Ensuring Diversity in the Workforce: Diversity and Financial Management
I will need 9 full pages, if you won’t do it DO NOT TAKE the assignment.
The subject is Ensuring Diversity in the Workforce
The file (Diversity and Financial Management) is the information of what you are going to write about. FOLLOW THE RUBRIC FILE, this paper has a lot of points, the paper will be evaluated based on the attached rubric.
This paper needs 7th edition APA Format, I uploaded an example
I uploaded research data support to help you to figure out things but I don’t want it about John doe.
I uploaded a file named (Emad MSA 602). YOU DONT NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO THIS FILE, THIS FILE JUST TO SHOW YOU WHAT YOU DID WRONG IN YOUR LAST WRITING.
MIND MAP DISCUSSION
1
2
Mind Map Discussion
Diversity and Financial Management
Diversity is a critical factor since it promotes effective outcomes based on financial assessment of a corporation. It is possible to assess insurance, financial risk, debt financing, and capital structure. All these subjects are connected to diversity since promotes effective outcomes due to the availability of a variety of talent to pick from. Research reveals that a diverse workforce has been provided to be highly financially profitable (Catalyst, 2020). Issues such as financial risk can get mitigated by ensuring effective outcomes based on capabilities of each employee. A company can develop a productive capital structure by assessing its capabilities and comparing it to the workforce. Once all diversity constraints are mitigated, it is possible to produce high profits.
Reference
Catalyst, Why Diversity and Inclusion Matter: Financial Performance (June 24, 2020).
Grissom, A. R. (2018). The Alert Collector: Workplace Diversity and Inclusion. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 57(4). doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/rusq.57.4.6700
.
Narasimhan, S. D. (2019). A Commitment to Gender Diversity in Peer Review, 57(4).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.043
.
1 | P a g e
MSA 698 Research Data Support
This is an overview. The paper submission links and grading rubrics are in the weekly
folders under “Weekly Materials | Tasks.”
Students will produce four (4) papers and a final critical analysis paper related to their area of
concentration. Papers must reflect the master’s level writing. We expect the four essays and the
final critical analysis paper will require a minimum of 150-clock hours of work for
completion. Cognitive tasks must be specifically designed to relate directly to the student’s
professional work assignments or the approval of the instructor. The papers should be of
sufficient depth to deal entirely with the issue.
The minimum length is eight (8) pages with a maximum of ten (10) pages for each of the four
(4) papers, and 12-15 written pages for the final critical analysis, excluding tables, graphs, and
appendixes.
Papers 1-4 follow the same issue, or organization, or problem.
1. Paper 1 applies to content and theory from MSA 601 to an issue/problem/research
related to the student’s concentration.
2. Paper 2 applies to content and theory from MSA 603 to the same issue/problem/research
developed in paper 1 and is related to the student’s concentration.
3. Paper 3 applies to content and theory from MSA 604 to the same issue/problem/research
developed in papers 1 and 2 and is related to the student’s concentration
4. Paper 4 applies to content and theory from MSA 602 to the same issue/problem/research
developed in papers 1-3 and is related to the student’s concentration.
We expect the final critical analysis paper to draw conclusions and make recommendations
based on the insights discovered in papers 1-4. I recommend that your title be generic, and here
is why?
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:
Paper one: Organizational Behavior and John Doe Administration
Paper two: Strategic Planning and John Doe Administration
Paper three: Diversity Consciousness and John Doe Administration
Paper Four: Financial Management 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.
2 | P a g e
• 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.
Each of the five 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
3 | P a g e
d. Table of Contents
e. List of Tables (optional)
f. List of Figures (optional)
g. The Text
h. References
Copies:
• The student must submit all five papers electronically to the instructor via the submission
links in Bb.
• Students should always retain a copy of any materials submitted to the instructor.
• Individual Feedback:
• The instructor reviews the student’s papers and notes any concerns, and, if necessary,
returns them to the student with appropriate feedback.
