Student engagement: The key to improving survey response rates

Quality in Higher Education

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 225-232

  Nair, Chenicheri Sid ^a   Adams, Phillip ^a   Mertova, Patricie ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Australia; Evaluation survey; Student engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 57249084645     PISSN: 13538322     EISSN: 14701081     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13538320802507505     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bennett, L., Nair, C. S. and Wayland, C. (2006) Love it or hate it: participation a key ingredient in closing the loop. paper presented at the 2006 Australian Universities Quality Forum (AUQF) Perth, Australia
2. Centre for Higher Education Quality (2008) Guide to interpreting unit evaluation and MonQueST reports, Monash University, Melbourne
3. Coates, H. (2006) Student engagement in campus-based and online education: University connections, Taylor & Francis, London
4. Coates, H., Tilbrook, C., Guthrie, B. and Bryant, G. (2006) Enhancing the GCA national surveys: An examination of critical factors leading to enhancements in the instrument, methodology and process, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra, Australia
5. Dillman, D. A. (2000) Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method, Wiley, New York
6. Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Hanna, R. W. and Chapman, K. S. (2004) Gathering faculty teaching evaluations by in-class and online surveys: their effects on response rates and evaluations. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29:5, pp. 611-623.
7. Fraser, B. J. (1998) Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. The international handbook of science education, pp. 527-564. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
8. Griffin, G., Coates, H., McInnis, C. and James, J. (2003) The development of an extended course experience questionnaire. Quality in Higher Education, 9:3, pp. 259-266.
9. Heberlein, T. A. and Baumhartner, R. (1978) Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43:4, p. 462.
10. Layne, B. H., Decristoforo, J. R. and McGinty, D. (1999) Electronic versus traditional student rating of instruction. Research in Higher Education, 40:2, pp. 221-232.
11. Mccrindle, M. (2003) Understanding generation Y
12. Morton, L. P. (2002) Targeting generation Y. Public Relations Quarterly, 47:2, pp. 46-53.
13. Nair, C. S. and Fisher, D. L. (2001) Learning environments and student attitudes to science at the senior secondary and tertiary levels. Issues in Educational Research, 11:2, pp. 12-31.
14. Nair, C. S., Adams, P., Ferraiuolo, S. and Curtis, A. (2006) Student engagement the key to better response rates. Proceedings of the 2006 Australian Universities Quality Forum (AUQF): Evaluating to Improve the Student Experience
15. Paolo, A. M., Bonaminio, G. A., Gibson, C., Partridge, T. and Kallail, K. (2000) Response rate comparisons of e-mail- and mail-distributed student evaluations. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 12:2, pp. 81-84.
16. (2004) Overcoming survey research problems, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
17. Porter, S. R., Whitcomb, M. E. and Weitzer, W. H. (2004) Multiple surveys of students and survey fatigue. Overcoming survey research problems, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
18. Webb, G. (1994) Making the most of appraisal: Career and professional development planning for lecturers, Kogan Page, London