I will need 9 full pages, if you won’t do it DO NOT TAKE the assignment.

The file (Diversity in the Workplace and Strategic Planning) is the subject and the information of what you are going to write about. Please follow in the file name (603 paper instructions) and follow the rubric this paper has a lot of points, the paper will be evaluated based on the attached rubric. I also uploaded a previous file to avoid mistakes (EmadMSA 601 paper). 

This paper needs 7th edition APA Format, I uploaded an example

Diversity in the Workplace and Strategic Planning

Diversity is connected to transformational leadership, SWOT analysis, business plan development, and market assessment, develop divers marketing strategy to make sure that include divers’ group of people bae on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs. etc. Diverse work environments require the careful assessment of employees to determine whether it would be possible to achieve business objectives. Transformational leadership is applicable here and is connected to paper 2 since the style inspires a workforce to perform beyond expectations. The employees get thoroughly trained and assessed to ensure they share in the company’s vision. During such processes, it is possible for the diverse workforce to put aside of factors limiting their effectiveness so that it is possible for them to perform required tasks. Diversity is connected to SWOT analysis since the technique studies all internal and external aspects of a business. It is possible to determine whether a company has strengths that can get promoted. Weakness and threats in the diverse environment would be solved before any negative outcomes.

The minimum length is eight (8) pages with a maximum of ten (10) pages.

If you look at the examples that we gave you in the document “MSA 698 Research Data Support,” you will find that the only thing that is constant for each paper would be “John Doe Administration.” For example, here are the titles that one could generate for each paper in the John Doe Administration:

 Strategic Planning and John Doe Administration

Besides, according to some scholars, good titles in academic research papers have several characteristics:

• The title accurately addresses the subject and scope of the study.

• The title should not have any abbreviations.

• Make sure that one uses only words that create a positive impression and stimulate reader interest.

• Always use a current nomenclature from the field of study/concentration.

• Make a concerted effort to identify critical variables, both dependent and independent.

• In many cases, you might want to reveal how the paper will be organized.

• There are times that you might suggest a relationship between variables which supports the primary hypothesis.

• It is limited to 10 to 15 substantive words – shorter is much better.

• Make sure it does not include the study of, analysis of, or similar constructions.

• Many titles are usually in the form of a phrase. However, it can also be in the form of a question.

• Always use correct grammar and capitalization with all first words and last words capitalized, including the first word of a subtitle. All nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs that appear between the first and last words of the title are also capitalized.

• In academic papers, rarely is a title followed by an exclamation mark. However, a title or subtitle can be in the form of a question.

Again, looking at the above, we could have a generic title that could cut across all papers as “An Effective John Doe Administration.” As one might see, this is a short, simple, and to the point title. Another example could be “John Doe: An Effective John Doe Administration.” Nevertheless, if one did not start with a generic title, one would create a title for each assignment, as seen with the four paper illustrations above. In the end, a generic title is best because we can cover any body of knowledge of research. Therefore a generic title is best, and you will not have to generate a title for each paper. At that point, you will need only to cover the “same issue, or organization, or problem” for each essay/paper.

The papers must include the following:

• Title Page. The title should be descriptive and suggest the paper’s purpose

• Table of Contents

• Contain an introduction, body of the paper, and conclusion.

• Appendices (if applicable):

• Reference List (every citation in the Text must be correctly listed in the Reference List) There must be 6 to 10 scholarly references per paper.

If you have more than one Table, a List of Tables Page follows the Table of Contents

If you have more than one Figure, a List of Figures Page follows the Table of Contents or the List of Tables Page (if there is a List of Tables Page).

Students must follow the most recent edition of the APA Publication Manual when submitting the papers required for this course.

Format:

a. Blank Page

b. Executive Summary

c. Title Page

d. Table of Contents

e. List of Tables (optional)

f. List of Figures (optional)

g. The Text

h. References

Example Generic Titles that cut across all Papers for a John Doe Administration:

• An Effective John Doe Administration

• John Doe: An Effective John Doe Administration

Once again, if one used a generic title like the above example, there would be no need to change each paper title.

Master of Science in

A

dministration Project Paper

Partial Fulfillment for MSA 698

Rubric for MSA 603 Paper

Student Name:
Student I.D. Number:
C oncentration:
Project Title:
Program Center:
E PN:
Semester/Year for MSA 698:
	Instructor’s Name:

Instructions

Course instructors are required to use this rubric for the individual papers, MSA 60

1

, 602, 603, and 604.

Compute the total points and insert the grade based on the grading scale at the bottom of this form.

Score:

Score:

Score:

Score:

Dimension and Percentage Weight	MSA Instructor (Score & Feedback)
Assessment (10 points)					Score:
Relationship to Concentration and Administration This paper reflects an administrative approach to examining an issue directly related to the student’s concentration. Specify the student’s concentration in the feedback box.
Core Course Objectives (20 points)
Does the paper reflect current strategic planning theory and protocols?
Does the paper apply analytical models and decision-making methods to evaluate and solve administrative problems and enhance organizational performance?
Does the paper demonstrate an ability to incorporate into practice exemplary ethical principles leading to sound personal decisions and socially responsible organizational values and practices?
Does the paper demonstrate a solid understanding of the objectives of MSA 603?
Paper Introduction, B ody of the Paper and Conclusion (45 points)
Does the introduction adequately support the contents of the paper?
Is there a natural progression from the introduction through to the conclusion of the paper?
Does the paper explain how this core course fits in with the other core courses?
Does the paper use strategic planning in the proper context?
Does the conclusion fully summarize the contents of the paper?
References (10 points)
Are the references in compliance with the latest APA style manual?
Are references scholarly and sufficient in number to support the paper. There should be no less than 6 scholarly references.
Are sources in the text properly listed on the reference pages, and vice-versa?
Writing Format (15 points)
Executive summary is not over one page.
Demonstrates proper English usage, spelling, and context
Proofread for spelling, typing, and grammatical errors.
References in text and on reference page follow current APA style, Proper citation
All elements conform to the latest edition of the APA Style Manual
Writing reflects graduate work.
Total Points (Possible 100 Points)	Total Score: Grade:

