Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ensuring Quality in Professional Education Volume II

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.0025983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedggood, R. E., & Donovan, J. D. (2012). University performance evaluations: What are we really measuring? Studies in Higher Education, 37(7), 825–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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-enhancement

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, A. (2013). Engagement for enhancement: Report of a UK survey pilot. York: Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, A. (2014). The UK Engagement Survey 2014: The second pilot year. York: Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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/10.1080/03075079.2015.1127908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H., & McCormick, A. (Eds.). (2014). Engaging university students: International insights from system-wide studies. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried Foster, N. (Ed.). (2013). Studying students: A second look. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, S. (2013). Techniques to understand the changing needs of library users. IFLA Journal, 39(2), 162–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. York: Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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/

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Kember, D. (2000). Action learning and action research: Improving the quality of teaching and learning. London: Kogan Page.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., & Ginns, P. (2012). Evaluating teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lim, P. H., Gan, S., & Ng, H. K. (2010). Student evaluation of engineering modules for improved teaching-learning effectiveness. Engineering Education, 5, 52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrifield, N. (2016, August 31). Best and worst UK universities for nursing, as rated by students. Nursing Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Quality Assurance Agency. (2012). Chapter B5: Student engagement. UK Quality Code for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rienties, B. (2014). Understanding academic resistance towards (online) student evaluation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 987–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Titus, J. J. (2008). Student ratings in a consumerist academy: Leveraging pedagogical control and authority. Sociological Perspectives, 51(2), 397–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • Williams, J. (2015, August 13). The National Student Survey should be abolished before it does any more harm. The Guardian.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rhona Sharpe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sharpe, R. (2019). Evaluating the Student Experience: A Critical Review of the Use of Surveys to Enhance the Student Experience. In: Trimmer, K., Newman, T., Padró, F.F. (eds) Ensuring Quality in Professional Education Volume II. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01084-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01084-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01083-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01084-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics