[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Strengths and weaknesses of reactionnaires
Strengths
- Comparatively low unit cost
- Allows responses to be gathered from large samples
- Relatively straightforward coding of data
- Anonymity or high degree of confidentiality is possible
- Comparatively quickly administered, can be made machine readable
- Convenient when respondents are geographically scattered
- May avoid interviewer bias, selective questioning, and listening errors
- Most suitable method when closed questions are appropriate
Weaknesses
- May yield low rate of response and/or require follow-up
- Information depends on respondents' abilities to analyze own situation
- Questions are restricted to the level of respondents' literacy
- Somewhat inflexible; not always easy to change content of established
questionnaire design
- Risk of oversimplifying data and losing useful insights
- Design of effective questions and pilot testing of instrument is time
consuming
Why do happy sheets fail to deliver?
- Questions asked are trivial; they do not measure what learners have experienced during the instructional process.
- Questions are too restrictive, leaving out alternatives that may matter to the learner.
- Some learners believe nothing will be done with the information gathered from the happy sheet.
To improve happy sheets:
- Questions must ask for useful information.
- Trainers must pay attention and act on the information they receive.
- The purposes of the happy sheet must be fully explained to the learners.
Practice:
- Why do some educators and trainers sometimes deem reactionnaires useless
in the evaluation process? Do you agree? Why or why not?
Next Section