Group items tagged

Satisfaction and its discontents 8 March 2012 The National Student Survey puts pressure on lecturers to provide 'enhanced' experiences. But, argues Frank Furedi, the results do not measure educational quality and the process infantilises students and corrodes academic integrity One of the striking features of a highly centralised system of higher education, such as that of the UK, is that the introduction of new targets and modifications to the quality assurance framework can have a dramatic impact in a very short space of time. When the National Student Survey was introduced in 2005, few colleagues imagined that, just several years down the road, finessing and managing its implementation would require the employment of an entirely new group of quality-assurance operatives. At the time, the NSS was seen by many as a relatively pointless public-relations exercise that would have only a minimal effect on academics' lives. It is unlikely that even its advocates would have expected the NSS to acquire a life of its own and become one of the most powerful influences on the form and nature of the work done in universities.

Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) Areas measured by the AUSSE The survey instruments used in the AUSSE collect information on around 100 specific learning activities and conditions along with information on individual demographics and educational contexts.The instruments contain items that map onto six student engagement scales: Academic Challenge - the extent to which expectations and assessments challenge students to learn; Active Learning - students' efforts to actively construct knowledge; Student and Staff Interactions - the level and nature of students' contact and interaction with teaching staff; Enriching Educational Experiences - students' participation in broadening educational activities; Supportive Learning Environment - students' feelings of support within the university community; and Work Integrated Learning - integration of employment-focused work experiences into study. The instruments also contain items that map onto seven outcome measures. Average overall grade is captured in a single item, and the other six are composite measures which reflect responses to several items: Higher-Order Thinking - participation in higher-order forms of thinking; General Learning Outcomes - development of general competencies; General Development Outcomes - development of general forms of individual and social development; Career Readiness - preparation for participation in the professional workforce; Average Overall Grade - average overall grade so far in course; Departure Intention - non-graduating students' intentions on not returning to study in the following year; and Overall Satisfaction - students' overall satisfaction with their educational experience.

"Abstract The authors compared the underlying student response patterns to an end-of-course rating instrument for large student samples in online, blended and face-to-face courses. For each modality, the solution produced a single factor that accounted for approximately 70% of the variance. The correlations among the factors across the class formats showed that they were identical. The authors concluded that course modality does not impact the dimensionality by which students evaluate their course experiences. The inability to verify multiple dimensions for student evaluation of instruction implies that the boundaries of a typical course are beginning to dissipate. As a result, the authors concluded that end-of-course evaluations now involve a much more complex network of interactions. Highlights ► The study models student satisfaction in the online, blended, and face-to-face course modalities. ► The course models vary technology involvement. ► Image analysis produced single dimension solutions. ► The solutions were identical across modalities. Keywords: Student rating of instruction; online learning; blended learning; factor analysis; student agency"

The SEI program is working with the teaching and learning community to gather evidence of the impact of instructional innovations and current practices and to help evaluate the results. The calls for more accountability in higher education, the shrinking budgets that often force larger class sizes, and the pressures to increase degree-completion rates are all raising the stakes for colleges and universities today, especially with respect to the instructional enterprise. As resources shrink, teaching and learning is becoming the key point of accountability. The evaluation of instructional practice would thus seem to be an obvious response to such pressures, with institutions implementing systematic programs of evaluation in teaching and learning, especially of instructional innovations.