Grading Scale:

94-100%	A
90-93%	A-
87-89%	B+
84-86%	B
80-83%	B-
77-79%	C+
74-76%	C
<74%	E

Instructor’s Name:

Title:

Date:

1

– Rubric for MSA 603 Paper –(revised January 2018)

Running Head: ENSURING DIVERSITY IN THE WORKFORCE

1

ENSURING DIVERSITY IN THE WORKFORCE 2

Always save your paper with your name and title!

Ensuring Diversity in the Workforce

John Doe

Central Michigan University

Master of Science in Administration

MSA 698: Directed Administrative Portfolio

Dr. Larry F. Ross

February 28, 2021

Ensuring Diversity in the Workforce

Introduction

Diversity in the place of work is a very important aspect of any organization. This is one of the most popular business environment subjects, primarily because of the changing demographics. Diversity in the workplace and organizational behavior has a significant impact on employment trends and business and public organizations. This has mostly been due to the increased globalization.

Globalization is a multifaceted and versatile phenomenon. It involves intercontinental integration as a product of the exchange where there is a universal exchange of nationwide and cultural resources in this process. Therefore, it is essential to acknowledge, understand, accept, value, and celebrate differences among people concerning their class, ethnicity, gender, race, sexual orientation, spirituality, and other differences. Diversity and inclusion at the workplace yield dividends in many respects, while a lack of diversity and inclusion acts as a tax on work teams’ engagement and performance (Fujimoto, & Härtel, 2017). This paper will look at how individual behaviors, leadership, and communication affect workplace diversity and organizational behaviors.

Fostering open-mindedness in an organization

One of the best ways to foster open-mindedness in an organization is to promote inclusiveness and diversity within an organization. This is done by ensuring that the workforce comprises people from various backgrounds, ethnicities, races, ages, gender and ensuring that everybody is on board. This creates high-quality business intellect and helps the organization better recognize clients, workers, and consumers globally, and make it an enriching environment for everybody.

APA problem corrected! According to Fujimoto and Härtel, “America was built upon an assortment of races and various ethnic backgrounds. The population has continued growing, and the immigrants continue to increase every day” (p. 1121). Many subcultures have been formed, which illustrates the significance of ensuring that this diversity is also reflected in our places of work. Organizations have realized that there are many benefits to managing the company’s workforce diversity. The significant benefits that are realized by the proper management of diversity are organizational performance and better people management.

Individual Behaviors of Employees

The behavior of an individual is how a person behaves. The behaviors of an individual are a very important aspect to consider when setting the accomplishment of something. For instance, in a company, the owner’s behavior and the leadership sets the goals for employees to attain the goals. Behavior is the range of actions ad mannerism that is made by systems in conjunction with the environment. Individual behavior is influenced by the person’s attitudes, culture, emotions, values, persuasion, and coercion, among many other aspects.

“In an organizational setting, national culture is not the only important culture that will have an influence in the managerial and individual work behavior” (Shore et al., 2018, p. 6). APA problem corrected! The Behavior of an individual is influenced by various cultural levels. These levels will range from supranational, national and professional. Therefore, an organization should be able to integrate all these by clearly knowing that an individual’s workplace behavior is a function of all diverse cultures altogether.

Individual behavior is a very multifaceted aspect since each person is different from the other. Therefore, it is a challenge for an active organization matching the tasks among the individuals depending on their behavior. However, leaders’ responsibility is to use the resources that are in the company to accomplish the task that they are provided under the differences in individual behaviors and use these differences in helping increase the organizational performance. The organizational leaders are supposed to understand the culture of the worker, background area, and ethnicity of an individual so that they can be able to know the individual behavior and how these workers can be able to accomplish specific tasks in the organization to help the organization gain a competitive edge. You have many assertions above with no academic back-up.

The Significance of Diversity in the Workplace

“Diversity should not be managed, but rather it should be valued and embraced and look at ways that this can be the best use for the advantage of the organization to increase its competitiveness in the market” (Shore et al., 2018, p. 8). When leaders have behaviors that do not align with an organization’s culture, most employees are de-motivated since the leaders seem to neglect the employees. A leader can be able to change the employees from bad to good, and vice versa is also true. This happens because the attitudes that the leaders show towards their employees basing the employee’s cultural background, ethnics, or minority have a big impact.

In the business environment today, demographics, talent competition, demands in the market, and the changing environment all call for a diverse workforce. The workforce is required to comprise of men and women, different ethnicities, young and old, and physically challenged workers. EEOC is tasked with the responsibility of enforcing federal laws that prohibit workplace discrimination. The commission is also tasked with overseeing and coordinating all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, policies, and regulations. Therefore, they have a responsibility to enforce laws prohibiting discrimination, providing for equal pay. How do you know what EEOC is tasked without scholarly/academic back-up? In other words, you need academic support for your assertions above.

