Let's Go Formative: Continuous Student Ratings with Web 2.0 Application Twitter

被引:18
作者
Stieger, Stefan [1 ]
Burger, Christoph [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Vienna, Dept Basic Psychol Res, Sch Psychol, A-1010 Vienna, Austria
关键词
WORKLOAD; VALIDITY; WELL;
D O I
10.1089/cyber.2009.0128
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Student ratings have been a controversial but important method for the improvement of teaching quality during the past several decades. Most universities rely on summative evaluations conducted at the end of a term or course. A formative approach in which each course unit is evaluated may be beneficial for students and teachers but has rarely been applied. This is most probably due to the time constraints associated with various procedures inherent in formative evaluation (numerous evaluations, high amounts of aggregated data, high administrative investment). In order to circumvent these disadvantages, we chose the Web 2.0 Internet application Twitter as evaluation tool and tested whether it is useful for the implementation of a formative evaluation. After a first pilot and subsequent experimental study, the following conclusions were drawn: First, the formative evaluation did not come to the same results as the summative evaluation at the end of term, suggesting that formative evaluations tap into different aspects of course evaluation than summative evaluations do. Second, the results from an offline (i.e., paper-pencil) summative evaluation were identical with those from an online summative evaluation of the same course conducted a week later. Third, the formative evaluation did not influence the ratings of the summative evaluation at the end of the term. All in all, we can conclude that Twitter is a useful tool for evaluating a course formatively (i.e., on a weekly basis). Because of Twitter's simple use and the electronic handling of data, the administrative effort remains small.
引用
收藏
页码:163 / 167
页数:5
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   Preclinical course-evaluation methods at US and Canadian medical schools [J].
Abrahams, MB ;
Friedman, CP .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1996, 71 (04) :371-374
[2]   Equivalence of paper and pencil vs Internet forms of the ZKPQ-50-CC in Spanish and French samples [J].
Aluja, Anton ;
Rossier, Jerome ;
Zuckerman, Marvin .
PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2007, 43 (08) :2022-2032
[3]   Evaluating college students' evaluations of a professor's teaching effectiveness across time and instruction mode (online vs. face-to-face) using a multilevel growth modeling approach [J].
Carle, Adam C. .
COMPUTERS & EDUCATION, 2009, 53 (02) :429-435
[4]  
Dickey D., 2005, PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT, V10, P1, DOI DOI 10.7275/8FDY-VR38
[5]   Feasibility of using web-based questionnaires in large population-based epidemiological studies [J].
Ekman, A ;
Dickman, PW ;
Klint, Å ;
Weiderpass, E ;
Litton, JE .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 21 (02) :103-111
[6]  
Feldman K.A., 1977, RES HIGH EDUC, V6, P223, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF00991288
[7]   Instructor reputation and student ratings of instruction [J].
Griffin, BW .
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 26 (04) :534-552
[8]   Looking good, teaching well? Linking liking, looks, and learning [J].
Gurung, Regan A. R. ;
Vespia, Kristin M. .
TEACHING OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 34 (01) :5-10
[9]   Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students' evaluations of teaching: Popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders? [J].
Marsh, HW ;
Roche, LA .
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 92 (01) :202-228
[10]   What medical educators need to know about "Web 2.0" [J].
McGee, James B. ;
Begg, Michael .
MEDICAL TEACHER, 2008, 30 (02) :164-169