Higher Education

, Volume 74, Issue 1, pp 115–129 | Cite as

Closing the loop on student feedback: the case of Australian and Scottish universities

Article

Abstract

Universities have a long history of collecting student feedback using surveys and other mechanisms. The last decade has witnessed a significant shift in how student feedback is systematically collected, analysed, reported, and used by governments and institutions. This shift is due to a number of factors, including changes in government policy related to quality assurance, and the increased use of the results by various stakeholders such as governments, institutions, and potential students and employers. The collection, analysis, and reporting of results are systematically carried out in many institutions worldwide. However, how to use student feedback to effectively improve student learning experience remains an issue to be addressed. This paper will contribute to this debate by comparing how Australian and Scottish universities use student feedback results to inform improvements. Based on thematic analysis of external quality audit reports of all Australian and Scottish universities, this paper suggests that universities have systematic processes to collect student feedback using a range of mechanisms, but limited work is done to use the data to inform improvements. This paper argues the need for universities to genuinely listen to student voice by facilitating partnership between students and institutions to act on their feedback as part of quality assurance.

Keywords

Closing the loop Student feedback Student experience Student engagement Quality assurance 

References

  1. Adams, M. J. D., & Umbach, P. D. (2012). Nonresponse and online student evaluations of teaching: Understanding the influence of salience, fatigue, and academic environments. Research in High Education, 53(5), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2002). Report of an Audit of the University of Southern Queensland, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2003a). Report of an Audit of the University of Adelaide, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2003b). Report of an Audit of RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2003c). Report of an Audit of the University of Queensland Australia, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2003d). Report of an Audit of Macquarie University Australia, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  7. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2004). Report of an Audit of Charles Sturt University, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  8. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2005). Report of an Audit of La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  9. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2006a). Report of an Audit of the University of Technology, Sydney, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  10. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2006b). Report of an Audit of the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  11. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2006c). Report of an Audit of Macquarie University, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  12. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2009a). Report of an Audit of the Curtin University of Technology, Sydney, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  13. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2009b). Report of an Audit of University of South Australia, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2009c). Report of an Audit of Macquarie University, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  15. Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2011). Report of an Audit of the University of Notre Dame, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  16. Ballantyne, R., Borthwick, J., & Packer, J. (2000). Beyond student evaluation of teaching: Identifying and addressing academic staff development needs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(3), 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bennett, L., & Nair, S. (2010). A recipe for effective participation rates for web-based surveys. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blaske-Rechek, A., & Kelsey, M. (2010). Ratemyprofessor.com: Testing assumptions about student use and misuse. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 15(5), 1–12. Accessed August 2013. http://pareonline.net/pdf/v15n5.pdf.
  19. Boysen, G. A., Kelly, T. J., Raesly, H. N., & Casner, R. W. (2014). The (mis)interpretation of teaching evaluations by college faculty and administrators. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(6), 641–656. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.860950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brown, S. (2011). Bringing about positive change in the higher education student experience: A case study. Quality Assurance in Education, 19(3), 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, (2005). Promoting and advancing learning and teaching in higher education: The messages from AUQA reports.Google Scholar
  22. Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coates, H., & McCormick, A. (2014). Engaging university students: International insights from system wide studies. London, UK: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cresswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Hanna, R. W., & Chapman, K. S. (2004). Gathering faculty teaching evaluations by in-class and online surveys: Their effects on response rates and evaluations. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Electric Paper Ltd. (2014). Closing the loop: Are universities doing enough to act on student feedback from course evaluation surveys?. Retrieved from http://www.evasys.co.uk/news/newsreader/Closing-the-loop.html.
