IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reihed/v59y2018i6d10.1007_s11162-017-9488-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving SET Response Rates: Synchronous Online Administration as a Tool to Improve Evaluation Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Trey Standish

    (North Carolina State University)

  • Jeff A. Joines

    (North Carolina State University)

  • Karen R. Young

    (North Carolina State University)

  • Victoria J. Gallagher

    (North Carolina State University)

Abstract

Institutions of higher education continue to migrate student evaluations of teaching (SET) from traditional, in-class paper forms to online SETs. Online SETs would favorably compare to paper-and-pencil evaluations were it not for widely reported response rate decreases that cause SET validity concerns stemming from possible nonresponse bias. To combat low response rates, one institution introduced a SET application for mobile devices and piloted formal synchronous classroom time for SET completion. This paper uses the Leverage Salience Theory to estimate the impact of these SET process changes on overall response rates, open-ended question response rates, and open end response word counts. Synchronous class time best improves SET responses when faculty encourage completion on keyboarded devices and provide students SET completion time in the first 15 min of a class meeting. Full support from administrators requires sufficient wireless signal strength, IT infrastructure, and assuring student access to devices for responses clustering around meeting times.

Suggested Citation

  • Trey Standish & Jeff A. Joines & Karen R. Young & Victoria J. Gallagher, 2018. "Improving SET Response Rates: Synchronous Online Administration as a Tool to Improve Evaluation Quality," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 59(6), pages 812-823, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reihed:v:59:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s11162-017-9488-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11162-017-9488-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11162-017-9488-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11162-017-9488-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosemary J. Avery & W. Keith Bryant & Alan Mathios & Hyojin Kang & Duncan Bell, 2006. "Electronic Course Evaluations: Does an Online Delivery System Influence Student Evaluations?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 21-37, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luis Matosas-López & Cesar Bernal-Bravo & Alberto Romero-Ania & Irene Palomero-Ilardia, 2019. "Quality Control Systems in Higher Education Supported by the Use of Mobile Messaging Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-14, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephen B. DeLoach, 2011. "What Every Economist Should Know About the Evaluation of Teaching: A Review of the Literature," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 34, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Sam Allgood & William B. Walstad & John J. Siegfried, 2015. "Research on Teaching Economics to Undergraduates," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(2), pages 285-325, June.
    3. Anna Salomons & Maarten Goos, 2014. "Measuring Teaching Quality in Higher Education: Assessing the Problem of Selection Bias in Course Evaluations," Working Papers 14-16, Utrecht School of Economics.
    4. Neckermann, Susanne & Turmunkh, Uyanga & van Dolder, Dennie & Wang, Tong V., 2022. "Nudging student participation in online evaluations of teaching: Evidence from a field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    5. Maarten Goos & Anna Salomons, 2017. "Measuring teaching quality in higher education: assessing selection bias in course evaluations," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 58(4), pages 341-364, June.
    6. Lütkenhöner, Laura, 2012. "Effekte von Erhebungsart und -zeitpunkt auf studentische Evaluationsergebnisse," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 8/2012, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    7. Oana Eugenia & Gogu Emilia & Roman Monica & Marin Erika, 2022. "Students’ Perceptions on the Quality of the Economics Higher Education in Romania," Journal of Social and Economic Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 11(1-2), pages 14-35, December.
    8. Edgar Treischl & Tobias Wolbring, 2017. "The Causal Effect of Survey Mode on Students’ Evaluations of Teaching: Empirical Evidence from Three Field Experiments," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 58(8), pages 904-921, December.
    9. Kifle, Temesgen & Alauddin, Mohammad, 2016. "What determines students’ perceptions in course evaluation rating in higher education? An econometric exploration," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 123-130.
    10. Ille, Sebastian & Peacey, Mike W., 2019. "Forced private tutoring in Egypt: Moving away from a corrupt social norm," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 105-118.
    11. Luis Matosas-López & Cesar Bernal-Bravo & Alberto Romero-Ania & Irene Palomero-Ilardia, 2019. "Quality Control Systems in Higher Education Supported by the Use of Mobile Messaging Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-14, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:reihed:v:59:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s11162-017-9488-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.