Web Survey Bibliography
We used the Web 2.0 internet-application “Twitter” as a platform for formative evaluation in two courses (pilot and experimental study). After each lesson, students answered evaluation questions via Web-browser, SMS, or Instant Messenger. Both courses were also evaluated summatively, online and offline. The offline summative evaluation took place in the last lecture session. The online summative evaluation was carried out by the evaluation unit of the University of Vienna one week after the offline evaluation.
The aim of our research was to find out if Twitter would be a useful instrument for formative course evaluation. We also wanted to verify if the formative evaluation would come to the same conclusions as the summative online evaluation and the summative offline evaluation to the same conclusions as the online summative evaluation conducted 7 days later. Another point of interest was if the formative evaluation would influence the offline summative evaluation.
Participants were students enrolled in two different courses. In the pilot study (n=26), 20 students (response rate 77%) participated in both the summative and formative evaluation. 21 participants (response rate 81%) also filled in the official summative online evaluation. In the experimental study (n=40), 20 students were chosen to take part in the formative evaluation (experimental group). 19 of them (response rate 95%) participated in the formative evaluation and 15 (response rate 75%) took part in the summative evaluation at the end of the term. 25 participants (response rate 63%) also filled in the official summative online evaluation.
Students rated the evaluation via Twitter as useful. Both teachers and students profited from this approach. Because of Twitters simple use and the electronic data handling, there was only little administrative effort. We found that formative and summative evaluations did not come to the same conclusions. T-tests between the offline summative evaluation and the online summative evaluation revealed no differences. Also, there were no differences between the control and the experimental group regarding the summative offline evaluation, which indicates that the formative evaluation had no impact on the summative offline evaluation.
Conference homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography - Other (439)
- A comparison of surveys using different modes of data collection; 2010; Revilla, M., Saris, W. E.
- Examining the effects of website-induced flow in professional sporting team websites; 2010; O'Cass, A., Carlson, J.
- Research into questionnaire design - A summary of the literature; 2010; Lietz, P.
- College Students' Response Rate to an Incentivized Combination of Postal and Web-Based Health Survey; 2010; Balajti I., Daragó, L., Ádány, R., Kósa, K.
- Improving the response rate and quality in Web-based surveys through the personalization and frequency...; 2010; Muñoz-Leiva, F., Sánchez-Fernández, J., Montoro-Ríos, F. J., Ibáñez-Zapata, J. A.
- What are participants doing while filling in an online questionnaire: A paradata collection tool and...; 2010; Stieger, S., Reips, U.-D.
- ESS Handbook for Quality Reports; 2009
- ESS Standard for Quality Reports; 2009
- MarketTools TrueSample; 2009
- ISO 26362 Access panels in market, opinion, and social research-Vocabulary and service requirements; 2009
- Stochastic properties of the Internet sample; 2009; Getka-Wilczynska, E.
- Web based survey: an emerging tool; 2009; Srivenkataramana, T., Saisree, M.
- The impact of gender in e-mailed survey invitations; 2009; Derham, P.
- The Coverage Bias of Mobile Web Surveys Across European Countries ; 2009; Fuchs, M., Busse, B.
- Interactivity in self-administered surveys. Influence on respondents' experience; 2009; Suarez Vazquez, A., Garcia Rodriguez, N., Alvarez, M. B.
- Metrics for panel contribution: a non probabilistic platform; 2009; Gittelmam, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Mode effects in Switzerland: non‐response and measurement error on the European Social Survey; 2009; Roberts, C.
- Reason analysis: an ambitious alternative for mixed‐mode survey design; 2009; Jerabek, H.
- Response rates in multi actor surveys; 2009; Pasteels, I., Ponnet, K., Mortelmans, D.
- Unit non‐response in panel surveys: empirical finding from an experiment; 2009; Haunberger, S.
- Computer-Assisted Audio Recording (CARI): Repurposing a Tool for Evaluating Comparative Instrument Design...; 2009; Edwards, B., Hicks, W., Tourangeau, K., Harris-Kojetin, L., Moss, A.