• The student will schedule a 15-minute appointment with the instructor to discuss the
feedback.
• The Final Critical Analysis Report Presentation:
• The presentation should be brief (approximately eight minutes) and should be
accompanied by a short PowerPoint.
• Record the presentation using Blackboard WebEx. Detail and resources are provided in
the Week 12-15 folder.
As we might already know, students will be writing about and seeking to understand concepts
and practices about many subjects. We might even feel that there are a great many reasons for
the popularity of the subject matter we want to address. Therefore, we challenge you not to be
nervous about the subject matter and push forward to get it done.
We want to do everything that we can to help in this endeavor. Below is a helpful guide on the
concepts used in various MSA courses (601, 602, 603, and 604) that can be used to link to any
subject matter (title). Operating as an example, “John Doe Administration,” the data below can
serve as topics to address in the paper to clearly show the link to the various MSA courses. Some
simple things that could link the title/problem statement to one of the courses: State that it is a
challenge for the John Doe Administration’s capacity to align the organization to better support
the mission. You could also argue its ability to upgrade technology to enhance the production of
John Doe services. By expanding the thought process above, we would see a tangible link to the
MSA 603 course. In other words, the topics below have something for everyone. The items
below were generated from various books on John Doe and each of the course books (MSA 601,
602, 603, and 604). Again, it does not matter what topic the subject matter is; one can find
data/material below to address in the paper associated with a particular course. Please do not
hesitate to address any concerns with the professor. You can do this!
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
4 | P a g e
One again, if one used a generic title like the above example, there would be no need to change
each paper title.
MSA 601 Organizational Behavior and John Doe Administration
1. The connection: Overview of John Doe and Organizational Behavior
• John Doe structure
• Diversity in John Doe organization
• Attitudes and perceptions of John Doe
2. Foundations of Organizational Structure
• What is an organizational structure in the John Doe industry?
• Common organizational frameworks and structures (The simple structure, the
bureaucracy, the matrix structure)
• Alternate design options
• The leaner organization: Downsizing
• Why does the structure differ?
• Organizational designs and employee behavior
3. Understanding Individuals Behaviors in John Doe Administration
• Content theories of motivation
• Process theories of motivation
• Attribution theory and motivation
• Contemporary theories of motivation
• Job engagement
• Employee involvement and participation
• Using rewards to motivate employees
• Using benefits to motivate employees
• Using intrinsic rewards to motivate employees
4. Leadership
• Power and influence
• Trait and behavioral theories of leadership
• Contingency theories of leadership
• Contemporary leadership theories
• Transactional and transformational leadership
• Servant leadership
• Positive leadership
• Training to be a leader
5. Communication
• Functions of communication
• Direction of communication
• Modes of communication
• Persuasive communication
• Barriers to effective communication
• Cultural factors in communication
5 | P a g e
6. Intrapersonal and Interpersonal issues associated with John Doe
• Stress in the workplace and stress management
• Decision making
• Conflict management and negotiation skills
• Coping skills
7. Groups and Teams
• Overview of group dynamics in the John Doe industry
• Defining and classifying groups
• Stages of group development
• Roles and norms
• Why teams?
• Type of teams
• Team and team building
• Creating effective teams
• Turning individuals into team players
8. Managing Organizational Change in the John Doe Facility
• Change in an organization
• Approaches to managing change
• Organizational development
• Resistance to change and change management
9. Diversity in Organizations
• Demographics characteristics in the organization
• Levels of diversity in John Doe organization
• Discrimination patterns
• Implementing diversity management strategies
• Implications for leadership and the organization as a whole
10. Attitudes and Job Satisfaction
• Climate study data
• Job attitudes
• Job satisfaction
• The impact of job dissatisfaction
11. Personality and Values
• Personality framework
• Personality and situations
• Linking an individual’s personality and values to the workplace/organization
• Cultural values
12. Perception and Individual Decision Making
• What is perception?
