From paper to pixels : the effects of modality on end-of-course survey responses

Cohen Alexander, V.Irwin Jennifer, Gall Edward,

Full Text

This study examines how end-of-course surveys administered at the same institution in two modalities (online and in-class) differ. In particular, substantive responses to qualitative questions appeared systematically less substantive than those administered in class. However, students did respond to qualitative questions at a higher rate, even though these responses were, on average, less substantive. It also appears that survey response was far less consistent with one another in the online modality than the traditional, in-class modality. On the other hand, there is very little convincing evidence that shifting to online end-of-course surveys leads to more positive or negative responses.

References

1. Anderson, J., Brown, G., & Spaeth, S. (2006). Online student evaluations and response rates reconsidered. Innovate, 2(6). Retrieved from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=301 2. Conboy, L., Domar, A., & O’Connell, E. (2001). Women at mid-life: Symptoms, attitudes, and choices, an internet-based survey. Maturitas, 28, 129-136. 3. Dommeyer, C.J., Baum, P., Chapman, K., & Hanna, R.W. (2002). Attitudes of business faculty toward two methods of collecting teaching evaluations: Paper vs. online. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 445-462. 4. 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 and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 611-623. 5. Krautmann, A.C., & Sander, A. (1999). Grades of student evaluation of teachers. Economics of Education Review, 18(3), 59-63. 6. Layne, B.H., DeCristoforo, J.R., & McGinty, D. (1999). Electronic versus traditional student ratings of instruction. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 221-232. 7. Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (1999). Designing and implementing web-based surveys. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 39(4), 63-67. 8. Marsh, H.W., & Roche, L.A. (1999). Rely on SET research. American Psychologist, 54(7), 517-518. 9. Millea, M., & Grimes, P.W. (2002). Grade expectations and student evaluation of teaching. College Student Journal, 36(4), 582-591. 10. Nowell, C. (2007). The impact of relative grade expectations on student evaluation of teaching. International Review of Economics Education, 6(2), 42-56. 11. Nowell, C., Gale, L., & Handley, B. (2010). Assessing faculty performance using student evaluations of teaching in an uncontrolled setting. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 463-475 12. Richardson, J. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387-415. 13. Rocca, K.A., and J.C. McCroskey. (1999). The interrelationship of student ratings of instructors’ immediacy, verbal aggressiveness, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Communication Education, 48, 308-316. 14. Sax, L.J., Gilmartin, S.K., & Bryant, A.N. (2003). Assessing response rate and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409-432. 15. Vennete, S., Sellnow, D., & McIntyre, K. (2010). Charting new territory: Assessing the online frontier of student ratings of instruction. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(1), 101-115. 16. Wyatt, J.C. (2000). When to use web-based surveys. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7, 426-430.