Students’ feedback - Can higher education quality management systems put it to good use?...
-
Upload
austin-harrell -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Students’ feedback - Can higher education quality management systems put it to good use?...
Students’ feedback - Can higher education quality management systems put it to good use?
Babes-Bolyai University, 18 September 2009
Monica Zaharie
Melinda Szabo
Center for Quality Management
Uses of stakeholders’ Uses of stakeholders’ feedbackfeedback
Along with the educational expansion and the increasing demand for accountability in higher education a greater emphasis on stakeholders’ input
internal use: information meant to facilitate institutional progress, management strategies (Telford, Masson, 2005), internal evaluations reports
external use: information for external evaluations, university rankings
Actions taken at Babes-Bolyai Actions taken at Babes-Bolyai UniversityUniversity
The QA system is focused upon the stakeholders needs and expectations:
Students ratings of instruction: since 2002 Employers expectations survey - The analysis of the
employers’ opinions and their requirements regarding higher education graduates
Faculty staff’ satisfaction survey - Identification of the teaching staff development needs and their work satisfaction level
Graduates’ labor market insertion survey
Students’ satisfaction survey - Identification of the students’ satisfaction level concerning a broad range of aspects - it is a relatively new practice.
Argument for student satisfaction Argument for student satisfaction surveyssurveys
Students’ satisfaction with educational and administrative institutional aspects - indicator for students’ intent to remain within the institution (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1986);
It is less expensive to maintain a present customer than to recruit a new one (Babin & Griffin, 1998; Oliver, 1993)
The national QA evaluation methodology (which is closely following the Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European HE Area), includes indicators regarding students’ satisfaction
Though satisfied with the academic programs, students may be disappointed in other aspects, such as career counseling or material conditions (Kotler & Fox, 1995)
Methodological designMethodological design
Questionnaire: 47 items, grouped around three major categories: teaching and learning, material base, and support services.
satisfaction is dependent on students’ expectations and theirs actual experiences (Summers, 2005)
on a 5 points Likert scale, measures both the students’ satisfaction and the importance they render to each of the dimensions assessed.
997 questionnaires filled in by Romanian students in 2008
online based survey questionnaires in 2009
ResultsResults
most important aspects: - teaching and learning dimensions (mean 4.33)- support services (mean 4.31) - material base (mean 4.25),
most satisfying aspects: - material base (3.31), - teaching-learning activities (mean 3.09),- support services (mean 2.90)
- Highest gap: services and facilities
ResultsResults
Most important aspects: chances to find a job adequate to graduates’
qualifications (mean 4.65); fairness of the examination (mean 4.55) accommodation availability practical skills development during faculty (mean 4.50); Least important (high σ – group is not that
homogeneous): sports base facilities (mean 3.75); efficiency of student organizations and representatives
(mean 3.95); following the initial course planning during the
semester (mean 3.95)
ResultsResults
highest level of satisfaction: following the initial course planning during the
semester (mean 3.62), access to information regarding the admittance
system (mean 3.51), the learning space provided, such as classroom
dimensions, thermic and acoustic conditions (mean 3.46),
lowest level of satisfaction: photo-copy services available at the faculty
(timetable, price, promptitude) (mean 2.39), student counselling services, career counselling,
support for international mobility (mean 2.44)
ResultsResults
biggest gap between the importance attached and the satisfaction level of 1.8 and 1.9 points was found for the dimensions measuring:
career counselling services, the chances to find a job after graduation, housing facilities offered by university, photo copy services,
significant differences among junior students (first and second year of study) and senior students F (year of study; 790) = 3.979; p<0.01, the latter ones being less satisfied than the young ones
Discussions and conclusionsDiscussions and conclusions
Clear identification strengths and weaknesses of BBU
Main difficulties of this survey: related to the students’ retention in filling in the evaluation forms, because of the growing number of surveys
Lower results values (both for satisfaction and importance) on the online survey
There are no improvement in the results on the satisfaction surveys in the two consecutive years Possible explanations: lack of improvement actions
taken Particularities of the online based surveys
Discussions and conclusionsDiscussions and conclusions
Results obtained are confirmed by the European student Barometer: the lowest results for BBU regard
- practical course contents - assistance with career planning - administration services - accommodation availability
as strengths: BBU students are more satisfied with the future professional career