Students’ feedback - Can higher education quality management systems put it to good use?

1. Students’ feedback - Can higher education quality management systems put it to good use? Monica Zaharie Melinda Szabo Center for Quality Management Babes-Bolyai University, 18 September 2009

2. Uses of stakeholders’ feedback • 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

3. Actions taken at Babes-Bolyai University 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.

4. Argument for student satisfaction surveys • 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)

5. Methodological 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

6. Results • 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

7. Results 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)

8. Results • 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)

9. Results • 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

11. Discussions 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

12. Discussions 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

13. Questions Thank you! monizaharie@staff.ubbcluj.ro