• Person perception: Making a judgment about others
• The link between perception and individual decision-making
• Decision-making in organizations
• Influences on decision-making: Individual differences and organizational
constraints
• What about ethics in decision-making?
6 | P a g e
• Creativity, creative decision-making, and innovation in organizations
13. Power and politics
• Power and leadership
• Bases of power
• Dependence: The key to power
• Power tactics and political savviness
• How power affects people
• Politics: Power in action
• Causes and consequences of political behavior
14. Organizational Culture
• What is organizational culture?
• What does culture do?
• Creating and sustaining the culture
• How employees learn the culture
• The learning organization
• Influencing an organizational culture (An ethical culture; A positive culture; A
spiritual culture)
15. Human Resources Policies and Practices
• Recruitment practices
• Selection practices
• Substantive and contingent selection
• Training and development programs
• The leadership role of HR
• Succession planning
MSA 603 Strategic Planning and John Doe Administration
1. Leadership and Strategic Planning
• Definition of leadership
• Key Leadership Roles in the John Doe facility
• Physician involvement in John Doe’s strategic planning
2. Mission, Vision, and Culture: The Foundation for Strategic Planning in John Doe
Administration (facility)
• The impact of mission, vision, and culture on profits and strategic planning
• The effect of ownership on profits and the strategic planning process
• Implementing organizational change
3. Transformational Leadership Maximizes Strategic Planning
• The concept of transformational leadership
• Why is transformational leadership essential to this research study?
• Ethics as a foundation for leadership and strategic planning
• The role of transformational leaders in managing the strategic planning process in
John Doe Administration
• Organizational transformation as a competitive advantage
• Factors affecting organizational transformation
7 | P a g e
4. Fundamentals of Strategic Planning in John Doe Administration
• Analysis of the internal environment – inside the organization
• Analysis of the external environment – outside the organization
• Gap analysis
• Discuss the strategic planning areas
• Evaluation of previous performance
• Discuss planning at the local, regional, national, or international (Global) levels
5. Strategic Planning and SWOT Analysis
• Steps in the SWOT analysis
• Force Field Analysis
• Gap analysis
• Results
6. Strategic planning and John Doe Information Technology (HIT)
• Strategic HIT initiatives
• Strategic planning for HIT
• John Doe information databases
7. Strategic Planning and the John Doe Business Plan
• John Doe business plan
• Net present value
• Internal rate of return
• Planning tools
8. Communicating the Strategic Plan
• Motivation
• Presentation of the strategic plan
9. Medical Group Planning and Joint Ventures
• Clinical integration
• Potential structures for physician-hospital integration
• Physician engagement in strategic planning
10. Strategic Planning and John Doe Long term Care Services
• Demographics of an aging population
• Inpatient John Doe rehab facilities
• Skilled nursing facilities
• Adult daycare centers
• Hospice
11. Strategic Planning in John Doe Systems
• Hospital mergers and acquisition
• Integrated delivery systems
• Strategic Planning at the John Doe system level
12. Strategic Planning and Pay for Performance
• Medicare Pay-for-performance initiatives
• Additional initiatives in pay for performance
• Physicians attitudes regarding pay for performance
• The growing demand for quality-related data
• Future P4P initiatives: Pay for value
8 | P a g e
• Incorporating P4P into a strategic plan
13. The New Value Paradigm in John Doe Organization
• The value frontier
• Strategic planning for John Doe’s value
MSA 604 Diversity Consciousness and John Doe Administration
1. A System’s Approach to Cultural Competence
• Dimensions of diversity
• John Doe diversity challenges
• John Doe disparities in the United States
• Changing the U.S. John Doe care system
• System approach in the John Doe care delivery organization
• The importance of leadership
2. Systematic Attention to John Doe Disparities
• What are John Doe disparities?
