Online And Paper Course Evaluations

Güder, Faruk; Malliaris, Mary

doi:10.19030/ajbe.v3i2.392

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…report that online means were "marginally lower" (p. 50) (1.6% lower) than those for paper evaluations, but that the difference is "of little practical significance" (p. 50). Similarly, Guder and Malliaris (2010) found "slight drops" (p. 136) in online scores, but these could have been due to "random fluctuations" and, anyway, were slight (p. 136).…”

Section: Claimed Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Grade expectation is also reported by , Isely and Singh (2005), and to influence evaluation scores. , Guder and Malliaris (2010), , and Robinson, White, and Denman (2004) suggest that faculty support for online evaluations and the actual effort that they put into supporting it (e.g., discussing it in class, showing students how to access the software, indicating the importance of student feedback, sending emails to remind students to complete), exert an influence on response rates. suggests that differences found are not due to whether the evaluations are conducted on paper or online, but to the environment, types of student, and whether or not the classes are on campus.…”

Section: Claimed Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Online and paper evaluations of courses: a literature review and case study

Morrison

2013

Educational Research and Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the literature on comparing online and paper course evaluations in higher education and provides a case study of a very large randomised trial on the topic. It presents a mixed but generally optimistic picture of online course evaluations with respect to response rates, what they indicate, and how to increase them. The paper presents a case study of 1 university and finds that means for paper course evaluations tend to be higher than for online evaluations, that the standard deviations of online evaluations are typically larger than for paper evaluations, that online evaluations take longer to complete than their paper counterparts, that students prefer online evaluations, and that factor analysis shows similar and different numbers of factors for the 2 types of evaluation, even with the same instrument and the same population. Caution is advocated in assuming that the same online and paper evaluations yield similar results.

show abstract

Section: Claimed Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Claimed Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online and paper evaluations of courses: a literature review and case study

Morrison

2013

Educational Research and Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, students who completed the online version provided more and lengthier comments. 35 A third, smaller study found no statistical difference between mean scores on course evaluations delivered online even though there was a higher response rate for paper evaluations. 34 What these study results consistently suggest is that online evaluations are a suitable alternative for conducting evaluations as scoring patterns are similar even if response rates are lower than with paper evaluations.…”

Section: Administering Student Ratings Of Instructionmentioning

confidence: 89%

A Review of Strategies for Designing, Administering, and Using Student Ratings of Instruction

Medina

Smith

Kolluru

et al. 2019

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To review and recommend strategies for utilizing student ratings of instruction (course and instructor) including considerations regarding design, administration, and use and interpretation of results. Findings. Improving course delivery and pedagogy using student ratings of instruction requires programs to design evaluation instruments that are aligned with the following good, scholarly teaching criteria: offer 10-20 rating scale questions and at least one written response question, ensure that students understand what the questions are asking, use a standardized form for evaluating all faculty members, allow for additional tailored questions to be added to the form, and employ a four-or fivepoint rating scale with a "not applicable" option. When administering evaluations, programs should limit the number of faculty members evaluated to those teaching greater than or equal to five clock hours of lecture or schedule evaluations based on academic rank; use an online course evaluation tool; randomly select students to participate; offer the evaluation at the end of the term (and/or midpoint for team taught classes); offer the evaluation during scheduled class time; and allow for voluntary, anonymous student participation. Finally, programs should create an assessment plan that outlines the results' release timeline, a list of who will receive result summaries, and how the results will be used. Programs should also encourage faculty reflection, offer mentoring in results interpretation, coach faculty members to summarize and quantify comments and longitudinally track results using tables, and create an accountability action plan to address deficiencies. Summary. In order to better ensure that student ratings of instruction are used to improve teaching, colleges and schools should adopt intentional design, structured administration processes, and transparent reporting of results.

show abstract

“…However, analysis of the results showed that there was no significant difference in the paper and online values given to courses or faculty for whom evaluations existed in both paper and online formats (Guder et al, 2009). However, with the online evaluations, the response rate dropped by 26% on the undergraduate level (Guder & Malliaris, 2010). Given this significant drop, we were interested in not only the comparison of values with the previous years, but also why the drop might have occurred.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Course Evaluations Response Rates

Güder

Malliaris

2013

AJBE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper studies the reasons for low response rates in online evaluations. Survey data are collected from the students to understand factors that might affect student participation in the course evaluation process. When course evaluations were opened to the student body, an email announcement was sent to all students, and a reminder email was sent a week later. Our study showed that participation rates increased not only when emails were sent, but also when faculty used in-class time to emphasize the importance of completing the evaluations.

show abstract

Online And Paper Course Evaluations

Abstract: ABSTRACT

Cited by 16 publications

References 14 publications

Online and paper evaluations of courses: a literature review and case study

Online and paper evaluations of courses: a literature review and case study

A Review of Strategies for Designing, Administering, and Using Student Ratings of Instruction

Online Course Evaluations Response Rates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About