2. 2

3. The Office of Quality, Teaching, and Learning is a service unit for academics and
students. We are made up of three services – Quality Assurance (QA), Teaching
and Learning Services (TLS), and Student Learning Support (SLS).
Services we provide:
• Teaching approaches, strategies and ideas
• Professional development as a teaching academic
• Student learning support
• Assessment, assignments, and marking
• Applying for Teaching and Learning Awards and Grants
• Student evaluation of teaching (TEVAL) processes and applying student
feedback
3

4. Bond University received the most five-star ratings out of any university in Australia in the independent 2012 Good
Universities Guide
Bond had an average student enrolment of 4,480 students in 2011, 1,449 of which were international students
representing 85 nationalities.
There are four Faculties and one Institute:
• Faculty of Business: School of Business; School of Information Technology; School of Hotel, Resort & Tourism
Management
• Faculty of Health Sciences & Medicine
• Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences
• Faculty of Law
• Institute of Sustainable Development & Architecture
4

5. • Traditionally decentralised paper-based system
• New electronic format inspired by former executive BUSA members
• Mandatory evaluations voted in by University Teaching and Learning Committee and
Academic Senate
• Pilot project Semester 3, 2009 - Success
5

6. Table 2: Published response rates
Source Response Rate (%) Response Rate (%)
Paper-Based SETs Online SETs
Baruch (1999) - 40
Ballantyne (2005) 55 47
Brigham Young* 71 50
Cook et al. (2000) 56 -
Cornell University* 78 50
Dommeyer et al. (2004) 75 43
Griffith University (2005) 57 20
Krieg and Hartsoch (2010) 74.2 56.8
Nair et al. (2005) 56 31
Ogier (2005) 65 30
Sweep (2006) 56 23
University of North Carolina* 92 59
Watt et al. (2002) 33 33
Average 64.7 40.7
Table adapted from Nulty, D. (2008). ‘The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done?’ Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 303.
*Results cited in Hartshorne, R., Lambert, R., Algozzine, B., McAlpin, V., Algozzine, M., Norris, L. & Pyke, J.G. (2011). A comparison of web-based and paper-based course evaluations at
UNC Charlotte: A report prepared by The Center for Educational Measurement and Evaluation and The Center for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from University of North Carolina
Charlotte website: http://studentcourseevals.uncc.edu/sites/all/files/Website%20Report%20-%20Course%20Evaluation%20Study.pdf
6

7. 1. Blackboard building block – single sign-on with LMS and access to
Blackboard groups/class data
2. Highest security rating
3. Extensive troubleshooting & customer support
http://www.evaluationkit.com
7

8. • Mandatory evaluations - LMS pop-up module to encourage
participation
• Skip/Opt-out option
• Groups tool – maintains accuracy of class allocations
• Administrator level automated report builder
• Content Analysis Software integration
8

9. • eTEVALs administered at the end of each semester
• Timeframe: Week 10 - 14
• Two separate evaluations: Subject and Educator evaluations (5 point Likert)
• Subject Evaluation: 5 questions, 1 open-text comment box; Educator Evaluation: 10
questions, 2 open-text comment boxes
• Instructor/Administrator reports available after student results are released
9

10. • Access via email
10

11. • Access via iLearn (LMS)
11

12. • eTEVAL Dashboard
12

13. • Skip/Opt out option
13

14. Imposed Week 12 sanction increased response rate
Table 1: Week 12 Response Rate Results - (30/03/2012)
Response Rates (%)
Level Subject evaluation Educator evaluation
Overall
Bond Educator Evaluation 50.66% (+12.91%)
- Bond Subject Evaluation 55.72% (+13.06%)
Faculty of Business
Business 58.98% (+13.82%) 55.54% (+14.03%)
IT 55.95% (+10.41%) 51.38% (+11.32%)
HRTM 56.69% (+14.01%) 51.59% (+13.37%)
Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture
School of Sustainable Development 55.30% (+17.25%) 49.77% (+18.94%)
School of Architecture 46.10% (+10.39%) 43.51% (+8.45%)
Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences 53.27% (+11.98%) 46.13% (+11.72%)
Faculty of Health Sciences & Medicine
School of Health Sciences 58.13% (+7.72%) 54.31% (+10.96%)
School of Medicine 60.49% (+3.70%) 53.81% (+3.01%)
Faculty of Law 54.27% (+15.74%) 50.80% (+16.96%)
Bond College/BUELI 71.38% (+21.69%) 69.47% (+28.84%)
Opt-Out Option Responses
Opt-Out 400 (+312) 970 (+630)
14

