The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?

This article is about differences between, and the adequacy of, response rates to online and paper‐based course and teaching evaluation surveys. Its aim is to provide practical guidance on these matters. The first part of the article gives an overview of online surveying in general, a review of data relating to survey response rates and practical advice to help boost response rates. The second part of the article discusses when a response rate may be considered large enough for the survey data to provide adequate evidence for accountability and improvement purposes. The article ends with suggestions for improving the effectiveness of evaluation strategy. These suggestions are: to seek to obtain the highest response rates possible to all surveys; to take account of probable effects of survey design and methods on the feedback obtained when interpreting that feedback; and to enhance this action by making use of data derived from multiple methods of gathering feedback.

[1]  V. P. Godambe,et al.  A UNIFIED THEORY OF SAMPLING FROM FINITE POPULATIONS , 1955 .

[2]  Curt J. Dommeyer,et al.  Attitudes of Business Faculty Towards Two Methods of Collecting Teaching Evaluations: Paper vs. Online , 2002 .

[3]  Russel L. Thompson,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web- or Internet-Based Surveys , 2000 .

[4]  J. Calder.  Survey research methods , 1998, Medical education.

[5]  Yehuda Baruch,et al.  Response Rate in Academic Studies — A Comparative Analysis , 1999 .

[6]  Curt J. Dommeyer,et al.  College Students' Attitudes Toward Methods of Collecting Teaching Evaluations: In-Class Versus On-Line , 2002 .

[7]  David Watkins,et al.  A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students. , 1985 .

[8]  Robert W. Hanna,et al.  Gathering faculty teaching evaluations by in‐class and online surveys: their effects on response rates and evaluations , 2004 .

[9]  P. Chisnall.  Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method , 2007, Journal of Advertising Research.

[10]  Coralie McCormack.  Reconceptualizing student evaluation of teaching: an ethical framework for changing times , 2005 .

[11]  T. M. F. Smith,et al.  On the validity of interferences from non-random samples , 1983 .

[12]  Kala Chand Seal,et al.  Using the World Wide Web for teaching improvement , 2001, Comput. Educ..

[13]  A. R. Ilersic,et al.  Research methods in social relations , 1961 .

[14]  Claire Simpson,et al.  Electronic Course Surveys: Does automating feedback and reporting give better results? , 2002 .

[15]  Rudolf H. Moos,et al.  Response bias in follow-up studies of college students , 1978 .

[16]  John T. E. Richardson,et al.  Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature , 2005 .

[17]  J. Neyman.  On the Two Different Aspects of the Representative Method: the Method of Stratified Sampling and the Method of Purposive Selection , 1934 .

[18]  Alexander W. Astin,et al.  The Methodology of Research on College Impact, Part One. , 1970 .