• Race and ethnic disparities in John Doe
• Disparities or differences across other diversity dimensions: Gender, sexual
orientation, the elderly
• Stakeholder attention to John Doe disparities
• Systematic strategies for reducing John Doe disparities
3. Workforce Demographics
• Trends in the US labor force
• Diversity and the John Doe professions
• Drivers of inequalities in the John Doe professions
• Workforce diversity challenges
4. Foundations for Cultural Competence in John Doe
• What is cultural competence in John Doe?
• Cultural competence and the John Doe provider organization
• Cultural competence and the multicultural John Doe workforce
5. Training for knowledge and skills in culturally competent care for diverse populations
• The principals for knowledge and skills training
• Cultural competence knowledge and skills for John Doe administrators
• Cultural competency training for the John Doe professional in John Doe
operations
• Cultural competence training for support staff
• The role of assessment in cultural competence training
6. Cultural Competence in John Doe Encounters
• Models from transcultural nursing
• Being culturally responsive
7. Language Access Services and cross-cultural communication
• Language use in the United States
• Language differences in John Doe encounter
• Attitudes toward limited-English speakers
9 | P a g e
• Changing responses to language barriers in John Doe operations
• An expanding profession: The John Doe interpreter
• The translation is written by John Doe communication
8. Group Identity Development and John Doe Delivery
• Discuss the minority status group – identity development
• Discuss the majority status group – identity development
• Models to illustrate
9. The Centrality of Organizational Behavior
• The science of organizational behavior
• Organizations as a context for behavior
• Can culturally competent John Doe professionals do it by themselves?
10. The Business Case for Best Practices
• The business case for cultural competence in John Doe operations
• Workforce, HRM, and the business case
• Best demonstrated practices
• Benchmarking
11. The Future of Diversity and Cultural Competence in John Doe
• Trends to support the adoption of a system’s approach to diversity and cultural
competence in John Doe practices
• The sustainability movement
• Change management and force field analysis: Tools to envision and shape the
future
MSA 602 Financial Management and John Doe Administration
1. The Role of Financial Management in John Doe Administration
• Financial Management in the John Doe industry (facility)
• Current challenges
• Organizational goals
• Tax laws and the impact on John Doe
• John Doe reform and financial management
2. John Doe Insurance
• Major John Doe insurers (Third-Party Payers)
• Private insurers
• Public Insurers
• Medicare (government insurance)
• Value-Based benefit and insurance design
• John Doe reform and insurance
3. Payments to John Doe Providers
• Coding: The foundation of fee-for-service reimbursement
• Generic reimbursement methods
• Financial incentives to providers
• Financial risks to providers
• Pay for performance
• John Doe reform and payments to providers
10 | P a g e
4. Time Value Analysis
• Timelines
• Future value of a lump sum (compounding)
• The present value of a lump sum (discounting)
• Opportunity cost
• Solving the interest rate and time
• Annuities
• Perpetuities
• Uneven cash flow streams
• Using time value analysis to analysis to measure ROI
• Amortized loans
5. Financial Risk and Required Return
• The many faces of financial risks
• Risk aversion
• Probability distributions
• Expected and real rates of return
• Stand-alone risk
• Portfolio risk and return
• Portfolio risk of business investments
• Portfolio risk of stocks (Entire businesses)
• Portfolio betas
• The relevance of the risk measures
• Interpretation of risk measures
• The relationship between risk and return
6. Debt Financing
• The cost of debt
• Long-term debt
• Short-term debt
• Term loans
• Bonds
• Credit ratings
• Interest ratings
• Interest rate components
• The term structure of interest rates
• Advantages and disadvantages of debt financing
• Securities valuation
• The general valuation models
• Debt valuation
7. Equity Financing
• Rights and privileges of common stockholders
• Selling new common stock
• The market for common stock
• The decision to go public
• Advantages and disadvantages of common stock financing
11 | P a g e
• Equity in not-for-profit corporations
• Common stock valuation
• Security market equilibrium
• Information efficiency
• The risk/return trade-off
8. Lease Financing
• Lease parties and types
• Per procedure versus fixed payment leases
• Tax effects
• Balance sheet effects
• Evaluation by the lessee
