Research in Higher Education

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 221–232 | Cite as

ELECTRONIC VERSUS TRADITIONAL STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION

  • Benjamin H. Layne
  • Joseph R. Decristoforo
  • Dixie Mcginty

Abstract

At a large university, ratings of faculty infive academic areas were collected from two groups ofstudents using paper-and-pencil and electronic surveyadministration modes. Factor analyses performed on both sets of data showed that the two modesyielded similar factor patterns. A 2 5 MANOVA indicatedthat ratings were significantly influenced by academicarea (p < .001) but not by survey method. A high percentage of students in both groups feltconfident that their ratings were anonymous, thoughanonymity ratings were significantly higher (p <.001) in the paperand-pencil group. Students'satisfaction with the mode of administration wassignificantly higher (p < .01) for the electronicgroup than for the paper-and-pencil group. Overall,results suggest that the electronic survey mode is aviable alternative to the paper-and-pencil mode ofadministration.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Barr, A. S. (1948). The measurement and prediction of teaching efficiency: A summary of investigations. Journal of Experimental Education16(4): 203-283.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, D. E., and Lewis, J. M. (1994). Students' evaluation of teaching and accountability: Implications from the Boyer and ASA reports. Teaching Sociology22(2): 195-199.Google Scholar
  3. Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J. E., and Rosenfeld, P. (1992). Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology77(4): 562-566.Google Scholar
  4. Braskamp, L. A., Brandenburg, D. C., and Ory, J. (1984). Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness: A Practical Guide. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Centra, J. (1979). Determining Faculty Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Centra, J. (1987). Faculty evaluation: Past practices, future directions. In Proceedings of Faculty Evaluation and Development: Looking Ahead26: 3-14.Google Scholar
  7. Colombia struggles to seal its judges' armor (1991, October). The New York Times Internationalp. 14.Google Scholar
  8. Costin, F. (1968). A graduate course in the teaching of psychology: Description and evaluation. The Journal of Teacher Education19(4): 425-432.Google Scholar
  9. Cureton, E. E., and D' Angostino, R. B. (1983). Factor Analysis: An Applied Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Feldman, K. A. (1979). The significance of circumstances for college students' ratings of their teachers and courses. Research in Higher Education10(2): 149-172.Google Scholar
  11. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Harman, H. H. (1960). Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Heberlein, T., and Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires. American Sociological Review43(4): 447-462.Google Scholar
  14. Kiesler, S., and Sproull, L. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly50(3): 402-413.Google Scholar
  15. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., and McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American Psychologist139(10): 1123-1134.Google Scholar
  16. Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research11(3): 253-288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martin, C., & Nagao, H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. Journal of Applied Psychology74(1): 72-80.Google Scholar
  18. Miller, R. I. (1987). Evaluating Faculty for Promotion and Tenure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Ory, J. (1990). Student ratings of instruction: Ethics and practice. In M. Theall and J. Franklin (eds.), Student Ratings of Instruction: Issues for Improving Practice(pp. 63-74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Ory, J. C., and Parker, S. A. (1989). Assessment activities at large research universities. Research in Higher Education30(4): 375-385.Google Scholar
  21. Pelton, G. E. (1993). Voice Processing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Remmers, H. H., and Brandenburg, G. (1927). Experimental data on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors. Educational Administration and Supervision13(6): 399-406.Google Scholar
  23. Romei, L. K. (1995). Voice processing: Increasing your productivity. Managing Office Technology40(1): 14-15.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenfeld, P., Booth-Kewley, S., and Edwards, J. E. (1993). Computer-adm inistered surveys in organizational settings: Alternatives, advantages, and applications. American Behavioral Scientist36(4): 485-511.Google Scholar
  25. Schmandt, C. (1994). Voice Communication with Computers: Conversational Systems. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  26. Seldin, P. (1984). Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation: A Critical Assessment and Recommendat ions for Improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Smith, W. J., and Ely, P. (1994). Campus communications: Electronic solutions for everyday use. TechTrends396(2): 32-34.Google Scholar
  28. Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Stephens, S. G. (1992). The "voice" of higher education. Voice Processing Magazine4(7): 16-21.Google Scholar
  30. Van Patten, J. J. (1994). The politics of assessment of the professoriate. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Philosophy of Education Society, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  31. Watson, C. G., Manifold, V., Klett, W. G., Brown, J., Thomas, D., and Anderson, D. (1990). Comparability of computer-and booklet-adm inistered MMPIs among chemically dependent patients. Psychological Assessment26(3): 276-280.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin H. Layne
  • Joseph R. Decristoforo
  • Dixie Mcginty

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations