View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The National Student Survey: Development, Findings and Implications

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The National Student Survey: Development, Findings and Implications
Language: English
Authors: Richardson, John T. E., Slater, John B., Wilson, Jane
Source: Studies in Higher Education. Oct 2007 32(5):557-580.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.html
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 24
Publication Date: 2007
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Measures (Individuals), Undergraduate Students, Student Surveys, Integrity, Student Attitudes, Pilot Projects, Response Rates (Questionnaires), National Surveys, Open Universities, Student Experience
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom, United Kingdom (England), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Wales)
DOI: 10.1080/03075070701573757
ISSN: 0307-5079
Abstract: A pilot study investigated the feasibility of a survey of students completing undergraduate programmes in the UK regarding their experiences of learning and teaching. A questionnaire containing 45 items in six scales was distributed to 44,209 students from 22 institutions. It was returned by 17,173 students, and analysis of their responses broadly confirmed the integrity of the scales. A second pilot study investigated the feasibility of a survey of final-year undergraduate students. A questionnaire containing 35 items in nine scales was distributed to 25,838 students at 10 institutions. It was returned by 9723 students, and again analysis of their responses broadly confirmed the integrity of the scales. The findings informed the National Student Surveys administered to final-year students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Contains 5 tables.)
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 13
Entry Date: 2007
Accession Number: EJ775739
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwECYMIugFpOWaquCVJn8-3iAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDB59OQU1C6LmCJ7W4wIBEICBmleH5i4HAjWID6YUnccU9UmqtmDK0xIVNrsIgv7wj1CiU8ZmRUV89W2qt9BLbz9f4MUX16_y_t-xKCcZ3GoGbfU_cuRrovFQ7wjxmfS0hGhlbygemT2eB93csv5JYqFR3yFSqiN0Gm0-CpA2PYfz-TapTvkWgVBPTdpjFwKVWmcXAl2pVt6GYGnxWy2zirJMVIYez0M2aar8T1Y=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0026655592;she01oct.07;2019Mar19.12:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0026655592-1">The National Student Survey: development, findings and implications. </title> <sbt id="AN0026655592-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>A pilot study investigated the feasibility of a survey of students completing undergraduate programmes in the UK regarding their experiences of learning and teaching. A questionnaire containing 45 items in six scales was distributed to 44,209 students from 22 institutions. It was returned by 17,173 students, and analysis of their responses broadly confirmed the integrity of the scales. A second pilot study investigated the feasibility of a survey of final‐year undergraduate students. A questionnaire containing 35 items in nine scales was distributed to 25,838 students at 10 institutions. It was returned by 9723 students, and again analysis of their responses broadly confirmed the integrity of the scales. The findings informed the National Student Surveys administered to final‐year students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2005, 2006 and 2007.</p> <p>In 2000, following representations from the higher education sector, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) proposed to abandon the extensive subject review mechanisms that had been set in place to assure quality of provision, at an annual cost that the sector estimated to be £50 million. Instead, it was agreed with the UK Government that the sector would publish key data on quality matters to help enable prospective students to make more informed judgements on where to study, and thus help to discharge the accountability function of a sector in receipt of large sums of public money. The previous quality assurance process was rapidly dismantled before any replacement was defined, leading to the feeling in some quarters that institutions should be self‐regulated with no external checks on the quality of teaching and learning.</p> <p>However, following ongoing discussions with the Government, as well as extensive deliberation in a task group set up in 2001, it was agreed that some external mechanism was needed but that, to avoid extra burden on institutions, use would be made as far as possible of existing data, of which an important part was feedback from students (HEFCE, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref1">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref2">7</reflink>]). This prompted discussion on the appropriateness of the feedback that was being collected within institutions. Most such feedback was module‐based rather than programme‐based. It was suspected to be patchy in coverage, often obtained from small numbers of respondents. The questions put to students were thought to vary markedly across institutions and sometimes across disciplines within the same institutions, rendering most comparisons meaningless. Most crucially, institutions claimed that their rationale for collecting student feedback was to support quality enhancement. Using student feedback to inform prospective students would involve putting the data to a different use.</p> <p>HEFCE therefore commissioned a project on <emph>Collecting and using student feedback on quality and standards of learning and teaching in HE</emph> [higher education]. The project aimed to identify good practice in obtaining student feedback, to make recommendations to institutions concerning the design and implementation of feedback mechanisms, and to make recommendations on the design and implementation of a national survey of recent graduates, the results of which would be published to assist future applicants to higher education. The project's findings suggested that it would be feasible to introduce a uniform national survey to obtain feedback from all recent graduates about their programmes of study (Brennan <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]). This could be administered by an independent agency, thus reducing the burden on institutions. HEFCE then commissioned a pilot study to explore the feasibility and value of such a survey. This was carried out during 2003 by ourselves and our colleagues at the Open University. The results suggested that it was possible to design a short, robust instrument that would measure different aspects of the quality of the student experience.</p> <p>However, the timing of this survey was thought not to be optimal, because the results would only inform students seeking to enter university two years later. Following discussions with the Government, HEFCE resolved to address this and other deficiencies (such as a poor return from overseas students) by exploring instead the idea of a national survey of final‐year students. We were commissioned to undertake another pilot study early in 2004 investigating the feasibility of such a survey. The results confirmed its feasibility, and HEFCE resolved to proceed with a full national student survey early in 2005 and annually thereafter.