Search results

The purpose of this paper is to look at the role of the student experience questionnaire in collecting students' perceptions of their experiences in studying at an offshore campus of an Australian University, compared with the experiences of the University's students in Australia. In particular, it seeks to highlight the difference in perceptions of students resulting, for example, from the size of the campus versus the size of other campuses and the whole institution.

The case study is based on a student learning experience questionnaire utilised by a large research‐intensive Australian tertiary institution (with two overseas campuses). The results of the questionnaire are compared between one overseas campus and the whole institution. The case study looks at the experiences of the overseas campus compared with the Australian experience. Although the case study is situated within one institution, there are aspects and lessons that are applicable to other institutions internationally, in particular when considering collecting student feedback in relation to multi‐campus or multi‐venue programmes.

Higher satisfaction rates for different aspects of student learning experience were identified at the overseas campus in comparison with the whole institution. This was attributed to the smaller size of the overseas campus and thus better engagement of and personal attention to students at this campus. This finding may be particularly relevant to other international institutions in relation to the role of an institution's size and collection of student feedback.

The case study outlines a number of strategies adopted to enhance student engagement and subsequently to improve the aspects which they have indicated as being less satisfactory. The institution was chosen as an example of how particular strategies may be adopted in other institutions.

Enhancement of student experience is pre‐conditioned by good survey response rates among students for an institution to base its actions on opinions of a sufficiently high number of students. This paper describes a successful strategy of engaging students adopted by a large research‐intensive Australian university, and thus increasing survey response rates.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance of collecting and acting on student feedback as a key component of quality improvement in higher education. The paper seeks to outline a systematic improvement strategy adopted at a faculty level within a large university in Australia but will be of interest to leaders and practitioners of quality assurance programmes across the sector.

A strategy to achieve quality improvement was designed and carried out jointly by the University Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ) and the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT) with staff in one of the smaller faculties at the University. The faculty mean for student satisfaction lagged significantly below the means of other faculties, and five units (subjects) which were deemed to be “poorly performing” against the University's agreed target were selected for some intensive improvement. The guiding principles which underpinned the adopted strategy included: utilising student feedback data; targeting poorly performing units as a priority; linking staff and student development support; and documenting and demonstrating improvement as a consequence of the actions taken.

A post‐test evaluation of the five target units showed improvement in the form of increased student satisfaction. The strategy adopted at the University underlined the significance of collecting student feedback in quality enhancement, acting on the feedback and supporting academic staff in implementing improvements. Overall, the strategy signalled the interconnection between student evaluations and the quality of education programmes.

The successful implementation of a unit improvement strategy at a faculty level within the University demonstrated the value of the approach and recommended its application as an improvement strategy across the whole institution, provided that the internal context of individual faculties is taken into consideration. This case study may also offer some guidance to other tertiary institutions looking into utilising evidence‐based planning and decision making as a way of driving quality improvement.

Many tertiary institutions around the world are currently collecting student feedback. However, the interconnection between the student feedback and actual institutional change is not always evident or addressed. Therefore, this University case study offers some direction towards a more effective utilisation of student evaluation data.

This paper aims to explore academics’ perspectives on the quality of appraisal evidence at a Chinese university.

An online survey with both closed items and open-ended questions was distributed among all academics at the university (n = 1,538). A total of 512 responded to the questionnaire. The closed items were initially analysed using EXCEL and SPSS; the open-ended questions were thematically analysed.

The academics believed that the quality of student survey and peer observation of teaching were affected by subjectivity and the lack of understanding of appraisal. Academics also suggested that appraisals should be contextualised and the approach standardised. The study suggests the need for training that informs and engages relevant stakeholders to ensure the rigour of appraisal.

The study raises the issue of quality assurance regarding appraisal data from the perspective of academics. It is based on the collaborative effort of academics in Australia, China and New Zealand, with the support of the management staff at the case study university. The study informs both appraisers and academics of quality assurance issues in appraisal. It also contributes to the literature, in that it initiates dialogues between communities of practices through collective questioning on the quality and mechanisms of appraisal in tertiary education.

The purpose of this paper is to examine current approaches to interpretation of student evaluation data and present an innovative approach to developing benchmark targets for the effective and efficient use of these data.

This article discusses traditional approaches to gathering and using student feedback across the tertiary sector. The limitations of the customary use of the statistical mean as a quality measure of performance are presented and examined. An alternative method of interpreting student evaluation data is proposed and examples given.

The traditional use of the statistical mean to interpret student evaluation data has limitations. Focusing on data at the macro level provides subject teaching staff and managers with a clearer indication of student satisfaction. The use of a percentage satisfied and percentage dissatisfied metric to classify and rank subjects is presented as an efficient alternative to the traditional approach, while recognising the value of the statistical mean to interpret data at the micro level.