  27. Grebennikov, L., & Shah, M. (2012). Commencing student experience: New insights and implications for action. European Journal of Higher Education, 2(2–3), 267–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grebennikov, L., & Shah, M. (2013). Trends in monitoring student satisfaction. Tertiary Education Management, 19(4), 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grebennikov, L., & Skaines, I. (2009). University of Western Sydney students at risk: Profile and opportunities for change. Journal of Institutional Research, 14(1), 58–70.Google Scholar
  30. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2008). Counting what is measured or measuring what counts? League tables and their impact on higher education institutions in England.Google Scholar
  33. James, R., Krause, L. K., & Jennings, C. (2010). The first year experience in Australian Universities: Findings from 1994 to 2009, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/experience/docs/FYE_Report_1994_to_2009.pdf.
  34. Kane, D., Williams, J., & Cappuccino-Ansfield, G. (2008). Student satisfaction surveys: The value in taking a historical perspective. Quality in Higher Education, 14(2), 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Khan, M. (2013). Evaluation of course evaluations: Views from students, staff and seniors management. In M. Shah & C. S. Nair (Eds.), CAA Quality Series No. 5 (Vol. June, pp. 16–33). Abu Dhabi: Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research. https://www.caa.ae/caa/desktopmodules/qualityseries.aspx.
  36. Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010). Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE—A case study. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kolowich, S. (2014). Coursera Chief: Reach of Teaching Will Define Great Universities, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 June. http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/coursera-chief-reach-of-teaching-will-define-great-universities/53445.
  39. Krause, L. K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leckey, J., & Neill, N. (2001). Quantifying quality: The importance of student feedback. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller, J. E., & Seldin, P. (2014). Changing practices in faculty evaluation. Washington: American Association of University Professors.Google Scholar
  42. Moskal, C. M. A., Stein, J. S., & Golding, C. (2015). Can you increase teacher engagement with evaluation simply by improving the evaluation system? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1007838.Google Scholar
  43. Nair, C. S., & Adams, P. (2009). Survey platform—A factor influencing online survey delivery and response rate. Quality in Higher Education, 15(3), 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nair, C. S., Adams, P., Ferraiuolo, S., & Curtis, A. (2009). Survey platform influences delivery and response rate? In C. S. Nair (Ed.), Evidence based decision making: Scholarship and practice (pp. 66–72). Melbourne, VIC: Monash University.Google Scholar
  45. Nair, C. S., Mertova, P., & Pawley, D. (2010). Quality in action: Closing the loop. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(2), 144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. National Student Survey. (2015). http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/nss/results/2015/.
  47. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2012). About NSSE. http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm.
  48. Nelson, K. J., Smith, J. E., & Clarke, J. A. (2012). Enhancing the transition of commencing students into university: An institution-wide approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(2), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nowell, C., Gale, L. R., & Handley, B. (2010). Assessing faculty performance using student evaluations of teaching in an uncontrolled setting. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pitkethly, A., & Prosser, M. (2001). The first-year experience project: A model for university- wide change. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(2), 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Powney, J., & Hall, S. (1998). Closing the loop: The impact of student feedback on students’ subsequent learning. Glasgow: The Scottish Council for Research in Education, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  52. Price, K., & Baker, N. S. (2012). Measuring students’ engagement on college campuses: Is the NSSE an appropriate measure of adult students’ engagement? The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60(1), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2005). Enhancement-led institutional review: University of Strathclye, UK.Google Scholar
  54. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2006a). Enhancement-led institutional review: University of Heriot-Watt, UK.Google Scholar
  55. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2006b). Enhancement-led institutional review: Edinburgh Napier University, UK.Google Scholar
  56. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2007a). Enhancement-led institutional review: The University of Robert Gordon, UK.Google Scholar
  57. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2010a). Enhancement-led Institutional Review: University of Stirling, UK.Google Scholar
  58. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2010b). Enhancement-led Institutional Review: University of Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
  59. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2011a). Enhancement-led Institutional Review: Edin- 611 burgh Napier University, UK.Google Scholar
  60. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2011b). Enhancement-led Institutional Review: University of West of Scotland, UK.Google Scholar
  61. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2011c). Enhancement-led Institutional Review: Edinburgh Napier University, UK.Google Scholar
