Improving higher education through student satisfaction surveys

Abstract

Along with the educational expansion and the increasing demand regarding accountability for the outcomes of higher education institutions, a great emphasis is put on students' feedback. The present paper is focused on the educational results obtained by the implementation of student satisfaction surveys in a Romanian university. The survey instruments measure three dimensions (the teaching and learning activities, the institutional material base, and the support services) and were tilled in by a total of 1038 national and international students, in two consecutive years. Two different surveys format were administered: traditional paper and-pencil and online. For both of the formats, the students' responses show that the most important aspects are the teaching and learning activities, followed by the material base, and then by the support services offered by the institution.However a less favorable feedback was revealed by the online format of the survey. For all the aspects evaluated, there is a gap between satisfaction and importance: the students rate higher the importance they attach to each of the dimensions than their satisfaction level with these dimensions.

Sexism, racism, prejudice, and bias: a literature review and synthesis of research surrounding student evaluations of courses and teaching

“…Similar arguments also appear in the literature alongside the conclusion that SETs are measuring customer satisfaction (Enache 2011;Osoian et al 2010). These researchers acknowledge that the marketisation of the higher education system means customer satisfaction plays a valuable role in the modern university because enrolment numbers matter (Marginson 2013).…”

“…A starting point of many publications examining SETs is an acknowledgement that evaluations work in the sense that they provide the university with data relating to course design, delivery of the course and teaching staff performance. The inherent problem with SETs, however, is that this data disguises the prejudices and biases underpinning the data being gathered, and subsequently in the results being produced (Marsh 2007;Osoian et al 2010;Stark and Freishtat 2014).…”

“…That SETs provide data that appears sound is arguably why institutions believe that evaluations are a measure of effectiveness (Osoian et al 2010;Tucker 2014) and therefore play a role in academic hiring and promotions (Arthur 2009;Shah and Nair 2012;Boring, Ottoboni, and Stark 2016). At the same time, it has been noted that SET results have been used to aid in firing unproductive staff, or guiding staffing decisions during times of restructure (Jones, gaffney-Rhys, and Jones 2014;Uttl and Smibert 2017).…”

“…The issue many researchers examining SETs find is that looking at the data presented by compiling evaluation results appears to provide a somewhat objective picture of teacher and course success. However, what is rarely considered, or perhaps not seen, by universities and researchers praising SETs are the prejudices and conditions that shape the views that form the data (Marsh 2007;Osoian et al 2010;Stark and Freishtat 2014).…”

“…Benton, Cashin, and Manhattan (2012) found class size to be a major factor. Issues including classroom design, cleanliness of the university, quality of course websites, library services, food options available on campus, and difficulty in the admissions process (for first year students) have all been found to play a larger role in influencing SET results than teaching quality or course design (Osoian et al 2010).…”