Leadership

The effect of diversity on performance in workgroups can have both positive and negative effects. Therefore, many businesses are moving away from the age of industrial management to an era of humanity. Organizational leaders often seek to hire and retain innovative employees as a competitive advantage source (Haneda & Ito, 2018). This, thus, means that there is a need to change the leadership competencies.

The Significance of Leadership Behaviors in Organization Culture

Some leadership behaviors help in improving and sustaining performance at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Regardless of an organization’s size, there is a dire need for leadership to maneuver through the complexities and give guidance through the ever-increasing challenges that face many institutions as they go on with their day-to-day operations.

The most crucial aim of a business is to sustain a competitive advantage, which is effective between the various stakeholders’ demands and the employees’ needs. An appropriate leadership style can influence the success and economic growth of both the organization and the workers. When a leader builds a culture of appreciation and acknowledgement on the team, the team will accept it up, and they will start recognizing one another on their own. This helps in creating a sense of community and cohesion in the organizations, which motivates every person both at the individual or group level to perform at their level best.

Leadership Styles

Various leadership styles are used, all of which aim to get the best out of the employees and ensure that they remain competitive (Learmonth & Morrell, 2017). One of the most used leadership styles that help in getting the best out of a diverse group of employees is the transformational type of leadership.

“Transformational leadership,” on the other hand, is proactively aimed at changing the culture of the organization culture by implementing new ideas for the workers to achieve their objectives. This leadership style motivates employees to meet their targets. This leadership style focuses on people where they inspire them, allowing them to focus on the good of the company. This they do without the use of power or authority but rather through followers being inspired by their leaders through their passion and deep thinking. Assertions?

Transformational leadership is focused on maintaining the day-to-day running of the business. Transformational leaders typically use incentives to motivate the workers to work to their best. This essentially means that workers are rewarded for exchanging rewards for the excellent work they deliver. The leaders’ focus in this leadership style of leadership is ensuring that there is a smooth flow of operation today without the worry of what happens days to come in the market. Assertions with no scholarly back-up!

The leader in this leadership style goes past the daily operation management, where the managers come up with strategies to ensure the company’s positive performance and the team. This type of management ensures a company builds a workers’ change accomplishment aimed at the company’s betterment. When working as a team, the team members will always love this type of leader as these leaders primarily focus on the growth and well-being of the people he is leading and the community they belong to. This means that the leaders give their team members an ear since they take them as partners and not subjects.

Since their leaders give the employees a listening ear, it allows them to air the views and their ideas regarding the organization. This in return increases cohesion and collaboration amongst the workers. This leads to creating a company culture where people feel that they are also essential, and they are valued. The result is that people are free to share their ideas and everything else that they feel needs to be addressed. This leads to a steady flow of innovative ideas and gradually leads to efficiency and success.

These kinds of leaders transform the employees from lower rungs and put them at the top through equipping them with the necessary skills and knowledge. The leaders therefore look at the need of the employees grow them, and their well-being. These leaders can take a humble approach and turn the business model upside down as opposed to them being served by those traditionally considered to be beneath them in the chain of authority.

Communication

It is very critical for any organization to have a structure of communication that can be relied on. The last thing that an organization can wish for is a Communication failure. However, it is devastating that many businesses have not managed to put in place accurate communication makeup and end up failing horribly. Emad, you need academic support in this paper because of the many assertions! We discuss this in both of the lectures.

Effects of Poor Communication

Poor communication’s cost is not known. However, it is anticipated that poor communication leads to the loss of billions of money. Therefore, it is crucial to have in place suitable communication structures that accommodate every employee in the organization. This can be created by ensuring that there is a good environment that allows every employee, regardless of their background, to contribute to the organization’s goals and objectives.

Effective Communication

With an effective communication climate, workers want to spend more time together and discuss many things about its success. No one will like it when a person they are talking with does not care about the discussion (Anwar, 2018). This is a similar case in interpersonal communication.

Interpersonal communication happens in the place of work for a variety of reasons. For instance, when a leader is communicating the company’s goals and the company’s objectives, it is required that the leader effectively does this, and the goals and objectives are defined explicitly. Therefore, communication climate should be fashioned based on the people’s feelings towards each other during communication. If the actions taken due to the communication match the intended purpose, then that kind of communication is effective as the other people accurately received the message.

According to communication accommodation theory, people must emphasize and minimize the social difference between their interactions (Bovée & Thill, 2014). In enhancing and maintaining the existing climate, it requires that there is openness in the communication responding frankly and spontaneously to people and situations. Empathy is very important in ensuring that there is a good and effective climate that accommodates everybody. This is critical as it makes communication successful since every party can fit in the other person’s shoes.

With empathy, a person will be able to understand the thoughts of the other person. This shows that there is value for the other party. It also calls for confidence between the parties involved. If one of the parties is not comfortable with the other person, and the communication environment might not be the best. The sense of contact referred to as immediacy is also very crucial. Complaining and aggressiveness, on the other hand, can disrupt a good communication climate.

Every leader must think of ways that we can use to be able to adjust our communication so that they feel that they are well involved in the communication process. Honest communication is essential to responsible thinking in making decisions, as well as relationships develop. When one, for example, is dishonest in the workplace, the results will be complex in the workplace, ruin the business’s reputation, cause deception of trust and destroy the business. In the places of work, seniors sometimes make decisions without digging deep into the facts. They may blame junior employees simply because they did not consult something, and they thought they have the final say.

