Online SETs tend to be less expensive and easier to administer, the results can be returned to instructors more quickly, and they allow more time during which students have the opportunity to carefully consider the questions and provide longer responses to open-ended questions (Estelami 2015Estelami, H. 2015. “The Effects of Survey Timing on Student Evaluation of Teaching Measures Obtained Using Online Surveys.” Journal of Marketing Education 37 (1): 54–64. doi:10.1177/0273475314552324. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Online SETs also simplify long-term record keeping of results (Norris and Conn 2005Norris, J., and C. Conn. 2005. “Investigating Strategies for Increasing Student Response Rates to Online-delivered Course Evaluations.” Quarterly Review of Distance Education 6 (1): 13–29. [Google Scholar]). However, Stowell, Addison, and Smith (2012Stowell, J. R., W. E. Addison, and J. L. Smith. 2012. “Comparison of Online and Classroom-based Student Evaluations of Instruction.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37 (4): 465–473. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.545869. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) compared online and in-class SETs and found that fewer students participated in online SETs. Another notable difference was that students tended to write longer comments with the online SETs. Otherwise, the results from the two methods of administration were similar. As the authors pointed out, these findings were consistent with those from previous studies. Norris and Conn (2005Norris, J., and C. Conn. 2005. “Investigating Strategies for Increasing Student Response Rates to Online-delivered Course Evaluations.” Quarterly Review of Distance Education 6 (1): 13–29. [Google Scholar]) also found that fewer students responded to SETs when they were administered online. They found that announcing the SETs near the end of the course, discussing the importance of student feedback, and reminding students to complete the SET greatly increased participation with online SETs.

The quality of student feedback on SETs might be improved by educating students about the SET (Svinicki 2001Svinicki, M. D. 2001. “Encouraging Your Students to Give Feedback.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 87: 17–24. doi: 10.1002/tl.24 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]; Alok 2011Alok, K. 2011. “Student Evaluation of Teaching: An Instrument and a Development Process.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 23 (2): 226–235. [Google Scholar]; Spiller and Ferguson 2011Spiller, D., and P. B. Ferguson. 2011. “Student Evaluations: Do Lecturers Value Them and Use Them to Engage with Student Learning Needs?” http://usir.salford.ac.uk/16999/1/paper_34.pdf. [Google Scholar]). Keeley et al. (2013Keeley, J. W., T. English, J. Irons, and A. M. Henslee. 2013. “Investigating Halo and Ceiling Effects in Student Evaluations of Instruction.” Educational & Psychological Measurement 73 (3): 440–457. doi:10.1177/0013164412475300. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) point out that SETs are usually given with minimal instructions. They suggest stressing to the students how the SET could affect the instructor’s future performance. A similar recommendation was made by Stowell, Addison, and Smith (2012Stowell, J. R., W. E. Addison, and J. L. Smith. 2012. “Comparison of Online and Classroom-based Student Evaluations of Instruction.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37 (4): 465–473. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.545869. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Keeley et al. (2013Keeley, J. W., T. English, J. Irons, and A. M. Henslee. 2013. “Investigating Halo and Ceiling Effects in Student Evaluations of Instruction.” Educational & Psychological Measurement 73 (3): 440–457. doi:10.1177/0013164412475300. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) also recommend asking students to be careful to respond to each item separately. For example, ratings of an instructor’s personality should not affect ratings of her/his knowledge of the subject matter. A final note, Smith (2012Smith, H. 2012. “The Unintended Consequences of Grading Teaching.” Teaching in Higher Education 17 (6): 747–754. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2012.744437 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) notes that even other instructors may not be ideal evaluators of teaching since most are specialists in their area rather than in education.

There is some disagreement about whether students are capable of providing quality feedback regarding teaching effectiveness (Husbands 1998Husbands, C. T. 1998. “Implications for the Assessment of the Teaching Competence of Staff in Higher Education of Some.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 23 (2): 117–139. doi: 10.1080/0260293980230202 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]; Nasser and Fresko 2002Nasser, F., and B. Fresko. 2002. “Faculty Views of Student Evaluation of College Teaching.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27 (2): 187–198. doi: 10.1080/02602930220128751 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]; Remedios and Lieberman 2008Remedios, R., and D. A. Lieberman. 2008. “I Liked Your Course Because You Taught Me Well: The Influence of Grades, Workload, Expectations and Goals on Students’ Evaluations of Teaching.” British Educational Research Journal 34 (1): 91–115. doi: 10.1080/01411920701492043 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Jones 2012Jones, S. J. 2012. “Reading Between the Lines of Online Course Evaluations: Identifiable Actions That Improve Student Perceptions of Teaching Effectiveness and Course Value.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 16 (1): 49–58. [Google Scholar]). Feedback should describe an aspect of the course as specifically as possible, should be based on observable behaviours and should point out ways the instructor could change aspects of the course to make it better (Svinicki 2001Svinicki, M. D. 2001. “Encouraging Your Students to Give Feedback.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 87: 17–24. doi: 10.1002/tl.24 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]).