semester results
3348 out of 7895 (or 42%) evaluations were submitted in the 464 course sections.
2009 Spring Trimester results
1494 out of 2888 (or 52%) evaluations were submitted in 206 course sections.
2009 Summer Session results
2009 Fall results
About 2 weeks prior to the last day of classes the evaluations opened. They ran through finals week for a total of 3 weeks of access time. Students were notified by email of the evaluations with a URL to the evaluation website. Instructors were notified as well when an evaluation was opened to their course. They also received an email when results were available for viewing online after the date for grade submittal had passed.
Day, weekend and graduate courses were combined in the evaluation runs. So results are lumped together in one total. In 745 classes 6501 evaluations were submitted out of 12,589 (or 45%). These numbers include short courses that ended before the end of the term.
2010 Winter Trimester results
1798 out of 3599 (or 50%) evaluations were submitted in the 264 course sections.
2010 Spring Semester results
3053 out of 7866 (or 39%) evaluations were submitted in the 461 course sections.
2010 Spring Trimester results
1424 out of 2915 (or 49%) evaluations were submitted in 210 course sections.
2010 Summer Session results