• Evaluation by the lessor
• Lease analysis symmetry
• Setting the lease payment
• Leveraged leases
• Motivations for leasing
9. The Cost of Capital and Capital Structure
• An overview of the cost-of-capital estimation process
• Estimating the cost of debt
• Estimating the cost of equity to large investor-owned businesses
• Estimating the cost of equity to large investor-owned businesses
• Estimating the corporate cost of capital
• An economic interpretation of the corporate cost of capital
• Flotation costs
• Divisional cost of capital
• Cost-of-capital for small businesses
• Factors that influence a business’ cost of capital
10. Capital Structure
• Impact of debt financing on risk and return
• Business and financial risk
• Capital structure theory
• The Miller Model
• Financial distress costs
• Trade-Off models
• The asymmetric information model of capital structure
• Summary of the capital structure models
• Application of capital structure theory to not-for-profit firms
• Making the capital structure decision
• Capital structure decisions for a small investor-owned business
11. Capital Budgeting
• Project clarifications
• The role of financial analysis in John Doe services capital budgeting
• Overview of capital budgeting financial analysis
• Cash flow estimation
12 | P a g e
• Cash flow estimation example
• Breakeven analysis
• Return on Investment analysis
• Final thoughts on breakeven and profitability analysis
12. Financial Condition Analysis
• Financial reporting in the John Doe services industry
• Financial statement analysis
• Ratio analysis
• Tying the ratio together: Du Pont analysis
• Operating indicator analysis
• Limitations of financial statement and operating indicator analysis
• Economic value added
• Benchmarking
• Key performance indicator and dashboards
13. Financial Forecasting
• Strategic planning
• Operational planning
• Financial planning
• Revenue forecasting
• Discuss forecasted financial statements
• Constant growth forecasting
• Factors that influence the external financing requirement
• Problems with constant growth methods
• Real-world forecasting
• Computerized financial forecasting models
• Financial controls
14. Revenue Cycle and Current Accounts Management
• Cash management
• Marketable securities management
• Revenue cycle management
• Supply chain management
• Current liability management
15. Business Combinations Valuation
• Level of merger activity
• Motives for the merger: The Good, the bad, and the ugly (analysis with a story)
• Types of mergers
• Hostile versus friendly takeovers
• Mergers involving not-for-profit businesses
• Business valuation
• Unique problems in valuing small businesses
• Setting the bid price
• Structuring the takeover bid
• Due diligence analysis
• Corporate alliances
13 | P a g e
• Goodwill
• Who wins on a merger, the empirical evidence?
Contact the course instructor if you have any questions.
Master of Science in
A
dministration Project Paper
Partial Fulfillment for MSA 698
Rubric for MSA 60
2
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 601, 602, 603, and 604. Compute the total points and insert the grade based on the grading scale at the bottom of this form. |
|
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 financial statement theory and protocols? |
|||||
|
Does the paper display a significant level of financial understanding? |
|||||
|
Does the paper apply financial theory? |
|||||
|
Does the paper demonstrate a solid understanding of the objectives of MSA 602? |
|||||
|
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 it with the other core courses? |
|||||
|
Does the paper use financial analysis 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 |
| Title: |
|
Date: |
– Rubric for MSA 602 Paper –(revised August 2017)
2
1
5
Ensuring Diversity in the Workforce
Emad N. Alkhadabah
Central Michigan University
Master of Science in Administration
MSA 698: Directed Administrative Portfolio
Dr. Larry F. Ross
April 7, 2021
Introduction
Diversity consciousness makes one open and welcoming to characteristics that various individuals tend to assume are correct but are not. Many people view diversity as a positive trait. Diversity typically includes; age difference, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, culture, etc.?? This is very helpful in getting a whole extensive scope of the point of view. When working with groups, there are prompts and many thoughts, which helps in extensive exchanges on the chances and difficulties that may arise as one is working with a large group of people from wide and far. Having diversity consciousness is essential in ensuring that the business and its operation are increasing, and it is ready to address any issues that may arise from diverse markets.
Diversity is only perceived when there exists a close monitoring of the working environment. One must be supposed to ensure that the healthcare sector is supposed to blossom with diversity consciousness since the workers will be very mindful about social wellness, positively impacting the people. Getting prepared and planning on working well with groups is essential in ensuring that groups are working. This helps the organization have a culture of regard, being corresponding, and being more resistant if there are some challenges in the organization. This paper will discuss the possible challenges of diversity, systematic approach and attention, competence, language use and training. This is because diversity is very important in promoting the organization’s development (Butin, 2016).
System’s Approach and Attention to Cultural Competence
Cultural competence can be described as the set of congruent behaviors, policies, and attitudes that come together in a health care system, enabling the whole system to work together more effectively. However, it not only concentrates on the health sector but also on a broader approach, and this aims to provide diverse clients with some services that are all for their excellent. Systematic attention is required in the field of diversity since it is possible to promote an organization’s output by assessing all its departments. The assessment can be conducted to ensure that all the departments observe the diversity and inclusion policies as stipulated by the organization.
For any society to have cultural competence, one must require many other attributes. This includes an open attitude, which means that one can learn so much from others since they have the spirit of curiosity. Self-awareness means that one regards his/her worldview; this may include knowing your assumptions, biases (spelling), and judgment. Having awareness for others is essential, which means that some actions demonstrate cultural knowledge. Through this, one is in a position to acquire information from others. This can either be regarding values, norms and beliefs. This will help one know how well they are supposed to adapt to certain places with different people.
Specific system approaches are applicable in various sectors of the health care system. This is because health care is an interrelated and interdependent body. The health care system has some professional staff, deals with finances, and has physical and administrative subsystems. The system approach is important in cultural competency since it integrates many practices of the organization’s management. The policies and the structures are critical in ensuring that health care workers are working in the most effective and culturally diverse situations. A culturally diverse working environment is important as there is a lot of learning and adapting to the systems, which further demonstrates the need for having a diverse workforce in the health care sector.
Diversity Challenges
In any organization which has diverse groups of people, there are several challenges that the organization might experience. The first challenge is harassment; this means that there is any unwelcome conduct in the organization. This is based on specific characteristics such as age, race, pregnancy status, and sex. The other challenge is the issue of age discrimination. This means that some people consist of some special treatment more than others because of their age. An act was formulated to ensure that people are not getting discriminates against based on their ages. Harassment can also be classified into reverse discrimination; in this case, discrimination can happen against women and other racial and ethnics who are the minority in the organization. Some organizations have tried to address this challenge by providing equal opportunity to everyone to exercise their talents, but there is still reverse discrimination in other sectors.
Race and ethnic disparities
There are socially constructed categories, and this includes race and ethnicity. However, the two have effects on how one is being perceived and how one perceives others. Therefore, acknowledging that there are concepts of race and ethnicity that are supposed to be considered is very important. This will ensure that the implications of the two have been mitigated. This can be done by accepting the individual differences in society and becoming an agent of change.
There are some health disparities amongst the Native Americans. This is by creating Indian health services; this can be described as the trend in self-determination. This has contributed to improving the Native American health sector to ensure that disparity is being solved. A national interview was carried out, and the report was stated on either the fairness or the impoverished circumstances of the health sector. This was only 9.8 % of the total population (MacDorman, 2011)
Disparities or Differences across Other Diversity Dimensions
Gender, Sexual Orientation, the Elderly
Health disparities and gender disparities go hand in hand; they’re acknowledging that some biological inequality is significant. This is, for instance, when it comes to the issue of having prostate and ovarian cancer. However, some other disparities may stem from social, economic conditions, which is essential in shaping gender differences in healthcare sectors.