This communication breakdown can bring about mistrust between the workers and the administration, which will, in turn, lead to the reduced performance of the business because of the communication barrier between the two parties. There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to ensuring that diversity is maintained in an organization. This is primarily because some workers have out-of-the-ordinary needs compared to those who have distinctive gifts.

It is vital to have in place policies that cultivate inclusion. This means that the company’s policies will help it acquire, develop, and attempt to retain women in their positions where the company aims to have a certain number of women and minority groups in its workforce by a particular year and how this will be achieved. This will help improve and promote women and minority groups to senior positions in the global workplaces. Anti-bias training is also an essential factor that helps take all the workers to take the lessons that will prevent unconscious bias. This will help in reinforcing equality and eliminating all types of discrimination in places of work.

Conclusion

Workplace diversity is a growing and vital subject that any organization needs to educate its employees and prevent issues from arising in workplaces. This diversity concept in a workplace is critical since it promotes collaboration among individuals regardless of any underlying factors. In the business environment today, demographics, talent competition, demands in the market, and the changing environment all call for a diverse workforce.

As outlined above, leaders are supposed to ensure that policies, practices, and cultures in the organizations allow every employee to feel that they belong irrespective of their backgrounds (Shore et al., 2018). It is all about valuing people who they are and what the employees bring to the organizations rather than focusing on the employees’ differences. There should be an intention of overcoming the unconscious bias. Notwithstanding the progress that women have made in the world, there is no single country that has achieved gender equality. It does not matter whether we are from east, west, north, south, poor, or rich, the issue of inequality affects us all, and we should therefore fight it together.

APA problem – page break needed to land on the reference page and prevent it from moving up and down! Corrected

References

Anwar, M. N. (2018). Acquisition of skills for listening comprehension: Barriers and solutions. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 7(3), 50–54.

https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.23.2018.73.50.54

APA problem corrected – capitalization!

Bovée, L., Allen, C., Distinguished Chair, P., & Thill, J. (2014). Business Communication Today Professor of Business Communication Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Global Communication Strategies.

https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/preface/0/1/3/5/0135891809

Fujimoto, Y., & E.J. Härtel, C. (2017). Organizational diversity learning framework: going beyond diversity training programs. Personnel Review, 46(6), 1120–1141.

https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-09-2015-0254

Haneda, S., & Ito, K. (2018). Organizational and human resource management and innovation: Which management practices are linked to product and/or process innovation? Research Policy, 47(1), 194–208.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.008

Learmonth, M., & Morrell, K. (2016). Is critical leadership studies “critical”?. Leadership, 13(3), 257–271.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715016649722

Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003

Emad, The content and analysis in the paper are good. You were able to capture the materials needed for the paper. However, there are many assertions in the paper without academic back-up. You have to ask yourself how you know this information and if it came from other materials, they need to be cited because you are not the expert in that field. You have been in my class before, and I know that I brought this to your attention. Now I know that you might not be able to capture everything with a citation, but you need to make a better effort. Please do not change the title of the assignment on the second page.

I made changes in the paper to help it to flow better. You will need to match this paper up with the original to understand what I changed and why. There are problems in the APA, and many of them are the citations. You keep adding a comma to the first author. It is not authorized in the APA 7th edition or any of the editions. Please stop doing this. If you look at the sample paper references that I placed on the blackboard, you will not see that comma in the citations. I would be happy to meet with you in a WebEx session if you do not understand something. Push forward to the next paper, and I will see you in class on Monday. Be safe, Dr. Ross.

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 1

Executive Summary

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 2

Comparison of Student Evaluations of Teaching with Online and Paper-Based Administration

John F. Doe

Central Michigan University

Master of Science in Administration

MSA 698: Directed Administrative Portfolio

Dr. Larry F. Ross

September 28, 2020

Author Note

Data collection and preliminary analysis were sponsored by the Office of the Provost and the

Student Assessment of Instruction Task Force. Portions of these findings were presented as a poster at

the 2016 National Institute on the Teaching of Psychology, St. Pete Beach, Florida, United States. We

have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Claudia J. Stanny, Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, University of West Florida,

Building 53, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514, United States. Email:

cstanny@institution.edu

mailto:cstanny@institution.edu

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 3

Table of Contents (optional)

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 4

Comparison of Student Evaluations of Teaching with Online and Paper-Based Administration

Student ratings and evaluations of instruction have a long history as sources of information

about teaching quality (Berk, 2013). Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) often play a significant role in

high-stakes decisions about hiring, promotion, tenure, and teaching awards. As a result, researchers

have examined the psychometric properties of SETs and the possible impact of variables such as race,

gender, age, course difficulty, and grading practices on average student ratings (Griffin et al., 2014;

Nulty, 2008; Spooren et al., 2013). They have also examined how decision-makers evaluate SET scores

(Boysen, 2015a, 2015b; Boysen et al., 2014; Dewar, 2011). In the last 20 years, considerable attention

has been directed toward the consequences of administering SETs online (Morrison, 2011; Stowell et al.,

2012) because low response rates may have implications for how decision-makers should interpret SETs.

Online Administration of Student Evaluations

Administering SETs online creates multiple benefits. Online administration enables instructors to

devote more class time to instruction (vs. administering paper-based forms) and can improve the

integrity of the process. Students who are not pressed for time in class are more likely to reflect on their

answers and write more detailed comments (Morrison, 2011; Stowell et al., 2012; Venette et al., 2010).

Because electronic aggregation of responses bypasses the time-consuming task of transcribing

comments (sometimes written in challenging handwriting), instructors can receive summary data and

verbatim comments shortly after the close of the term instead of weeks or months into the following

term.

