Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article presents a case study that investigates several issues concerning the delivery of evaluation surveys in a large research-intensive university in Australia. The article touches on the issue of ‘survey fatigue’, which has been highlighted in relation to the conduct of an increased number and frequency of surveys in tertiary institutions. Despite these warnings, the university described in this case study has recently increased the number and frequency of evaluation surveys, while its survey response rates have been gradually decreasing since the late 1990s.

The case study further outlines two strategies developed in the institution with the aim of engaging students better, subsequently increasing student survey response rates and ultimately improving educational provision in the institution. These strategies were supported further by adopting a more user-friendly platform for submission of online evaluation surveys and by providing students with alternative means of survey submission. The ease and coherence of the evaluation process in the institution was assisted further by the introduction of a new Survey Management System (SMS).

All these strategies and initiatives have proved successful in the institution. Therefore, the article aims to provide some suggestions for other tertiary institutions dealing with similar issues. At the same time, it highlights the fact that individual institutional circumstances ought to be considered and such strategies need to be planned carefully according to the needs of the individual institution.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bennett

, Nair

C.S.

, & Wayland

2006, ‘Love it or hate it: participation a key ingredient in closing the loop’, paper presented at the 2006 Australian Universities Quality Forum, Perth.

Coates

2006, Student engagement in campus-based and online education: university connection, Taylor & Francis, London.

Coates

, Tilbrook

, Guthrie

, & Bryant

2006, Enhancing the GCA national surveys: an examination of critical factors leading to enhancements in the instrument, methodology and process, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra.

Dillman

D.A.

2000, Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Dommeyer

C.J.

, Baum

, Hanna

R.W.

, Chapman

K.S.

2004, ‘Gathering faculty teaching evaluations by in-class and online surveys: their effects on response rates and evaluations’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 611–623.

Fiocco

2005, ‘“Glonacal” contexts: internationalisation policy in the Australian higher education sector and the development of pathway programs’, digital PhD thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, viewed 12 April 2009, <https://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/browse/view/adt-MU20060502.154739?PrintFriendly=1>.

Heberlein

T.A.

, & Baumgartner

1978, ‘Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: a quantitative analysis of the published literature’, American Sociological Review, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 447–462.

Fraser

B.J.

1998, ‘Science learning environments: assessment, effects and determinants’, in Fraser

, & Tobin

(eds), The international handbook of science education, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Layne

B.H.

, Decristoforo

J.R.

, & McGinty

1999, ‘Electronic versus traditional student rating of instruction’, Research in Higher Education, vol. 40, no. 22, pp. 221–232.

10.

McCrindle

2003, Understanding Generation Y, viewed 12 April 2009, <http://www.learningtolearn.sa.edu.au/Colleagues/files/links/UnderstandingGenY.pdf#search=%22understanding%20Generation%20Y%20%2B%20mcCrindle%22>.

11.

Meek

L.V.

2000, ‘Diversity and marketisation of higher education: incompatible concepts?’, Higher Education Policy, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 23–39.

12.

Morton

L.V.

2002, ‘Targeting Generation Y’, Public Relations Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 46–48.

13.

Nair

C.S.

, Adams

, Ferraiuolo

, & Curtis

2006, ‘Student engagement: the key to better response rates’, paper presented to the Australian Universities Quality Forum, Perth, viewed 2 May 2010, <http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/evaluationforum06/program.html>.

14.

Nair

C.S.

, & Adams

2009, ‘Survey platform: a factor influencing online survey delivery and response rate’, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 291–296.

15.

Nair

C.S.

, & Fisher

D.L.

2001, ‘Learning environments and student attitudes to science at the senior secondary and tertiary levels’, Issues in Educational Research, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 12–31.

16.

Nair

C.S.

, & Wayland

2005, ‘Quality and evaluation: a universal system for a quality outcome’, Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum: Engaging Communities, Australian Universities Quality Agency, Melbourne, pp. 127–130.

17.

Nair

C.S.

, Adams

, & Mertova

2008, ‘Student engagement: the key to improving survey response rates’, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 225–232.

18.

OECD 1998, Redefining tertiary education, OECD, Paris.

19.

Paolo

A.M.

, Bonaminio

G.A.

, Gibson

, Partridge

, & Kallail

2000, ‘Response rate comparisons of e-mail-and mail-distributed student evaluations’, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 81–84.

20.

Porter

S.R.

(ed.) 2004, Overcoming survey research problems, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

21.

Porter

S.R.

, Whitcomb

M.E.

, & Weitzer

W.H.

2004, ‘Multiple surveys of students and survey fatigue’, in Porter

(ed.), Overcoming survey research problems, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

22.

Webb

1994, Making the most of appraisal: career and professional development planning for lecturers, Kogan Page, London.

Issues concerning the Delivery of Surveys: An Institutional View

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References