You are here:

Factors Influencing Response Rates in Online Student Evaluation Systems: A Systematic Review Approach PROCEEDING

, , University of Otago, New Zealand

AACE Award

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ISBN 978-1-939797-31-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Students’ feedback on teaching activities significantly contributes to the enhancement of the quality of teaching and learning Conventionally students evaluate teaching activities through paper based systems, where they fill out and return paper copies of teaching or course evaluation In the last decades, institutions are moving student evaluation system online Despite increasing growth in the use of online student evaluation systems, critiques argue that digitalizing the process of teaching evaluation contributes to reduced response rates We carried out a systematic review of the literature and identified four key factors that are likely to influence response rates in online student evaluation of teaching These include survey development, survey delivery, survey return and survey completion We argue that understanding and addressing these factors is critical for improving online response rates Further, based on this review we are working on developing a strategy for supporting our institution in the deployment of online student evaluation system and developing a plan for studying its efficacy


Asare, S. & Daniel, B.K. (2017). Factors Influencing Response Rates in Online Student Evaluation Systems: A Systematic Review Approach. In J. Dron & S. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 537-541). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 17, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Bennett, L., & Nair, C.S. (2010). A recipe for effective participation rates for web based surveys. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 357-365.
  2. Casey, T.W., & Poropat, A. (2014). Beauty is more than screen deep: Improving the web survey respondent experience through socially-present and aesthetically-pleasing user interfaces. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 153-163.
  3. Crews, T.B., & Curtis, D.F. (2011). Online course evaluations: Faculty perspective and strategies for improved response rates. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7), 865-878 Daniel, B.K. & Harland, A. (in press). Higher Education Research Methodology A step by step guide to the research process: London: Routledge
  4. Dillman, D.A., & Smyth, J.D. (2007). Design effects in the transition to web-based surveys. American journal of preventive medicine, 32(5), S90-S96.
  5. Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in human behavior, 26(2), 132-139.
  6. Felix, L.M., Burchett, H.E., & Edwards, P.J. (2011). Factorial trial found mixed evidence of effects of pre-notification and pleading on response to Web-based survey. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 64(5), 531-536.
  7. Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public opinion quarterly, 73(2), 349-360.
  8. Keusch, F. (2015). Why do people participate in web surveys? Applying survey participation theory to internet survey data collection. Management review quarterly, 3(65), 183-216.
  9. Liebe, U., Glenk, K., Oehlmann, M., & Meyerhoff, J. (2015). Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?. Journal of choice modelling, 14, 17-31.
  10. Morrison, K. (2013). Online and paper evaluations of courses: a literature review and case study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(7), 585-604
  11. Nair, C.S., & Adams, P. (2009). Survey platform: A factor influencing online survey delivery and response rate. Quality in Higher Education, 15(3), 291-296.
  12. Nair, C.S., Adams, P., & Mertova, P. (2008). Student engagement: The key to improving survey response rates. Quality in Higher Education, 14(3), 225-232.
  13. 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.
  14. Patrick, M.E., Singer, E., Boyd, C.J., Cranford, J.A., & McCabe, S.E. (2013). Incentives for college student participation in web-based substance use surveys. Addictive behaviors, 38(3), 1710-1714.
  15. Rath, J.M., Williams, V.F., Villanti, A.C., Green, M.P., Mowery, P.D., & Vallone, D.M. (2016). Boosting online response rates among nonresponders: a dose of funny. Social Science Computer Review, 0894439316656151
  16. Rolstad, S., Adler, J., & Rydén, A. (2011). Response burden and questionnaire length: is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value in Health, 14(8), 1101-1108.
  17. Sánchez-Fernández, J., Muñoz-Leiva, F., & Montoro-Ríos, F.J. (2012). Improving retention rate and response quality in Web-based surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 507-514.
  18. Sauermann, H., & Roach, M. (2013). Increasing web survey response rates in innovation research: An experimental study of static and dynamic contact design features. Research Policy, 42(1), 273-286.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact