Advertisement

Evaluating the Student Experience: A Critical Review of the Use of Surveys to Enhance the Student Experience

  • Rhona SharpeEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Surveying students about their experiences has long been a tool used by lecturers to collect feedback on their teaching. More recently, as the student experience has become a strategic priority for higher education institutions, surveys have come to be the dominant tool for academic managers to measure and monitor the quality of teaching. However, student experience surveys are not without their critics and there has been much debate about what such surveys purport to measure and how their results will be used. The introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework in the UK provides a timely prompt to review the value of these measures. This chapter takes a critical approach to reviewing the use of surveys within the context of the institution, the programme and the individual lecturer. Established findings on survey responses are reviewed including biases in how students evaluate individual lecturers, institutional and disciplinary differences in programme evaluations and the rise of yea-saying in institutional surveys. Recommendations are made concerning what aspects of the student experience it is appropriate to survey, how sampling can improve the trustworthiness of the results, different types of available question styles, and alternative and complementary methods. Despite their recognized biases, it is accepted that surveys are now so well ingrained into the management of teaching and learning that it is likely their use will continue. This chapter suggests a pragmatic approach to sharing more widely what is known about survey data, so that survey findings can be interpreted more responsibly.

Keywords

Student experience Surveys Student evaluations of teaching Higher education management 

References

  1. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Arah, O., Hoekstra, J., Bos, A., & Lombarts, K. (2011). New tools for systematic evaluation of teaching qualities of medical faculty: Results of an ongoing multi-center survey. PLoS ONE, 6(10).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedggood, R. E., & Donovan, J. D. (2012). University performance evaluations: What are we really measuring? Studies in Higher Education, 37(7), 825–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BIS. (2016, September). Teaching Excellence Framework: Year 2 specification. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teaching-excellence-framework-year-2-specification
  6. Buckley, A. (2012). “Making it count”: Reflecting on the National Student Survey (NSS) in the process of enhancement. York: Higher Education Academy Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/making-it-count-reflections-national-student-survey-nss-process-enhancementGoogle Scholar
  7. Buckley, A. (2013). Engagement for enhancement: Report of a UK survey pilot. York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  8. Buckley, A. (2014). The UK Engagement Survey 2014: The second pilot year. York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  9. Bunce, L., Baird, A., & Jones, S. E. (2016). The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1127908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coates, H., & McCormick, A. (Eds.). (2014). Engaging university students: International insights from system-wide studies. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Currant, N. (2015) Strategies of belonging: Counterstories of Black students at a predominately white university. Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching, 7 (2). Retrieved from bejlt.brookes.ac.uk
  12. Doubleday, A., & Lee, L. (2016). Dissecting the voice: Health professions students’ perceptions of instructor age and gender in an online environment and the impact on evaluations for faculty. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9(6), 537–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  14. Fried Foster, N. (Ed.). (2013). Studying students: A second look. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbons, S. (2013). Techniques to understand the changing needs of library users. IFLA Journal, 39(2), 162–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  17. HEFCE. (2014). UK review of the provision of information about higher education. National Student Survey results and trends analysis 2005–2013. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201413/
  18. HESA. (2016, October). Synthesis of consultation responses in support of HESA’s fundamental review of destinations and outcomes data for graduates from higher education. Higher Education Statistics Agency.Google Scholar
  19. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kandiko Howson, C., & Matos, F. (2014). UK Engagement Survey 2014: Full report of cognitive testing. York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/ukes_2014_cognitive_testing_report.pdf
  21. Kember, D. (2000). Action learning and action research: Improving the quality of teaching and learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  22. Kember, D., & Ginns, P. (2012). Evaluating teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Shuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (Eds.). (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Lim, P. H., Gan, S., & Ng, H. K. (2010). Student evaluation of engineering modules for improved teaching-learning effectiveness. Engineering Education, 5, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marsh, H. W., & Cheng, J. H. S. (2008). Dimensionality, multi-level structure and differentiation at the level of the university and discipline: Preliminary results. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resource/national-student-survey-teaching-uk-universities-dimensionality-multilevel-structure-and
  26. Marsh, H. W., Ginns, P., Morin, A. J. S., Nagengast, B., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Use of student ratings to benchmark universities: Multilevel modelling of responses to the Australian Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 733–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. (1993). The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Education Research Journal, 30, 217–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merrifield, N. (2016, August 31). Best and worst UK universities for nursing, as rated by students. Nursing Times.Google Scholar
  29. Onweugbuzie, A., Witcher, A., Collins, K., Filer, J., Wiedmaier, C., & Moore, C. (2007). Students’ perceptions of characteristics of effective college teachers: A validity study of a teaching evaluation form using a mixed-method analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 113–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pymount, S. (2016, January) The effectiveness of the National Student Survey and local institutional surveys as a management tool for setting effective strategies in higher education. Thesis submitted for Doctor of Business Administration, Nottingham Business School.Google Scholar
  31. Quality Assurance Agency. (2012). Chapter B5: Student engagement. UK Quality Code for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  32. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rienties, B. (2014). Understanding academic resistance towards (online) student evaluation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 987–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rienties, B., & Toetnel, L. (2016). The impact of learning design on student behaviour, satisfaction and performance: A cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human Behaviour, 60, 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seale, J. (2010). Doing student voice work in higher education: An exploration of the value of participatory methods. British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 995–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sharpe, R., O’Donovan, B., & Pavlakou, M. (2014). Using the framework of engagement surveys to evaluate institutional student enhancement initiatives. In Surveys for Enhancement Conference, Birmingham, 4 June 2014.Google Scholar
  37. Titus, J. J. (2008). Student ratings in a consumerist academy: Leveraging pedagogical control and authority. Sociological Perspectives, 51(2), 397–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. UCAS. (2016). UK application rates by the January deadline: 2016 cycle. UCAS Analysis and Research, 4 February. Retrieved from https://www.ucas.com/sites/default/files/jan-16-deadline-application-rates-report.pdf
  39. Van der Velden, G., Pool, A. D., Lowe, J. A., Naidoo, R., & Pimentel Botas, P. C. (2013). Student engagement in learning and teaching quality management: A good practice guide for higher education providers and students’ unions. QAA and University of Bath.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, J. (2015, August 13). The National Student Survey should be abolished before it does any more harm. The Guardian.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations