A recipe for effective participation rates for web‐based surveys

Abstract

One way many universities have approached the process of better understanding and meeting the needs of their students is through student evaluations. The evaluation data provide not only diagnostic feedback but also useful information in terms of the quality of learning and teaching experiences. In an effective quality cycle, the data gathered are analysed and used to make improvements. This is often referred to as 'closing the loop'. However, for any evaluation data to be of value an important prerequisite for 'closing the loop' is that response rates should be sufficiently high to be representative of the student cohort. This paper describes how a faculty within Monash University utilising only web based surveys developed a successful communication strategy to elicit staff and student participation in the unit (subject) evaluation process which achieved a response rate as high as 83.2%.

From study to work: methodological challenges of a graduate destination survey in the Western Cape, South Africa

“…In addition, the difference in responses between online and telephonic surveys was discussed. Although the literature discusses many strategies to improve response rates to online surveys (e.g., see Porter [2004b], Nair, Adams andMertova [2008], Nulty [2008], and Bennett and Nair [2010], as well as Alderman, Towers and Bannah [2012, 272] for additional references), such strategies pertain mostly to student evaluation surveys conducted shortly before, during or immediately after graduation, while graduate destination surveys pose the difficulty of tracing students several years after graduation. The purpose here is therefore not to repeat a discussion of strategies already known to improve response rates, but to conclude with three methodological suggestions that add to the literature on student surveys in general and graduate destination surveys in particular.…”

Response Rate and Teaching Effectiveness in Institutional Student Evaluation of Teaching: A Multiple Linear Regression Study

“…Thirdly, studying low response rates enables us to increase the quality of the data, strengthen any interpretation we make of them and recommend legitimate use (outcome validity) of the results (Adams & Umbach, 2012). Finally, for evaluation data to achieve value, response rates need to be sufficiently high so that they are representative of the student cohort (Bennett & Nair, 2010). In these same terms, Schiekirka and Raupach (2015) argue that as participation in evaluation activities is not mandatory at all universities, self-selection of students providing course ratings might produce biased samples.…”

Recognizing the expatriate and transnational distance student: A preliminary demographic exploration in the Republic of Korea

“…To do so, this researcher built a website to advertise the nature and scope of study. This served multiple purposes such as acting as a simple access point for all related information, along with indicating the initial announcement and subsequent open response period (Andrews, Nonnecke & Preece, 2003;Archer, 2008;Bennett, & Nair, 2010). The survey was advertised on 13 internet/social media forums that cater to expatriates locally (in addition to word of mouth).…”

“…This researcher also had the survey items reviewed and piloted by several known acquaintances who fit the definition of expatriate distance student as a formative evaluation for wording, clarity, and to point out any discrepancies or errors (Bennett & Nair, 2010;Burford et al, 2009;Morrison, Ross, Kalman & Kemp, 2011). By observing and timing trial runs, the length of time needed to complete the survey was documented and advertised as an effort to increase participation (Andrews et al, 2003;Archer, 2008;Sinkowitz-Cochran, 2013;Trouteaud, 2004).…”