Despite the many benefits of online administration, instructors and students have expressed

concerns about online administration of SETs. Students have expressed concern that their responses are

not confidential when they must use their student identification number to log into the system

(Dommeyer et al., 2002). However, breaches of confidentiality can occur even with paper-based

administration. For example, an instructor might recognize student handwriting (one reason some

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 5

students do not write comments on paper-based forms), or an instructor might remain present during

SET administration (Avery et al., 2006).

In-class, paper-based administration creates social expectations that might motivate students to

complete SETs. In contrast, students who are concerned about confidentiality or do not understand how

instructors and institutions use SET findings to improve teaching might ignore requests to complete an

online SET (Dommeyer et al., 2002). Instructors, in turn, worry that low response rates will reduce the

validity of the findings if students who do not complete a SET differ in significant ways from students

who do (Stowell et al., 2012). For example, students who do not attend class regularly often miss class

the day that SETs are administered. However, all students (including nonattending students) can

complete the forms when they are administered online. Faculty also fear that SET findings based on a

low-response sample will be dominated by students in extreme categories (e.g., students with grudges,

students with extremely favorable attitudes), who may be particularly motivated to complete online

SETs, and therefore that SET findings will inadequately represent the voice of average students (Reiner

& Arnold, 2010).

Effects of Format on Response Rates and Student Evaluation Scores

The potential for biased SET findings associated with low response rates has been examined in

the published literature. In results that run contrary to faculty fears that online SETs might be dominated

by low-performing students, Avery et al. (2006) found that students with higher grade-point averages

(GPAs) were more likely to complete online evaluations. Likewise, Jaquett et al. (2017) reported that

students who had positive experiences in their classes (including receiving the grade they expected to

earn) were more likely to submit course evaluations.

Institutions can expect lower response rates when they administer SETs online (Avery et al.,

2006; Dommeyer et al., 2002; Morrison, 2011; Nulty, 2008; Reiner & Arnold, 2010; Stowell et al., 2012;

Venette et al., 2010). However, most researchers have found that the mean SET rating does not change

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 6

significantly when they compare SETs administered on paper with those completed online. These

findings have been replicated in multiple settings using a variety of research methods (Avery et al., 2006;

Dommeyer et al., 2004; Morrison, 2011; Stowell et al., 2012; Venette et al., 2010).

Exceptions to this pattern of minimal or nonsignificant differences in average SET scores

appeared in Nowell et al. (2010) and Morrison (2011), who examined a sample of 29 business courses.

Both studies reported lower average scores when SETs were administered online. However, they also

found that SET scores for individual items varied more within an instructor when SETs were

administered online versus on paper. Students who completed SETs on paper tended to record the same

response for all questions, whereas students who completed the forms online tended to respond

differently to different questions. Both research groups argued that scores obtained online might not be

directly comparable to scores obtained through paper-based forms. They advised that institutions

administer SETs entirely online or entirely on paper to ensure consistent, comparable evaluations across

faculty.

Each university presents a unique environment and culture that could influence how seriously

students take SETs and how they respond to decisions to administer SETs online. Although a few large-

scale studies of the impact of online administration exist (Reiner & Arnold, 2010; Risquez et al., 2015), a

local replication answers questions about characteristics unique to that institution and generates

evidence about the generalizability of existing findings.

Purpose of the Present Study

In the present study, we examined patterns of responses for online and paper-based SET scores

at a midsized, regional, comprehensive university in the United States. We posed two questions: First,

does the response rate or the average SET score change when an institution administers SET forms

online instead of on paper? Second, what is the minimal response rate required to produce stable

average SET scores for an instructor? Whereas much earlier research relied on small samples often

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 7

limited to a single academic department, we gathered SET data on a large sample of courses (N = 364)

that included instructors from all colleges and all course levels over three years. We controlled for

individual differences in instructors by limiting the sample to courses taught by the same instructor in all

three years. The university offers nearly 30% of course sections online in any given term, and these

courses have always administered online SETs. This allowed us to examine the combined effects of

changing the method of delivery for SETs (paper-based to online) for traditional classes and changing

from a mixed method of administering SETs (paper for traditional classes and online for online classes in

the first two years of data gathered) to uniform use of online forms for all classes in the final year of

data collection.

Method

Sample

Response rates and evaluation ratings were retrieved from archived course evaluation data. The

archive of SET data did not include information about the personal characteristics of the instructor

(gender, age, or years of teaching experience), and students were not provided with any systematic

incentive to complete the paper or online versions of the SET. We extracted data on response rates and

evaluation ratings for 364 courses that had been taught by the same instructor during three consecutive

fall terms (2012, 2013, and 2014).

The sample included faculty who taught in each of the five colleges at the university: 109

instructors (30%) taught in the College of Social Science and Humanities, 82 (23%) taught in the College

of Science and Engineering, 75 (21%) taught in the College of Education and Professional Studies, 58

(16%) taught in the College of Health, and 40 (11%) taught in the College of Business. Each instructor

provided data on one course. Approximately 259 instructors (71%) provided ratings for face-to-face

courses, and 105 (29%) provided ratings for online courses, which accurately reflects the proportion of

face-to-face and online courses offered at the university. The sample included 107 courses (29%) at the

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 8

beginning undergraduate level (1st- and 2nd-year students), 205 courses (56%) at the advanced

undergraduate level (3rd- and 4th-year students), and 52 courses (14%) at the graduate level.

