Online versus traditional teaching evaluation: Mode can matter

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 581-592

  Gamliel, Eyal ^a   Davidovitz, Liema ^a  

^a RUPPIN ACADEMIC CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77349104936     PISSN: 02602938     EISSN: 1469297X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02602930500260647     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Baum, P., Chapman, K. S., Dommeyer, C. J. & Hanna, R. W. (2001) Online versus in-class student evaluations of faculty, paper presented at the Hawaii Conference on Business, Honolulu.
2. Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. C., Kuh, G. D., Kennedy, J. M. & Ouimet, J. A. (2003) College student responses to web and paper surveys: does mode matter?, Research in Higher Education, 44(1), 1-19.
3. Coffey, M. G. & Gibbs, G. (2001) The evaluation of the Student Evaluation of Educational Quality questionnaire (SEEQ) in UK higher education, research note, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 89-93.
4. Cummings, R., Ballantyne, C. & Fowler, L. (2001) Online student feedback surveys: encouraging staff and student use, in: E. Santhanam (Ed.) Student feedback on teaching: reflections and projections (Australia, The University of Western Australia), 29-37.
5. Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P. & Hanna, R. W. (2002) College students' attitudes toward methods of collecting teaching evaluations: in-class versus online, Journal of Education for Business, 78(1), 11-15.
6. Eckel, C. C. & Grossman, P. J. (2000) Volunteers and pseudo-volunteers: the effect of recruitment method in dictator experiments, Experimental Economics, 3, 107-120.
7. Goodman, A. & Campbell, M. (1999) Developing appropriate administrative support for online teaching with an online unit evaluation system, paper presented at the International Symposium on Intelligent Multimedia and Distance Education (Baden-Baden, Germany).
8. Greenwald, A. G. (1976) Within-subjects designs: to use or not to use?, Psychological Bulletin, 83, 314-320.
9. Ha, T. S., Marsh, J. & Jones, J. A. (1998) Web-based system for teaching evaluation, paper presented at the Lingnam College Thirtieth Anniversary Conference, Hong Kong.
10. Ha, T. S. & Marsh, J. (1998) Using the web for student evaluation of teaching, paper presented at the First Conference to Promote Teaching and Learning, Hong Kong, Polytechnic University.
11. Hmieleski, K. & Champagne, M. (2000) Plugging in to course evaluation, The Technology Source, September/October. Available online at: http//distance.wsu.edu/facultyresources/savedfromweb/pluggingin.htm (accessed 30 July 2005).
12. Johnson, T. (2002) Online student ratings: will students respond?, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
13. Kelly, M. & Marsh, J. (1999) Going online with student evaluation of teaching, evaluation of the Student Experience Project (City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong).
14. Klassen, K. J. & Smith, W. (2002) From atoms to bits: using web logs to understand online instructor evaluations, Proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute, San Diego, CA.
15. Layne, B. H., DeCristoforo, J. R. & McGinty, D. (1999) Electronic versus traditional student ratings of instruction, Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 221-232.
16. Marsh, H. W. (1982) SEEQ: a reliable, valid and useful instrument for collecting students evaluations of university teaching, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(1), 77-95.
17. McGourty, J., Scoles, K. & Thorpe, S. W. (2002) Web-based student evaluation of instruction: promises and pitfalls, paper presented at the Forty-second Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Toronto, Canada.
18. Nulty, D. (2001) Web online feedback (WOLF): intentions and evaluation, in: E. Santhanam (Ed.) Student feedback on teaching: reflections and projections (Australia, The University of Western Australia), 38-41.
19. Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K. & Bryant, A. N. (2003) Assessing response rates and non-response bias in web and paper surveys, Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409-432.
20. Theall, M. (2000) Electronic course evaluation is not necessarily the solution, The Technology Source, November/December. Available online at: http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=823 (accessed 21 August 2003).
21. Thorpe, S. W. (2002) Online student evaluation of instruction: an investigation of non-response bias, paper presented at the Forty-second Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Toronto, Canada.