Course Evaluation questionnaires: Just what do they measure?

Pencil and paper questionnaires are commonly used by
Universities, Colleges and other organisations to
evaluate courses and training programmes. They are
also used more widely to monitor staff performance
by many commercial organisations such as hotels. The
author exposes many of the weaknesses of these
questionnaires. and interpretations made from them.
It was found, for example, that open ended
evaluations tended to be answered in a socially
desirable manner. Rarely are individuals criticised
for their poor performance but rather the quality of
facilities tends to be blamed for any
dissapointment. This can lead to resources being
directed towards addressing the wrong problem.
Activity measure evaluations were found to relate
more closely to the effort involved in the task than
the merits of a particular activity. Structured
rating scales were subject to a ''halo effect'' and
individuals tended to answer using the favourable
end of scales, regardless of their real feelings.
Ways of improving the validity of these techniques
for monitoring performance are discussed. This
should be of interest to anyone using evaluation
questionnaires.

Autorentext

Jenny Darby PhD. taught in an inner city Comprehensive school formany years, finishing as Head of Science. For two years she wasresponsible for a county wide training programme for headteachers and senior teaching staff. She has recently been runningtraining workshops in teaching skills for postgraduates atLoughborough University.

Klappentext

Pencil and paper questionnaires are commonly used by Universities, Colleges and other organisations to evaluate courses and training programmes. They are also used more widely to monitor staff performance by many commercial organisations such as hotels. The author exposes many of the weaknesses of these questionnaires. and interpretations made from them. It was found, for example, that open ended evaluations tended to be answered in a socially desirable manner. Rarely are individuals criticised for their poor performance but rather the quality of facilities tends to be blamed for any dissapointment. This can lead to resources being directed towards addressing the wrong problem. Activity measure evaluations were found to relate more closely to the effort involved in the task than the merits of a particular activity. Structured rating scales were subject to a 'halo effect' and individuals tended to answer using the favourable end of scales, regardless of their real feelings. Ways of improving the validity of these techniques for monitoring performance are discussed. This should be of interest to anyone using evaluation questionnaires.