Instrument

The course evaluation instrument was a set of 18 items developed by the state university

system. The first eight items were designed to measure the quality of the instructor, concluding with a

global rating of instructor quality (Item 8: “Overall assessment of instructor”). The remaining items

asked students to evaluate components of the course, concluding with a global rating of course

organization (Item 18: “Overall, I would rate the course organization”). No formal data on the

psychometric properties of the items are available, although all items have obvious face validity.

Students were asked to rate each instructor as poor (0), fair (1), good (2), very good (3), or

excellent (4) in response to each item. Evaluation ratings were subsequently calculated for each course

and instructor. A median rating was computed when an instructor taught more than one section of a

course during a term.

The institution limited our access to SET data for the three years of data requested. We

obtained scores for Item 8 (“Overall assessment of instructor”) for all three years but could obtain

scores for Item 18 (“Overall, I would rate the course organization”) only for Year 3. We computed the

correlation between scores on Item 8 and Item 18 (from course data recorded in the 3rd year only) to

estimate the internal consistency of the evaluation instrument. These two items, which serve as

composite summaries of preceding items (Item 8 for Items 1–7 and Item 18 for Items 9–17), were

strongly related, r(362) = .92. Feistauer and Richter (2016) also reported strong correlations between

global items in a large analysis of SET responses.

Design

This study took advantage of a natural experiment created when the university decided to

administer all course evaluations online. We requested SET data for the fall semesters for 2 years

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 9

preceding the change, when students completed paper-based SET forms for face-to-face courses and

online SET forms for online courses, and data for the fall semester of the implementation year, when

students completed online SET forms for all courses. We used a 2 × 3 × 3 factorial design in which course

delivery method (face to face and online) and course level (beginning undergraduate, advanced

undergraduate, and graduate) were between-subjects factors and evaluation year (Year 1: 2012, Year 2:

2013, and Year 3: 2014) was a repeated-measures factor. The dependent measures were the response

rate (measured as a percentage of class enrollment) and the rating for Item 8 (“Overall assessment of

instructor”).

Data analysis was limited to scores on Item 8 because the institution agreed to release data on

this one item only. Data for scores on Item 18 were made available for SET forms administered in Year 3

to address questions about variation in responses across items. The strong correlation between scores

on Item 8 and scores on Item 18 suggested that Item 8 could be used as a surrogate for all the items.

These two items were of particular interest because faculty, department chairs, and review committees

frequently rely on these two items as stand-alone indicators of teaching quality for annual evaluations

and tenure and promotion reviews.

Results

Response Rates

Response rates are presented in Table 1. The findings indicate that response rates for face-to-

face courses were much higher than for online courses, but only when face-to-face course evaluations

were administered in the classroom. In the Year 3 administration, when all course evaluations were

administered online, response rates for face-to-face courses declined (M = 47.18%, SD = 20.11), but

were still slightly higher than for online courses (M = 41.60%, SD = 18.23). These findings produced a

statistically significant interaction between course delivery method and evaluation year, F(1.78, 716) =

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 10

101.34, MSE = 210.61, p < .001.1 The strength of the overall interaction effect was .22 (ηp2). Simple main-

effects tests revealed statistically significant differences in the response rates for face-to-face courses

and online courses for each of the 3 observation years.2 The greatest differences occurred during Year 1

(p < .001) and Year 2 (p < .001), when evaluations were administered on paper in the classroom for all

face-to-face courses and online for all online courses. Although the difference in response rate between

face-to-face and online courses during the Year 3 administration was statistically reliable (when both

face-to-to-face and online courses were evaluated with online surveys), the effect was small (ηp2 = .02).

Thus, there was minimal difference in response rate between face-to-face and online courses when

evaluations were administered online for all courses. No other factors or interactions included in the

analysis were statistically reliable.

Evaluation Ratings

The same 2 × 3 × 3 analysis of variance model was used to evaluate mean SET ratings. This

analysis produced two statistically significant main effects. The first main effect involved evaluation

year, F(1.86, 716) = 3.44, MSE = 0.18, p = .03 (ηp2 = .01; see Footnote 1). Evaluation ratings associated

with the Year 3 administration (M = 3.26, SD = 0.60) were significantly lower than the evaluation ratings

associated with both the Year 1 (M = 3.35, SD = 0.53) and Year 2 (M = 3.38, SD = 0.54) administrations.

Thus, all courses received lower SET scores in Year 3, regardless of course delivery method and course

level. However, the size of this effect was small (the largest difference in mean rating was 0.11 on a five-

item scale).

1 A Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment of the degrees of freedom was performed in anticipation of a
sphericity assumption violation.

2 A test of the homogeneity of variance assumption revealed no statistically significant difference in
response rate variance between the two delivery modes for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years.

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 11

The second statistically significant main effect involved delivery mode, F(1, 358) = 23.51, MSE =

0.52, p = .01 (ηp2 = .06; see Footnote 2). Face-to-face courses (M = 3.41, SD = 0.50) received significantly

higher mean ratings than did online courses (M = 3.13, SD = 0.63), regardless of evaluation year and

course level. No other factors or interactions included in the analysis were statistically reliable.

Stability of Ratings

The scatterplot presented in Figure 1 illustrates the relation between SET scores and response

rates. Although the correlation between SET scores and response rate was small and not statistically

significant, r(362) = .07, visual inspection of the plot of SET scores suggests that SET ratings became less

variable as response rate increased. We conducted Levene’s test to evaluate the variability of SET scores

above and below the 60% response rate, which several researchers have recommended as an

acceptable threshold for response rates (Berk, 2012, 2013; Nulty, 2008). The variability of scores above

and below the 60% threshold was not statistically reliable, F(1, 362) = 1.53, p = .22.

