College Student Responses to Web and Paper Surveys: Does Mode Matter?+

Research in Higher Education

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-19

  Carini, Robert M ^a   Hayek, John C ^a   Kuh, George D ^a   Kennedy, John M ^a   Ouimet, Judith A ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

NSSE; Student engagement; Survey mode; Web survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346494419     PISSN: 03610365     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021363527731     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Barron's Educational Series, Inc. (1998). Barron's Profiles of American Colleges, 23rd Edition, Barron's Educational Series, Inc., Hauppauge, NY.
2. Bradburn, N. M., and Sudman, S. (1988). Polls and Surveys: Understanding what They Tell Us, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
3. Burr, M. A., Levin, K. Y., and Becher, A. (2001). Examining web vs. paper mode effects in a federal government customer satisfaction study. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Montreal, Canada.
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavior Sciences (2nd ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
5. Converse, J. M., and Presser, S. (1989). Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
6. Couper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opin. Q. 64: 464-494.
7. Daly, R. F., Cross, J., and Thomson, G. E. (2001). Web versus paper surveys: Results of a large-scale direct comparison of the two methods. Paper presented at the Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Long Beach, CA.
8. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
9. Dillman, D. A., Sangster, R. L., Tarnai, J., and Rockwood, T. H. (1996). Understanding differences in people's answers to telephone and mail surveys. In: Braverman, M. T., and Slater, J. K. (eds.), Advances in Survey Research, New Directions for Evaluation Series (Vol. 70), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 45-62.
10. Ethington, C. A. (1997). A hierarchical linear modeling approach to studying college effects. In: Smart, J. C. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 12), Agathon, New York, pp. 165-194).
11. Gatz, L. G., and Hirt, J. B. (2000). "Academic and social integration in cyberspace: Students and e-mail. Rev. Higher Educ. 23: 299-318.
12. Green, K. C. (2001). Campus Computing, 2000: The 11th National Survey of Computing and Information Technology in American Higher Education, Campus Computing, Encino, CA.
13. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., and Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Rev. Educ. Res. 66: 361-396.
14. Groves, R. M., and Kahn, R. L. (1979). Surveys by Telephone: A National Comparison with Personal Interviews, Academic, New York.
15. Hu, S., and Kuh, G. D. (2001). Computing experience and good practices in undergraduate education: Does the degree of campus wiredness matter? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
16. Jenkins, C. R., and Dillman, D. A. (1997). Towards a theory of self-administered questionnaire design. In: Lyberg, L., Biemer, P., Collins, M., Decker, L., deLeeuw, E., Dippo, C., et al. (eds.), Survey Measurement and Process Quality, Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp. 165-196.
17. Jones, S. (2002). The Internet Goes to College: How Students are Living in the Future with Today's Technology, The Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC.
18. Kuh, G. D. (2000a). The College Student Report, National Survey of Student Engagement, Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
19. Kuh, G. D. (2000b). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual Framework and Overview of Psychometric Properties. Indiana Postsecondary Research and Planning [On-line]. Available: www.indiana.edu/̃nsse
20. Kuh, G.D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change 33(3): 10-17, 66.
21. Kuh, G. D., Hayek, J. C., Carini, R. M., Ouimet, J. A., Gonyea, R. M., and Kennedy, J. (2001). NSSE Technical and Norms Report, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, Bloomington, IN.
22. Kuh, G. D., and Hu, S. (2001). The relationships between computer and information technology use, student learning, and other college experiences. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 42: 217-232.
23. Kuh, G. D., and Vesper, N. (2001). Do computers enhance or detract from student learning? Res. Higher Educ. 42: 87-102.
24. Laing, J., Swayer, R., and Noble, J. (1989). Accuracy of self-reported activities and accomplishments of college-bound seniors. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 29: 362-368.
25. Layne, B. H., DeCristoforo, J. R., and McGinty, D. (1999). Electronic versus traditional student ratings of instruction. Res. Higher Educ. 40: 221-232.
26. Light, R., and Pillemer, D. (1982). Numbers and narrative: Combining their strengths in research reviews. Harv. Educ. Rev. 52: 1-26.
27. Malveaux, J. (2000). Technology, learning, and the future of education. Black Issues Higher Educ. 17: 38.
28. National Survey of Student Engagement (2000). NSSE 2000 Overview, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, Bloomington, IN.
29. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2000). Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
30. Olsen, D. R., Wygant, S. A., and Brown, B. L. (1999). Entering the next millennium with Web-based assessment: Considerations of efficiency and reliability. Paper presented at the Conference of the Rocky Mountain Association for Institutional Research, Las Vegas, NV.
31. Pace, C. R. (1985). The Credibility of Student Self-Reports, University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate Institution of Education, Los Angeles.
32. Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
33. Pascarella, E. T., Flowers, L., and Whitt, E. J. (2001). Cognitive effects of Greek affiliation in college: Additional evidence. NASPA J. 38: 280-301.
34. Internet and American Life (2000). Tracking Online Life: How Women use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family and Friends, The Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC.
35. Schwarz, N., Hippler, H. J., and Noelle-Neumann, E. (1992). A cognitive model of response-order effects in survey measurement. In: Schwarz, N., and Sudman, S. (eds.), Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research, New York, Springer-Verlag, pp. 187-201.
36. Tomsic, M. L., Hendel, D. D., and Matross, R. P. (2000). A World Wide Web response to student satisfaction surveys: Comparisons using paper and Internet formats. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH.
37. Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., and Sonenstein, F. L. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, & violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science 280: 867-873.
38. Yahoo Internet Life (2001). America's Most Wired Colleges 2000. Available: http://www.zdnet.com/yil/content/college/college2000/wired_ivy.html.