Workforce diversity challenges
There may be Workplace Discrimination, and thus can be said to occur if an employee is being mistreated, maybe during the hiring of jobs. This makes the organization have a negative image in the public’s eyes, and most people do not like to work together under such circumstances. When an organization conducts a fair hiring process where the candidates a selected based on merits, the healthcare sector will develop positive image to the public and attract more workers (Saxena, 2014).
Language differences
Many people work in the health sector, which, to some point, they lack English proficiency. There is language Access PortalExtrnal, and this contains some of the information which is in multiple languages. This ensures that all the languages that the patients in the healthcare sector speak are understood. This is most common where we have immigrants. The healthcare sector must have a translator to facilitate effective communication.
Strategies to Reduce the Disparity
Stakeholder Attention Disparities
Here are different people who are responsible for the disparities which are happening in the organization. Management should be blamed. This is because the moment people from diverse places have come together to work, all the disparities ar4 (spelling?) supposed to be dealt with and ensure no other difference is observed. The other stakeholders are the staff themselves; they are supposed to work together and ensure no disparities in the organization (Zimmerman-Oster et al., 2010). APA problem – corrected!
Systematic Strategies for Reducing Disparities
One way to do this is to ensure a culture of equity in the organization, which can be done by recognizing some existing equity champions. The other mechanism is to ensure that there is the incorporation of the intervention measures into the current systems, which would mean that there will be no one who will have some disparities. Involving all the members and the target population during planning is very important in reducing inequalities (Millery & Kukafka, 2010).
People have different healthcare ideas; they have different languages they use and have different literacy levels. Culture and diversity are essential, and it allows people to get into communications. This is because people from different diversities require a lot of communicating and sharing to know what other people think and understand regarding some issues. As I had stated earlier, where we have immigrants, there is a high possibility of having different languages and hence the need for effective communication.
There are some communication rules which are supposed to be learned. This includes knowing the best language to use, which is going to be understood by all people. In the United States, English language is the mode of communication regardless of whether you are a citizen or an immigrant.
The Creative and Exponential Leadership Training Program
Getting compassion for the members is very important, being a member who is involved in different kinds of projects which are having different groups of people has got a lot of advantages. This means that people can learn so much from what other people are doing differently to ensure that the projects are progressing using the resources more effectively. As a member of different groups, one becomes very familiar with how to deal with issues, such as watching and trying to figure out some of the instructions given to the structure and how projects are supposed to be carried out to ensure that they are working effectively. It was profound that when a person has some experiences, thinking about the activities that are supposed to be undertaken should be because there is a lot of learning. This means that very few strategies would require the extra gathering of the information. The person who is working with diverse groups of people and conscious about what is happening to learn becomes very easy, and this is called experiential learning (Robinson, 2017)
This can be described as one way towards the learning process, and this makes a thing to be very easy since there is a lot of understanding about what is being learnt. All these are characterized through learning and reflecting from what one has seen. For instance, as a creative leader, one can undertake a training program as well, and an example of this can be how to build a raft together and reflect on the styles of leadership. This is important as it helps people venture out in a group through the help of the building activity and the review on some specific initiatives. This can be through gathering information from different groups. This can construct a platform whereby people can be learning from it.
Through this, people will be able to comprehend some of the administration styles used by others to make sure that they are achieving the objectives they have targeted. There must be a discussion that should be carried out during the meeting. From this discussion, the four leadership styles are supposed to be discussed broadly to ensure that people are aware of best initiatives to be used. The situation is where a person is. Knowing which leadership style is the best for each person is very important. A good leader is supposed to acknowledge the values of diversity, foster the sense of diversity in the workplace and acknowledge that globalization has influenced the workforce to become more diverse.