In light of the important role student feedback plays in determining university ranking, prioritising staff development and its potential function as an academic performance indicator, the effective interpretation of student evaluation data is critical. As economic factors become increasingly important to higher education providers, the role of evaluation data obtained from students will continue to gain traction. The identification of methods to fully capitalise on the value of these data, such as the one proposed in this article, is therefore crucial.

Teaching and unit evaluations surveys are used to assess the quality of teaching and the quality of the unit of study. An analysis of teaching and unit evaluation survey practices in Australian universities suggests significant changes. One key change discussed in the paper is the shift from voluntary to mandatory use of surveys with the results used to assess and reward academic staff performance. The change in the direction is largely driven by the introduction of performance‐based funding as part of quality assurance arrangements. The paper aims to outline the current trends and changes and the implications in the future such as increased scrutiny of teaching and intrusion to academic autonomy.

The paper is based on the analysis of current teaching and unit evaluation practices across the Australian university sector. The paper presents the case of an Australian university that has introduced performance‐based reward using various measures to assess and reward academic staff such as the outcome of student satisfaction surveys. The analysis of external quality audit findings related to teacher and unit evaluations is also presented.

The findings suggest a shift in trend from the use of voluntary to mandatory tools to assess and reward quality teaching. The case of an Australian university outlined in the paper and the approach taken by seven other universities is largely driven by performance‐based funding. One of the key concerns for many in higher education is the intrusion of academic autonomy with increased focus on outcomes and less emphasis on resources needed to produce excellence in learning and teaching and research. The increased reliance on student happiness as a measure of educational quality raises the questions on whether high student satisfaction would strengthen academic rigour and student attainment of learning outcomes and generic skills which are seen as key factors in graduate exit standards.

The renewal of quality assurance and performance‐based funding using student satisfaction as a measure of educational quality will result in increased use of student voice to assess learning and teaching outcomes. Such direction will increase the accountability on academics to improve student experience and the measures will be used to assess academic staff performance.

The paper outlines the trends and changes in the teacher and unit evaluations in Australian universities and its implications in the future. The paper also provides a case of an Australian university that has recently made teacher and unit evaluations compulsory with the results used in academic staff annual performance review and linking reward with performance outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to outline four separate studies undertaken in two Australian universities between 2003 and 2012 on employer feedback on the quality of university graduates. Higher education has expanded significantly in the past decade. The expansion has been in student enrolments with a focus on increasing the participation of disadvantaged students; the emergence of new kinds of providers other than universities; new modes of education delivery; and the internationalisation of higher education. The diversity of higher education institutions and quality issues require the assessment of graduate quality based on feedback from employers. The lack of such assessment on graduate quality based on employer voice risks the production of graduates with focus on success (quantity) rather than excellence (quality). It also disconnects the engagement between higher education institutions and employers to assess trends and changes in various industries and professions that require employer input in course development and renewal to meet the changing needs of the industries.

A quantitative method using online survey to gather feedback from employers of university graduates was used. The survey tool has been previously used in other studies.

A decade of study using quantitative and qualitative methods with different employers in two different geographic locations clearly shows that employer views on the quality of university graduates in a range of capabilities have remained consistent. The study also outlines the challenges in gathering feedback from employers and how data are used in curriculum reviews and enhancements.

The study has a number of limitations, including gathering up-to-date employer data, and engagement of employers in the survey.

Practical implications could include the use of survey data in new course developments, review of courses and further enhancement to ensure course relevance.

This is the first longitudinal study undertaken using the same survey instrument in two universities. The study engaged 485 employers.

The paper aims to disseminate solutions to common problems in student evaluation processes. It proposes that student evaluation can be applied to quality assurance and improving learning and teaching. The paper presents solutions in the areas of: presenting outcomes as performance indicators, constructing appropriate surveys, improving response rates, reporting student feedback to students and student engagement as a feature of university quality assurance.

The research approach of this paper is comparative case study, allowing in-depth exploration of multiple perspectives and practices at seven Australian universities. Process and outcome data were rigorously collected, analysed, compared and contrasted.

The paper provides empirical evidence for student evaluation as an instrument of learning and teaching data analysis for quality improvement. It suggests that collecting data about student engagement and the student experience will yield more useful data about student learning. Furthermore, findings indicate that students benefit from more authentic inclusion in the evaluation process and outcomes.

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further and apply to their own university contexts.

The paper includes recommendations at the institution- and sector-wide levels to effectively use student evaluation as a university performance indicator and as a tool of change.

This paper fulfils an identified need to examine student evaluation processes across institutions and focuses on the role of student evaluation in quality assurance.

