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

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

Babes-Bolyai University, 18 September 2009

Monica Zaharie

Melinda Szabo

Center for Quality Management

Uses of stakeholders’ Uses of stakeholders’ feedbackfeedback

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

Actions taken at Babes-Bolyai Actions taken at Babes-Bolyai UniversityUniversity

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.

Argument for student satisfaction Argument for student satisfaction surveyssurveys

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)

Methodological designMethodological 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

ResultsResults

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

ResultsResults

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)

ResultsResults

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)

ResultsResults

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

Discussions and conclusionsDiscussions 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

Discussions and conclusionsDiscussions 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

Questions

Thank you!

[email protected]