The Value of Diversity Consciousness in Leadership Effectiveness
Many investigations have been made regarding the value of diversity consciousness, which has helped gather more information about different kinds of groups and how they can be handled. All these can be managed by understanding the viewpoint’s scope; the specialists can invest this to know the issue’s complexity. The reason for doing this is that some of the gatherings are better to keep away from them. This is because there is no learning which can take place from such groups. However, some other groups are very compliant, which helps ensure that the individuals’ self-esteem has been boosted when they are staying in. This is through having an examination and basic assessment as well. When groups reach such places, diversity issues such as sex, age, and ethnic diversities are significant parts that people can learn from. Everything is supposed to adjust so that they can continue being at the same pace with all others. Each person in the group should therefore be bound to keep up and aim that they are going to pursue objectives and the reason as to why they went and involved themselves with the groups (Jones et al., 2014).
The Future of Diversity and Cultural Competence
There are several ways the organization can ensure diversity and cultural competence are guaranteed in the future. First, there will be imperative demographics that are supposed to be well established. Therefore, the case diversity will continue to improve. There will be global interest and cultural competence in health care, which will continue trending and the system approach. There will be many force field analyses. This will ensure that pressures have been analyzed and pressure against change. This is because some people are struggling with how they can make very tough decisions. All organizations must be supposed to be sustainable to ensure that there are no changes that are being made at any time (Northouse, 2014)
Diversity Skills
Many skills help improve some various skills to finish tasks and the activities they are supposed to be taken into consideration. There are some skills associated with taking up some exercises and programs connected to direct results. This is linked with associating with one’s culture, which helps understand different characters; this will empower social equity, which is essential in making the world a better place to live. There is some educational background that is important in ensuring that one gets to acquire some of the skulls, which are essential in making sure that one can interact. This is important in ensuring cooperation and collaboration amongst the members who are either specialists or others. The skills will be critical for solving some issues, culture, and politics, amongst other things (Steffes, 2012).
Experiential training in diversity-conscious leadership
Anything good to happen to need some experience and time, which is essential in creating some authority abilities, can be achieved by drawing some determined companions through training. This is important in making sure that diversity has been considered to make sure that the advantages of diversity have been acknowledged. There are many types of benefits; for instance, there is much learning concerning what other people might view as a good thing and what others may view some things as not appealing. Training will help people know how they can term one either a good or bad thing. There are other authorities given to the people, which allows most people to propel when they are working with groups. Therefore, having continuous advancement of groups is essential in making decisions, especially concerning the right person and at the right time.
Conclusion
There are different advantages that the organization can get if it becomes conscious in terms of diversity. Since diversity has brought many benefits, it is essential if it is improved and in every organization. This would mean that achieving many things will be very easy because people with different experiences and skills will be coming together, and the work which will be done will be very effective. People will be doing things using significantly less time.
References 0/0/doubled-spaced!
Butin, D. W. (2006). The limits of service-learning in higher education. The review of higher education, 29(4), 473-498.
Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2004). Enduring influences of service-learning on college students’ identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 149-166.
MacDorman, M. F. (2011, August). Race and ethnic disparities in fetal mortality, preterm birth, and infant mortality in the United States: an overview. In Seminars in perinatology, 35(4), 200-208.
Millery, M., & Kukafka, R. (2010). Health information technology and quality of health care: Strategies for reducing disparities in underresourced settings. Medical Care Research and Review, 67(5_suppl), 268S-298S.
Northouse, P. G. (2014). Leadership: Theory and practice. SAGE Publications.
Saxena, A. (2014). Workforce diversity: A key to improve productivity. Procedia Economics and Finance, 11, 76-85.
Steffes, J. S. (2012). Creative powerful learning environments beyond the classroom. Academic Search Premier, 36 (3).
Zimmerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. C. (2000). Leadership in the Making: Impact and Insights from Leadership Development Programs in US Colleges and Universities. Executive Summary.
Emad, this is a good paper. The content and analysis are good. I did make some changes to help the paper read a bit better. There are some APA problems, and always remember that the entire paper must be 0/0/doubled-spaced. Let me know if you have any questions. 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)