Discussion

Online administration of SETs in this study was associated with lower response rates, yet it is

curious that online courses experienced a 10% increase in response rate when all courses were

evaluated with online forms in Year three. Online courses had suffered from chronically low response

rates in previous years when face-to-face classes continued to use paper-based forms. The benefit to

response rates observed for online courses when all SET forms were administered online might be

attributed to increased communications that encouraged students to complete the online course

evaluations. Despite this improvement, response rates for online courses continued to lag behind those

for face-to-face courses. Differences in response rates for face-to-face and online courses might be

attributed to the characteristics of the students who enrolled or to differences in the quality of student

engagement created in each learning modality. Avery et al. (2006) found that higher-performing

students (defined as students with higher GPAs) were more likely to complete online SETs.

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 12

Although the average SET rating was significantly lower in Year 3 than in the previous 2 years,

the magnitude of the numeric difference was small (differences ranged from 0.08 to 0.11, based on a 0–

4 Likert-like scale). This difference is similar to the differences Risquez et al. (2015) reported for SET

scores after statistically adjusting for the influence of several potential confounding variables. A

substantial literature has discussed the appropriate and inappropriate interpretation of SET ratings

(Berk, 2013; Boysen, 2015a, 2015b; Boysen et al., 2014; Dewar, 2011; Stark & Freishtat, 2014).

Faculty have often raised concerns about the potential variability of SET scores due to low

response rates and thus small sample sizes. However, our analysis indicated that classes with high

response rates produced equally variable SET scores, as did classes with low response rates. Reviewers

should take extra care when they interpret SET scores. Decision-makers often ignore questions about

whether means derived from small samples accurately represent the population mean (Tversky &

Kahneman, 1971). Reviewers frequently treat all numeric differences as if they were equally meaningful

as measures of actual differences and give them credibility even after receiving explicit warnings that

these differences are not significant (Boysen, 2015a, 2015b).

Because low response rates produce small sample sizes, we expected that the SET scores based

on smaller class samples (i.e., courses with low response rates) would be more variable than those

based on larger class samples (i.e., courses with high response rates). Although researchers have

recommended that response rates reach the criterion of 60%–80% when SET data are used for high-

stakes decisions (Berk, 2012, 2013; Nulty, 2008), our findings did not indicate a significant reduction in

SET score variability with higher response rates.

Implications for Practice

Improving SET Response Rates

When decision-makers use SET data to make high-stakes decisions (faculty hires, annual

evaluations, tenure, promotions, teaching awards), institutions would be wise to take steps to ensure

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 13

that SETs have acceptable response rates. Researchers have discussed effective strategies to improve

response rates for SETs (Nulty, 2008; see also Berk, 2013; Dommeyer et al., 2004; Jaquett et al., 2016).

These strategies include offering empirically validated incentives, creating high-quality technical systems

with good human factors characteristics, and promoting an institutional culture that supports the use of

SET data and other information to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Programs and

instructors must discuss why information from SETs is essential for decision-making and provide

students with tangible evidence of how SET information guides decisions about curriculum

improvement. The institution should provide students with compelling evidence that the administration

system protects the confidentiality of their responses.

Evaluating SET Scores

In addition to ensuring adequate response rates on SETs, decision-makers should demand

multiple sources of evidence about teaching quality (Buller, 2012). High-stakes decisions should never

rely exclusively on numeric data from SETs. Reviewers often treat SET ratings as a surrogate for a

measure of the impact an instructor has on student learning. However, a recent meta-analysis (Uttl et

al., 2017) questioned whether SET scores have any relation to student learning. Reviewers need

evidence in addition to SET ratings to evaluate teachings, such as evidence of the instructor’s disciplinary

content expertise, skill with classroom management, ability to engage learners with lectures or other

activities, impact on student learning, or success with efforts to modify and improve courses and

teaching strategies (Berk, 2013; Stark & Freishtat, 2014). As with other forms of assessment, anyone’s

measure may be limited in terms of the quality of information it provides. Therefore, multiple measures

are more informative than any single measure.

A portfolio of evidence can better inform high-stakes decisions (Berk, 2013). Portfolios might

include summaries of class observations by senior faculty, the chair, or peers. Examples of assignments

and exams can document the rigor of learning, especially if accompanied by redacted samples of

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 14

student work. Course syllabi can identify intended learning outcomes; describe instructional strategies

that reflect the severity of the course (required assignments and grading practices); and provide other

information about course content, design, instructional strategies, and instructor interactions with

students (Palmer et al., 2014; Stanny et al., 2015).

Conclusion

Psychology has a long history of devising creative strategies to measure the “unmeasurable,”

whether the targeted variable is a mental process, an attitude, or the quality of teaching (e.g., Webb et

al., 1966). Besides, psychologists have documented various heuristics and biases that contribute to the

misinterpretation of quantitative data (Gilovich et al., 2002), including SET scores (Boysen, 2015a,

2015b; Boysen et al., 2014). These skills enable psychologists to offer multiple solutions to the challenge

posed by the need to objectively evaluate the quality of teaching and the impact of teaching on student

learning.

Online administration of SET forms presents multiple desirable features, including rapid

feedback to instructors, economy, and support for environmental sustainability. However, institutions

should adopt implementation procedures that do not undermine the usefulness of the data gathered.

