Online Course Evaluations Response Rates

Güder, Faruk; Malliaris, Mary

doi:10.19030/ajbe.v6i3.7813

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite being optional, a third of all participants completed and sought to engage with the e-Learning platform for pain education, with those who engaged reported many of the beneficial attributes of e-Learning approaches. For those who did not participate, there was a sense of not seeing value, having the time, or the interest in using the platform, alongside experiencing issues with technology; similar experiences have been reported elsewhere [39]. Perceived usefulness of e-Learning can have a strong impact on students' e-Learning intention [40].…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 82%

Project OPUS: Development and evaluation of an electronic platform for pain management education of medical undergraduates in resource-limited settings

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Pain is a very frequent symptom that is reported by patients when they present to health professionals but remains undertreated or untreated, particularly in low-resource settings including Nigeria. Lack of training in pain management remains the most significant obstacle to pain treatment alongside an inadequate emphasis on pain education in undergraduate medical curricula, negatively impacting on subsequent care of patients. This study aimed to determine the effect of a 12-week structured e-Learning course on the knowledge of pain management among Nigerian undergraduate medical students. Methods Prospective, multisite, pre-post study conducted across five medical colleges in Nigeria. Structured modules covering aspects of pain management were delivered on an e-Learning platform. Pre- and post-test self-assessments were carried out in the 12-week duration of the study. User experience questionnaires and qualitative interviews were conducted via instant messaging to evaluate user experiences of the platform. User experience data was analysed using the UEQ Data Analysis Tool and Framework Analysis. Results A total of 216 of 659 eligible students completed all sections of the e-Learning course. Participant mean age was 23.52 years, with a slight female predominance (55.3%). Across all participants, an increase in median pre- and post-test scores occurred, from 40 to 60 (Z = 11.3, p<0.001, effect size = 1.3), suggestive of increased knowledge acquisition relating to pain management. Participants suggested e-Learning is a valuable approach to delivering pain education alongside identifying factors to address in future iterations. Conclusion e-Learning approaches to pain management education can enhance traditional learning methods and may increase students’ knowledge. Future iterations of e-Learning approaches will need to consider facilitating the download of data and content for the platform to increase user uptake and engagement. The platform was piloted as an optional adjunct to existing curricula. Future efforts to advocate and support integration of e-Learning for pain education should be two-fold; both to include pain education in the curricula of medical colleges across Nigeria and the use of e-Learning approaches to enhance teaching where feasible.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 82%

Project OPUS: Development and evaluation of an electronic platform for pain management education of medical undergraduates in resource-limited settings

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in most cases, students are allowed to complete the evaluations voluntarily anytime during an announced timeframe. As a result, one study noted that the average online response rate is 23% less than the in-class collection response rate (Guder & Malliaris, 2013). Unfortunately, academicians have noted that biases exist between those who complete the evaluations and those who do not.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, this study explores nonresponse bias in online student evaluations. Low participation, or nonresponse, to online student evaluation of teaching (SET) is a major shortcoming of the technology (Guder & Malliaris, 2013). Nonresponse bias is defined as, "Error that results from a systematic difference between those who do and those who do not respond to a measurement instrument" (McDaniel & Gates, 2012, p. 156).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Student Evaluation of Teaching

Reisenwitz

2015

Journal of Marketing Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The online administration of student evaluations has its shortcomings, including low participation, or low response rates, and bias. This study examines nonresponse bias in online student evaluations of instruction, that is, the differences between those students who complete online evaluations and those who decide not to complete them. It builds on the work of Estelami that revealed a response bias based on the timing in which the evaluations were completed, that is, differences in early evaluations versus later evaluations. In contrast, this study examines the demographic variables that have contributed to nonresponse bias in online student evaluations, namely gender, grade point average, and ethnicity. It also examines multiple psychographic variables that may contribute to nonresponse bias: time poverty, complaining behavior, and technology savviness. The study utilized t tests and logistic regression (logit analysis) to analyze the data collected from undergraduate business students. This study found that there are significant differences between those who complete online student evaluations and those who do not. Implications for academic administrators are discussed.

show abstract

“…Based on interviews with staff from three tertiary institutions in New Zealand, Stein et al (2013) reported that many lecturers view course evaluations as a popularity contest and therefore do not take the results seriously. Quantitative student evaluations are also plagued by lower response rates when compared with qualitative methods (Dommeyer et al 2002), making non-response error a common characteristic (Guder and Malliaris 2013).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%