“the less time
it takes for a
more likely it is
they will do so”
(Nulty, 2008, p.305)
Collected & analysed more quickly
“if all the items require a simple
numerical rating then there will
probably be less engagement”
(Nulty, 2008, p. 305)
“the range of
are not limited to
those designed by
(Surgenor, 2010, [p. 3])
“…is influenced by a wide variety
of contextual factors that are
not intrinsically related to the
quality of teaching”
(Wiers-Jenssen et al., in Richardson, 2005, p. 403)
“undue modesty” of top performers
poor performers often
“think they are doing just fine”
(Ehrlinger et al., 2008, p. 118)
“participants completing the
web-based version left
comments that were more than
(Heath et al., 2007 p. 260)
“good practice to make
available in a variety of
formats for use by students
(Richardson, 2005, p. 406)
Brookfield, S. D. (2002). Using the Lenses of Critically Reflective Teaching in the
Community College Classroom. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2002(118), 31.
Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the unskilled are
unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 98–121.
Heath, N. M., Lawyer, S. R., & Rasmussen, E. B. (2007). Web-Based versus Paper-and-Pencil
Course Evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 259–261.
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what
can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the
literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387–415.
Surgenor, P. (2010). UCD Teaching & Learning Toolkit, Gathering Feedback 3. Accessed
3rd April 2014 from http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/UCDTLT0014.pdf.