The impact of electronic media on faculty evaluation

Barkhi, Reza; Williams, Paul

doi:10.1080/02602930902795927

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gamliel and Davidovitz (2005) report that standard deviations are higher for online evaluations, though report similar distributions of scores. Barkhi and Williams (2010) report that, though means for online evaluations are statistically significantly lower than for paper evaluations, when these data are controlled for course and instructor, no statistically significant difference is found between the means. report that online means were "marginally lower" (p. 50) (1.6% lower) than those for paper evaluations, but that the difference is "of little practical significance" (p. 50).…”

Section: Claimed Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…8 Barkhi and Williams (2010) report that online evaluations produce more extreme evaluations than their paper counterparts, that is, the extremes of scales are used and harsh written responses are received. Gamliel and Davidovitz (2005) report that standard deviations are higher for online evaluations, though report similar distributions of scores.…”

Section: Claimed Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Morrison to paper or online evaluations were Barkhi and Williams (2010), , Gamliel and Davidovitz (2005), , and . Some studies did not make clear whether there had or had not been random assignation.…”

Section: The Need For Fair and Complete Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Online and paper evaluations of courses: a literature review and case study

Morrison

2013

Educational Research and Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the literature on comparing online and paper course evaluations in higher education and provides a case study of a very large randomised trial on the topic. It presents a mixed but generally optimistic picture of online course evaluations with respect to response rates, what they indicate, and how to increase them. The paper presents a case study of 1 university and finds that means for paper course evaluations tend to be higher than for online evaluations, that the standard deviations of online evaluations are typically larger than for paper evaluations, that online evaluations take longer to complete than their paper counterparts, that students prefer online evaluations, and that factor analysis shows similar and different numbers of factors for the 2 types of evaluation, even with the same instrument and the same population. Caution is advocated in assuming that the same online and paper evaluations yield similar results.

show abstract

Section: Claimed Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Claimed Advantagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Online and paper evaluations of courses: a literature review and case study

Morrison

2013

Educational Research and Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results support the concurrent validity of both types of instruments, although Venette, Sellnow, and McIntyre (2010) reported that student comments in electronic evaluations are more detailed than are those in paper-and-pencil questionnaires. At the aggregate level, Barkhi and Williams (2010) noted that electronic SET scores are lower than are those obtained with paper-and-pencil surveys. These differences disappear, however, when controlling for course and instructor.…”

Section: Criterion-related Validitymentioning

confidence: 96%

On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching

Spooren

Brockx

Mortelmans

2013

Review of Educational Research

526

450

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides an extensive overview of the recent literature on student evaluation of teaching (SET) in higher education. The review is based on the SET meta-validation model, drawing upon research reports published in peer-reviewed journals since 2000. Through the lens of validity, we consider both the more traditional research themes in the field of SET (i.e., the dimensionality debate, the 'bias' question, and questionnaire design) and some recent trends in SET research, such as online SET and bias investigations into additional teacher personal characteristics. The review provides a clear idea of the state of the art with regard to research on SET, thus allowing researchers to formulate suggestions for future research. It is argued that SET remains a current yet delicate topic in higher education, as well as in education research. Many stakeholders are not convinced of the usefulness and validity of SET for both formative and summative purposes. Research on SET has thus far failed to provide clear answers to several critical questions concerning the validity of SET.

show abstract

“…This is all the more important since online evaluations of teaching in higher education have become increasingly common since the beginning of the new millennium (Crews and Curtis 2011;Morrison 2011;Venette et al 2010;Treischl and Wolbring 2017). The method's practicality, feasibility, flexibility, time-and cost-effectiveness when dealing with large samples and a large amount of data, and its potential to provide real-time feedback make it an attractive option that is increasingly replacing paper-and-pencil course evaluations (Barkhi and Williams 2010;Dommeyer et al 2004;Hessius and Johansson 2015;Layne et al 1999;Nulty 2008;Risquez et al 2015). As nowadays mobile devices, such as smartphones or tablet computers, are more and more widely used on campuses all over the world, a new line of discussion moves toward the practicability and feasibility of 'mobile' course evaluations (Champagne 2013;Hessius and Johansson 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online vs. offline course evaluation revisited: testing the invariance of a course evaluation questionnaire using a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis framework

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survey-based formats of assessing teaching quality in higher education are widely used and will likely continue to be used by higher education institutions around the world as various global trends contributing to their widespread use further evolve. Although the use of mobile devices for course evaluation continues to grow, there remain some unresolved aspects of the classic paper and web-based modes of evaluation. In the current study, the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis approach (MGCFA), an accepted methodological approach in general mixed-method survey research, was chosen to address some of the methodological issues when comparing these two evaluation modes. By randomly assigning one of the two modes to 33 continuing training courses at a Swiss higher education institution, this study tested whether the two different modes of assessing teaching quality yield the same results. The practical implications for course evaluation practice in institutions of higher education as well as the implications and limitations of the chosen methodological approach are discussed.

show abstract

The impact of electronic media on faculty evaluation

Cited by 15 publications

References 46 publications

Online and paper evaluations of courses: a literature review and case study

Online and paper evaluations of courses: a literature review and case study

On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching

Online vs. offline course evaluation revisited: testing the invariance of a course evaluation questionnaire using a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About