Moreover, institutions should be wary of emphasizing methods that produce high response rates only to

lull faculty into believing that SET data can be the primary (or only) metric used for high-stakes decisions

about the quality of faculty teaching. Instead, decision-makers should expect to use multiple measures

to evaluate the quality of faculty teaching.

Recommendations

Data

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 15

References

Avery, R. J., Bryant, W. K., Mathios, A., Kang, H., & Bell, D. (2006). Electronic course evaluations: Does an

online delivery system influence student evaluations? The Journal of Economic Education, 37(1),

21–37. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.37.1.21-37

Berk, R. A. (2012). Top 20 strategies to increase the online response rates of student rating scales.

International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 98–107.

Berk, R. A. (2013). Top 10 flashpoints in student ratings and the evaluation of teaching. Stylus.

Boysen, G. A. (2015a). Preventing the overinterpretation of small mean differences in student

evaluations of teaching: An evaluation of warning effectiveness. Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning in Psychology, 1(4), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000042

Boysen, G. A. (2015b). Significant interpretation of small mean differences in student evaluations of

teaching despite explicit warning to avoid overinterpretation. Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning in Psychology, 1(2), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000017

Boysen, G. A., Kelly, T. J., Raesly, H. N., & Casner, R. W. (2014). The (mis)interpretation of teaching

evaluations by college faculty and administrators. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,

39(6), 641–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860950

Buller, J. L. (2012). Best practices in faculty evaluation: A practical guide for academic leaders. Jossey-

Bass.

Dewar, J. M. (2011). Helping stakeholders understand the limitations of SRT data: Are we doing enough?

Journal of Faculty Development, 25(3), 40–44.

Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., & Hanna, R. W. (2002). College students’ attitudes toward methods of

collecting teaching evaluations: In-class versus online. Journal of Education for Business, 78(1),

11–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599691

https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.37.1.21-37

https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000042

https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000017

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860950

https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599691

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 16

Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Hanna, R. W., & Chapman, K. S. (2004). Gathering faculty teaching

evaluations by in-class and online surveys: Their effects on response rates and evaluations.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 611–623.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930410001689171

Feistauer, D., & Richter, T. (2016). How reliable are students’ evaluations of teaching quality? A variance

components approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1263–1279.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1261083

Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive

judgment. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098

Griffin, T. J., Hilton, J., III, Plummer, K., & Barret, D. (2014). Correlation between grade point averages

and student evaluation of teaching scores: Taking a closer look. Assessment & Evaluation in

Higher Education, 39(3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.831809

Jaquett, C. M., VanMaaren, V. G., & Williams, R. L. (2016). The effect of extra-credit incentives on

student submission of end-of-course evaluations. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in

Psychology, 2(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000052

Jaquett, C. M., VanMaaren, V. G., & Williams, R. L. (2017). Course factors that motivate students to

submit end-of-course evaluations. Innovative Higher Education, 42(1), 19–31.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-016-9368-5

Morrison, R. (2011). A comparison of online versus traditional student end-of-course critiques in

resident courses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 627–641.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003632399

Nowell, C., Gale, L. R., & Handley, B. (2010). Assessing faculty performance using student evaluations of

teaching in an uncontrolled setting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 463–

475. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862875

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930410001689171

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1261083

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.831809

https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000052

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-016-9368-5

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003632399

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862875

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 17

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done?

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231

Palmer, M. S., Bach, D. J., & Streifer, A. C. (2014). Measuring the promise: A learning-focused syllabus

rubric. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 33(1), 14–36.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20004

Reiner, C. M., & Arnold, K. E. (2010). Online course evaluation: Student and instructor perspectives and

assessment potential. Assessment Update, 22(2), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/au.222

Risquez, A., Vaughan, E., & Murphy, M. (2015). Online student evaluations of teaching: What are we

sacrificing for the affordances of technology? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,

40(1), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.890695

Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The

state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598–642.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870

Stanny, C. J., Gonzalez, M., & McGowan, B. (2015). Assessing the culture of teaching and learning

through a syllabus review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(7), 898–913.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.956684

Stark, P. B., & Freishtat, R. (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations. ScienceOpen Research.

https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AOFRQA.v1

Stowell, J. R., Addison, W. E., & Smith, J. L. (2012). Comparison of online and classroom-based student

evaluations of instruction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 465–473.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.545869

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2),

105–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231

https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20004

https://doi.org/10.1002/au.222

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.890695

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.956684

https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AOFRQA.v1

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.545869

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 18

Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student

evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational

Evaluation, 54, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007

Venette, S., Sellnow, D., & McIntyre, K. (2010). Charting new territory: Assessing the online frontier of

student ratings of instruction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(1), 101–115.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802618336

Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive

research in the social sciences. Rand McNally.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802618336

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 19

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Response Rates (Course Delivery Method by Evaluation Year)

Administration year Face-to-face course Online course

M SD M SD

Year 1: 2012 71.72 16.42 32.93 15.73

Year 2: 2013 72.31 14.93 32.55 15.96

Year 3: 2014 47.18 20.11 41.60 18.23

Note. Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) were administered in two modalities in Years 1 and 2:

paper based for face-to-face courses and online for online courses. SETs were administered online for all

courses in Year 3.

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 20

Figure 1

Scatterplot Depicting the Correlation Between Response Rates and Evaluation Ratings

Note. Evaluation ratings were made during the 2014 fall academic term.

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 21

Appendixes (if applicable)