  62. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2011d). Enhancement-led Institutional Review: University of Heriot-Watt, UK.Google Scholar
  63. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2012). UK quality code for higher education part B: Assuring the enhancing academic quality: Chapter B5: Student engagement. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/quality-code-part-b.
  64. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2012). Enhancement-led Institutional Review: University of Abertay Dundee, UK.Google Scholar
  65. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2015). Learning from ELIR 2008-11. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Learning-from-ELIR-Student-representation.pdf.
  66. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2015). Enhancement-led Institutional Review. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews-and-reports/how-we-review-highereducation/enhancement-led-institutional-review.
  67. Scott, G. (2006). Accessing the student voice: Using CEQuery to identify what retains students and promotes engagement in productive learning in Australian higher education. Canberra, ACT: DEST. http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/access_student_voice.htm.
  68. Shah, M. (2012). Ten years of external quality audit in Australia: Have audits improved quality assurance in universities? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 761–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shah, M., Hartman, K., & Hastings, G. (2014). Partners or opponents: The engagement of students in a compliance driven quality assessment. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 18(1), 20–28.Google Scholar
  70. Shah, M., & Nair, C. S. (2009). Using student voice to improve student satisfaction: Two Australian universities—The same agenda. Journal of Institutional Research (South East Asia), 7(2), 43–55.Google Scholar
  71. Shah, M., & Nair, S. C. (2012). The changing nature of teaching evaluations in Australian Universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(3), 274–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shah, M., & Nair, S. (2013). Enhancing student feedback and improvement systems in tertiary education, CAA Occassional series 5, Commission of Academic Accreditation (CAA), United Arab Emirates (UAE).Google Scholar
  73. Shah, M., & Richardson, E. T. J. (2015). Is the enhancement of student experience a strategic priority in australian universities? Higher Education Research and Development (HERD),. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2015.1087385.Google Scholar
  74. Smithson, J., Birks, M., Harrison, G., Sid Nair, C., & Hitchins, M. (2015). Benchmarking for the effective use of student evaluation data. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stowell, R. J., Addison, E. W., & Smith, L. J. (2011). Comparison of online and classroom- based student evaluations of instructions. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Symons, R. (2006). Listening to the student voice at the University of Sydney: Closing the loop in the quality enhancement and improvement cycle. Paper presented at the 2006 Australian Association for Institutional Research Forum, Coffs Harbour, NSW, 21–24 November.Google Scholar
  77. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. (2011). Report of an Audit of James Cook University, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  78. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). (2012). Application for registration as a higher education provider. http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/GuideInitialRegistration.pdf.
  79. Tucker, B. (2013a). Development of a student evaluation quality culture: The eVALUate experience at Curtin. Enhancing student feedback and improvement systems in tertiary education, June (CAA Quality Series No. 5), pp. 16–33.Google Scholar
  80. Tucker, B. (2013b). Student evaluation to improve the student learning experience: An Australian university case study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(7), 615–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tucker, B., Jones, S., & Straker, L. (2008). Online student evaluation improves Course Experience Questionnaire results in a physiotherapy program. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(3), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tucker, B., Pegden, J., & Yorke, J. (2012). Outcomes and evaluations: Is there a relationship between indicators of student success and student evaluations of learning? In N. Brown.Google Scholar
  83. van Os, W. (2010). Feedback from student ratings and the improvement of teaching performance. Paper presented at the EAIR 32nd annual forum in Valencia, Spain, 1–4 September 2010.Google Scholar
  84. Watson, S. (2003). Closing the feedback loop: Ensuring effective action from student feedback. Tertiary Education Management, 9(2), 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Williams, J. (2002). Student satisfaction: A British model of effective use of student feedback in quality assurance and enhancement. Paper presented at the 14th international conference on assessment and quality in higher education, Vienna, 24–27 July 2002.Google Scholar
  86. Williams, R., & Brennan, J. (2003). Collecting and using student feedback on quality and standards of learning and teaching in Higher Education (Bristol, Higher Education Funding Enhancing Student Feedback and Improvement Systems in Tertiary Education 99 Council for England). http://oro.open.ac.uk/11876/4/6D7D5FC2_b.pdf.
  87. Williams, R., de Rassenfosse, G., Jensen, P., & Marginson, S. (2013). The determinants of quality national higher education systems. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(6), 599–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CQ UniversityRockhamptonAustralia
  2. 2.The University of GlasgowGlasgowScotland, UK
  3. 3.The University of CanberraBruceAustralia

Personalised recommendations