15. Response rates of nearly 90% on the Likert scale items of online student evaluation of teaching
in the first semester of whole-of-university implementation.
Table 2: Final Response Rate Results - (23/04/2012)
Response Rates (%)
Level Subject evaluation Educator evaluation
Overall
Bond Educator Evaluation 86.04% (+0.03%)
- Bond Subject Evaluation 89.22% (+0.23%)
Faculty of Business
Business 91.54% (+0.08%) 90.48% (+0.10%)
IT 86.61% (+0.45%) 83.03% (+0.16%)
HRTM 88.54% (+0.00%) 87.90% (+0.00%)
Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture
School of Sustainable Development 90.52% (+0.14%) 89.72% (+0.69%)
School of Architecture 82.47% (+0.65%) 82.47% (+0.00%)
Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences 87.63% (+0.31%) 85.19% (+0.60%)
Faculty of Health Sciences & Medicine
School of Health Sciences 88.95% (+0.00%) 88.24% (+0.00%)
School of Medicine 72.84% (+1.85%) 61.52% (+0.47%)
Faculty of Law 90.94% (+0.24%) 89.51% (+0.37%)
Bond College/BUELI 88.05% (+0.94%) 86.95% (+0.84%)
Opt-Out Option Responses
Opt-Out 1097 (+6) 2514 (+13)
15

16. Trend of responses during the evaluation period
Notable spike at Week 12 – Imposed sanction
for non-respondents
16

17. Continued success – Semester 2, 2012
Subject Evaluation Educator
Evaluation
Actual Response Rate 82.57% (+2%) 82.84% (+8%)
Opt Out Response Rate 1,478 (+13%) 2,516 (+13%)
Aggregated Response Rate 96.31% (+7%) 96.16% (+10%)
• Increased awareness and support from students and faculty
• Contributing to a culture of evaluation
17

18. http://www.bond.edu.au/etevals
18

19. • Closing the loop on student feedback
• Inspired by former executive members of BUSA
• TEQSA - Provider Standards:
- Standard 5.6
- Standard 4.2
• Bond University initiative
19

20. Quality
Assurance and eSETs close
approved for
publication (Semester
a)
(Week 2
Semester c)
Faculty Associate Dean Teaching & Quantitative and
Learning review and approve Qualitative data analysed
Administrator
review and Administrator eSET
action SER report access
items (if
applicable) (Semester b)
Subject Coordinator selects the  Subject Coordinators may decide that the comments
cannot be actioned (“didn’t like this subject”);
“No action Taken”
 there may be no negative comments to action;
Button and "Submit" button and
 Positive comments cannot be actioned (“loved this
SER remains unchanged
20 subject”)

21. 21

22. 22

23. Administration Communication
eTEVALs
Collaboration Publication
23

24. Knight, D., Naidu, V. & Kinash, S. (2012, Oct).
Achieving high student evaluation of teaching
response rates through a culture of academic-
student collaboration. Paper to be presented at
the Australasian Higher Education Evaluation
Forum 2012, Rockhampton, Queensland,
Australia.
Kinash, S., Knight, D. & Hives, L. (2011). Student
perspective on electronic evaluation of teaching.
Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and
Development, 8(1), 86-97.
Kinash, S., Naidu, V. & Wood, K.
http://works.bepress.com/shelley_kinash
(2012). Electronic teaching
evaluation: Student perceptions and
teacher responses. Education
Technology Solutions, 48, 60-62.
24

25. 25