Web Survey Bibliography
Title Online versus in-class faculty evaluation: Does mode really matter?
Author Robertson, P.
Source Walden University
Year 2006
Database ProQuest
Access date 01.06.2006
Abstract This study examined two methods of conducting faculty evaluations at a community college. Problems addressed in comparing a paper-based system with an online evaluation process were rising costs, differences in instructor scores and return rates, and attitudes of students and faculty members. Instructor mean scores and evaluation return rates were analyzed using ex post facto longitudinal data and costs of both survey methodologies were outlined. Attitudinal surveys were conducted with both students and members of the faculty to gauge impressions and feelings as related to online survey methodology.
Results of this study indicated that in spite of low student response rates, mean instructor scores were not negatively biased. The cost analysis of survey methodologies has provided evidence that the online evaluation can save colleges thousands of dollars annually. While it is clear that some students and members of the faculty are more comfortable with the status quo, overall results of surveys show a willingness to convert to online evaluation and recognition that automating the process holds much promise. Chi-square analysis performed at the 0.05 level of significance provided evidence of a relationship between the students' preference of online evaluation and characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, and enrollment status.
The social impact of this study provides contributions to research in the areas of teaching and learning and incorporates recommendations for organizational change. Creating strategies and ideas to improve teaching evaluations by students with the goal of extracting more meaningful data contributes to faculty development.
Results of this study indicated that in spite of low student response rates, mean instructor scores were not negatively biased. The cost analysis of survey methodologies has provided evidence that the online evaluation can save colleges thousands of dollars annually. While it is clear that some students and members of the faculty are more comfortable with the status quo, overall results of surveys show a willingness to convert to online evaluation and recognition that automating the process holds much promise. Chi-square analysis performed at the 0.05 level of significance provided evidence of a relationship between the students' preference of online evaluation and characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, and enrollment status.
The social impact of this study provides contributions to research in the areas of teaching and learning and incorporates recommendations for organizational change. Creating strategies and ideas to improve teaching evaluations by students with the goal of extracting more meaningful data contributes to faculty development.
Year of publication2006
Bibliographic typeThesis, diplomas
Full text availabilityFurther details
Web survey bibliography - 2006 (98)
- Adult gadget ownership over time (2006-2012); 2012
- Dutch Online Panel Comparison Study (NOPVO); 2006; R. van Ossenbruggen; T. Vonk; P. Willems
- Migration Watch: an Internet survey to monitor spring migration in Britain and Ireland; 2006; Baillie, S. R., Balmer, D. E., Downie, I. S., Wright, K. H. M.
- Substance use and sexual behaviours of Japanese men who have sex with men: A nationwide internet survey...; 2006; Hidaka, Y., Ichikawa, S., Koyano, J., Urao, M., Yasuo, T., Kimura, H., Kihara, M., Ono-Kihara, M.
- Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing: Mode Effects on Data Quality and Likely Causes. Report...; 2006; Jaeckle, A., Lynn, P., Roberts, C.,
- DADOS-Survey: an open-source application for CHERRIES-compliant Web surveys; 2006; Shah, A., Jacobs, D. O., Martins, H., Harker, M., Menezes, A., Harker, M., McCready, M., Pietrobon,...
- Snowball Sampling ; 2006; Berg, S.
- Introduction nonresponse bias in household surveys ; 2006; Singer, E.
- Essential Steps for Web Surveys: A Guide to Designing, Administering and Utilizing Web Surveys for University...; 2006; Cheskis-Gold, R., Loescher, R., Shepard-Rabadam, E., Carroll, B.
- Don't make me think: a common sense approach to web usability; 2006; Krug, S.
- The use of an Internet-based Ask the Doctor Service involving family physicians: evaluation by a web...; 2006; Umefjord, G., Hamberg, K., Malker, H., Petersson, G.
- A short introduction to usability in online surveys; 2006; Kaczmirek, L.
- Measuring task-specific perceptions of the world wide web ; 2006; Page-Thomas, K.
- Oversurveying: Causes, Consequences, and Cures; 2006; Weiner, S. P., Dalessio, A. T.
- Online Reporting: Real Time, Real Impact, Real Opportunities ; 2006; Barbera, K. M., Young, S.
- Online Surveys: Critical Issues in Using the Web to Conduct Surveys; 2006; Fenlason, K., Suckow-Zimberg, K.
- Getting Action from Organizational Surveys: New Concepts, Technologies, and Applications; 2006; Kraut, A. I.
- Survey Methodology; 2006; Nusser, S. M.
- Web-based survey techniques. A synthesis of Transit practice; 2006
- Web 2.0 & panels. The shift from lectures to conversations; 2006; Cook, M., Buckley, N.
- Understanding people. Sample matching; 2006; Rivers, D.
- The power of the visible: Visual design for Web surveys; 2006; Couper, M. P.
- The internet response method: Impact on the Canadian Census of population data; 2006; Roy, L., Laroche, D.
- The effect of conditioning when re-interviewing; 2006; Cartwright, T., Nancarrow, C.
- The anonymous elect. Market research through online access panels; 2006; Postoaca, A.
- Statistics for real-life sample surveys: non-simple-random samples and weighted data; 2006; Dorofeev, S., Grant, P.
- Sample matching. Representative sampling from Internet panels; 2006; Rivers, D.
- Research quality: The next MR industry challenge; 2006; Dedeker, K.
- Optimizing quality in the use of web-based and computer based testing for personnel selection; 2006; Hornke, L. F., Kersting, M.
- Online marketing research; 2006; Miller, J.
- Need for high quality auxiliary data service for improving the quality of editing and imputation...; 2006; Laaksonen, S.
- Microsoft sues testing material vendors; 2006; Johnston, S. J.
- Introduction to the Special Issue on the ITC - Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing...; 2006; Coyne, I., Bartram, D.
- International Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing; 2006
- How successful I am depends on what number I get: The effects of numerical scale labels and need for...; 2006; Yan, T.
- Greenfield unveils real-time sampling; 2006
- Global market research 2006; 2006
- F-Shaped pattern for reading web content; 2006; Nielsen, J.
- Blocked versus randomized format of questionnaires. A confirmatory multigroup analysis; 2006; Sparfeldt, J. R., Schilling, S. R., Rost, D. H., Rost, D. H., Thiel, A.
- Benefits and challenges of multi-sourcing. Understanding differences between sample sources; 2006; de Gaudemar, O.
- Behavioral self-report measures. International extensions; 2006; Thomas, R. K., Klein, J. D.
- Attitudinal differences. Comparing people who belong to multiple versus single panels; 2006; Casdas, D., Fine, B., Menictas, C.
- Assessing individual respondents' quality. An innovative scoring system; 2006; Loeb, C.,Hartmann, A.
- Assessing Panel Bias in the Knowledge Networks Panel: Updated Results from 2005 Research ; 2006; Pineau, V., Nukulkij, P., Tang, X.
- A Critical Assessment of Online Survey Tools; 2006; Marra, R. M., Bogue, B.
- A dynamic technique for conducting online survey-based research; 2006; Bonometti, R. J., Tang, J.
- The 2006 Confirmit Annual MR Software Survey; 2006; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- Online community survey: an effectiveness measure for revealing citizen preferences in their role as...; 2006; Martin Juanil, D., Ismail, M.
- Blaise – Alive and kicking for 20 years; 2006; Bethlehem, J., Hofman, L.
- Physical or Virtual Presence of the Experimenter: Psychological Online-Experiments in Different Settings...; 2006; Ollesch, H., Heineken, E., Schulte, F. P.