- Comparison between Liss panel (web) and ESS data (face to face); 2009; Revilla, M., Saris, W. E.
- The influence of the field time on data quality in list-based Web surveys; 2009; Goeritz, A., Stieger, S.
- Why don’t all Businesses report on Web?; 2009; Haraldsen, G.
- Turning Grid Questions into Sequences in Business Web Surveys; 2009; Haraldsen, G., Bergstrøm, Y.
- Visual Design Effects on Respondents’ Behavior in Web-Surveys; 2009; Greinoecker, A.
- Applying theory to structure respondents' stated motivations for participating in web surveys; 2009; Han, V., Albaum, G., Wiley, J. B., Thirkell, P.
- Web-based survey attracted age-biased sample with more severe illness than paper-based survey; 2009; Klovning, A., Sandvik, H., Hunskaar, S.
- Online Election Surveys: Keeping the Voters Honest? ; 2009; Gibson, R., McAllister, I.
- A recipe for effective participation rates for web-based surveys ; 2009; Bennett, L., Nair, C. S.
- Pause Mechanism in Complex Online Surveys; 2009; Milewski, J.
- Response Formats in Cross-cultural Comparisons in Web-based Surveys; 2009; Thomas, R. K.l, Terhanian, G., Funke, F.
- Relevance Of Health-Related Online-Information In Offline- And Online-Samples; 2009; Stetina, B. U., McElheney, J., Lehenbauer, M., Hinterberger, E., Pintzinger, N., Kryspin-Exner, I.
- Three Different Designs of Type Ranking‐Questions; 2009; Sackl, A.
- Gay and Lesbian People: The Use of Online Communication Services; 2009; Lehenbauer, M., Stetina, B. U., Kryspin-Exner, I.
- An Online Study on Coping with Anxiety and Disease-Specific Internet Use in Panic Attack Sufferers; 2009; König, D., Hiebler, C., Kryspin-Exner, I.
- Distortion of demographics through technically induced dropout in restricted online surveys; 2009; Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Goeritz, A.
- An Internet-based Study on Coping with Illness and Attitudes towards Online Health Care in Cancer Patients...; 2009; Setz, J., König, D., Kryspin-Exner, I.
- WebEXEC: A Short Self-Report Measure of Executive Function Suitable for Administration via the Internet...; 2009; Buchanan, T., Heffernan, T. M., Parrott, A. C., Ling, J., Rodgers, J., Scholey, A. B.
- Let's go formative: Continuous student ratings with Web 2.0 application Twitter; 2009; Burger, C., Stieger, S.
- Self-Efficacy Of Online Health Seekers; 2009; Stetina, B. U., Schramel, C., Lehenbauer, M., Schawill, W., Kryspin-Exner, I.
- Diffusion of Mobile Services Adoption in Taiwan; 2009; Doong, H.-S., Wang, H.-C.
- Verbal Vs Visual Response Options: Reconciling Meanings Conveyed by a Computer Aided Visual Rating Scale...; 2009; Garland, P., Cape, P.
- Increasing response rates in list based samples; 2009; Keusch, F., Kurz, H., Penzkofer, P.
- Implementation of a reaction time tool for brand measurement at Swisscom; 2009; Paar, I., Urbahn, J.
- Measuring Network Quality: Strengths and Weaknesses of different Evaluation Methods (SMS, w@p and web...; 2009; Wallisch, A., Schwab, H.
- Large Scale Digital Data Collection in Developing Countries: Is The Time Right? ; 2009; Hattas, M., Cronje, M., Berard, O.
- Implementation of web-based data-collection channel eSTAT for economic entities; 2009; Sillajoe, T.
- Personality on Social Network Sites: An Application of the Five Factor Model; 2009; Wehrli, S.
- Use of Online Interviews in the Underlying Discourse Unveiling Method (UDUM); 2009; Nicolaci-da-Costa, A. M., Romao-Dias, D., Di Luccio, F.