Web-Based versus Paper-and-Pencil Course Evaluations

Teaching of Psychology

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 259-261

  Heath, Nicole M ^a   Lawyer, Steven R ^a   Rasmussen, Erin B ^a  

^a IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38349088604     PISSN: 00986283     EISSN: 15322802     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00986280701700433     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Canelos J. (1985). Teaching and course evaluation procedures: A literature review of current research. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 12, 187–195.
2. Cates W. M. (1993). A small-scale comparison of the equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computerized versions of student end-of-course evaluations. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 401–409.
3. Cohen J. (1988). Chi-square tests for goodness of fit and contingency tables. In Cohen J. (ed.), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 215–271). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4. Marsh H. W. (1984). Students' evaluation of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 707–754.
5. Rasmussen E. B. (2005). Creating teaching portfolios. In Buskist W. Davis S. F. (eds.), The handbook of the teaching of psychology (pp. 301–306). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
6. Richardson J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 387–415.