This paper aims to make a contribution to the current lack of literature in the Australian context by reviewing qualitative feedback collected from students in five private higher education institutions. In particular, the paper seeks to examine factors influencing student choice to study at private higher education institutions and student perceptions of such institutions. Previous studies on this topic are mostly focussed on universities with lack of research with the booming private higher education sector.

This study draws data from five different private for-profit higher education institutions in Australia. It involved feedback from 120 students undertaking higher education courses in different discipline areas at different stages of study. The study involved 15 focus group interviews with eight students in a group. The selection of students was based on the representation of different characteristics of student such as: male/female, domestic/international, and discipline areas.

An analysis of the data collected from the students across these five institutions indicated that the main factors influencing student choice can be grouped in six domains. These are: student perception; access and opportunity; learning environments; quality of teachers; course design; and graduate success. This study reinforces that student perception of the private for-profit higher education institutions is an important factor in influencing student choice to study at the institution.

The limitation of the study was the ability to interview more students from larger colleges, across all discipline areas. However, the time and length of the focus group interviews was largely managed by the five institutions.

The private higher education sector has experienced consistent growth in the last few years in Australia. Currently, there is no qualitative research done in Australian private higher education on factors influencing student choice to study with private institutions. The rise of such providers require research on insights about student choice, student expectation and their experience.

The purpose of this paper is to present a framework that can be utilized in the design of graduate employer surveys carried out by tertiary institutions as a form of monitoring their graduate attributes. It further aims to identify the potential issues and challenges that may be involved in undertaking such a survey.

The paper describes an approach to administering a graduate employer survey conducted at Monash University, Australia. The survey utilized a combination of means, involving telephone, e‐mail and mail‐outs. During a period of approximately four months, 2,753 companies were contacted and response was obtained from 464 of them. The survey instrument was based on 23 graduate attributes. In the course of the survey, employers were asked to rate graduate attributes in terms of importance and their satisfaction with the extent to which each of these attributes was demonstrated by Monash University graduates employed by the particular company. Open‐ended feedback was also sought from the employers.

Universities world‐wide have increasingly incorporated the development of the so‐called graduate attributes into their quality development mechanisms. One way of monitoring these graduate attributes has been through conducting graduate employer surveys. The paper presented a workable approach to collecting employer feedback, which may offer some guidance to other higher education institutions that may be considering introducing similar employer surveys. It also identified some of the issues and challenges involved in undertaking such a survey.

The paper discusses a number of practical limitations to administering an employer survey. These include the need for: a well‐sourced database of employers of the institution's graduates; established relations with industry and professional bodies; proper staffing and infrastructure; and awareness of timelines suitable for individual employers to complete such a survey. The implications for the university resulting from the limitations are that the leadership need to address these limitations in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the future iterations of the graduate employer survey. The limitations may also serve as guidance to other institutions concerning aspects they need to address when planning to conduct a similar survey.

Internationally, and certainly in Australia, there are very few higher education institutions that have well‐established graduate employer surveys. The Monash University graduate employer survey outlined here may offer some guidance to tertiary institutions considering conducting similar graduate employer surveys.

This paper aims to report on how an Administrative Division at a research‐intensive Australian university utilised feedback data from the Learning and Growth Survey, to initiate changes.

This paper refers to the actions taken by the Administrative Division to the results obtained from the Learning and Growth Survey. The questionnaire items are based on the “Balanced Scorecard” system outlined by Kaplan and Norton in 1996. It consists of a number of items identified as integral to effective growth and learning strategies for staff‐development. The questionnaire seeks staff perceptions of the individual items and how their needs are met in the current University management practices.

The results of this survey indicate that employees were willing to provide practical feedback on a range of dimensions, which they felt would assist improvement of their development and growth opportunities. Further, this paper demonstrates that in any exercise which involves collecting information on staff perceptions, staff not only expect that the data would be utilized constructively, but also that the institution would also make practical changes based on their feedback and that they would be informed about these changes.

This survey revealed that some of the feedback obtained from participants had limitations as to what actions could be taken within the Administrative Division because of the ramifications for institutional budgets. However, issues related to improvement of the learning and growth environment were possible to address through practical changes within the bounds of the Division's budget. Further, when conducting similar surveys among university staff, it is essential that anonymity of the participants is ensured. It is also vital that the purposes, outcomes, proposed actions and progress in implementation of these actions are well communicated to all the staff.

A growing number of tertiary institutions have recently started conducting surveys among their staff concerning the staff satisfaction with their work in the organisation(s). Despite this growing number of employee surveys, there is a lack of academic literature available describing how such surveys are conducted and the issues that institutions face when designing, implementing and evaluating these surveys. From the available information, it was also unclear what aspects of employee experience these surveys cover and whether they focus on staff learning and development. Therefore, this paper attempts to make a step in that direction by describing an employee survey regularly conducted among staff within administrative units at a large Australian University.