</p> <p>For the first three years of operation, the survey instrument has been very close to that employed in the second pilot study. At the time of writing, the survey encompasses final‐year students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland funded by HEFCE, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland, respectively. Scotland has different mechanisms for obtaining student feedback, although some Scottish universities have joined the HEFCE operation. Aggregate results have been published on the Teaching Quality Information website together with institutional statistics and external examiners' reports to inform prospective students and other stakeholders.</p> <p>We agreed with HEFCE that, following the completion of the pilot studies, we would produce an academic account of the development of the National Student Survey (NSS). In this article, therefore, we describe the development of the NSS as originally envisaged, present selected findings from the two pilot studies and discuss their implications.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-3">The first pilot study</hd> <p>In developing an instrument to be used in the first pilot study, the project was informed by a comprehensive literature review of the use of questionnaires to obtain student feedback (Brennan <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>], ch. 3), and by annual reports published by the Graduate Careers Council of Australia containing the results of surveys carried out with the Course Experience Questionnaire (Ainley & Long, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>], and subsequent reports). However, the latter instrument has been criticised because it contains items that are not appropriate for certain groups of students (e.g. those studying by distance learning: Richardson & Woodley, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>]), and also because it does not include items relating to broader aspects of the student experience, such as pastoral support and the organisation of the curriculum (McInnis <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref7">10</reflink>]). We therefore began by assembling a list of 45 items concerned with different aspects of the student experience, with the expectation that the results of the pilot study would enable its reduction to a shorter questionnaire for use in a full national survey.</p> <p>All institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (more than 140) were contacted to invite their participation in the pilot study. More than 40 institutions responded, from which we identified a sample of 23 institutions varying on a number of pertinent dimensions. These included 'old' universities (i.e. those that had acquired degree‐awarding powers before 1992), 'new' universities (i.e. former polytechnics that had acquired degree‐awarding powers since 1992) and colleges of higher education. They also included large institutions offering the full range of academic disciplines, specialist colleges and the Open University. The institutions were spread geographically throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-4">Materials</hd> <p>The main part of the survey questionnaire consisted of 45 statements, and the respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a five‐point scale from 1 ('definitely agree') to 5 ('definitely disagree'). They were also provided with a sixth response alternative, 'does not apply'. There were three additional items to validate the questionnaire as a measure of perceived academic quality: 'Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of the course'; 'Overall, I feel the course was a good investment'; and 'I would recommend the course to a friend'. These were supplemented by the opportunity to provide free text comments in response to the question, 'Looking back on the experience, what do you consider to have been the best and worst aspects?'</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-5">Procedure</hd> <p>Part of our brief was to report on the most efficient collection method for a national student survey. We were aware of the success of the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency's First Destination Survey, which has since been updated as the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education Survey. This is administered by each institution and imposes a considerable burden while data collection is under way, but most institutions normally achieve response rates of over 80% for graduates from full‐time programmes. We compared three kinds of involvement on the part of institutions: full involvement in the process of data collection; partial involvement (providing internal publicity for the survey or email reminders); and no involvement beyond checking the validity of the sample. We also examined the role of involvement on the part of the students' union.</p> <p>For each institution, the sample of students was in principle determined by HEFCE, who supplied us with each student's identifying number, together with demographic data held by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, and the institutions then linked the identifying numbers to address and telephone data. In most instances, this represented little burden on the institutions and was achieved rapidly. The institutions were asked to remove students who were known to be deceased or to have serious illnesses. In practice, the number removed on this basis was very variable, and some institutions excluded students who had withdrawn or failed. At one institution a large number of students who had not studied for several years were found to be in the data set, and there was considerable variation in how institutions recognised 'dormant' or 'continuing' students. In general, the data held by institutions about their students and graduates was of variable quality. Subsequently, the funders recognised that the definition of 'serious illness' had to be made much more precise.</p> <p>The questionnaire was printed in two formats. Graduates at some institutions were sent a 'structured' questionnaire in which the 45 statements were grouped into six headed sections. Graduates at the remaining institutions were sent a 'random' questionnaire in which the 45 statements were listed in a random order. The questionnaires were mailed in July 2003 by the Open University's Survey Office, except at three institutions that distributed the questionnaires themselves. This seemed to make little difference except at one institution where questionnaires were distributed at the degree‐awarding ceremony, thus raising awareness of the survey both among the graduates and among their friends and families. Non‐respondents were sent either another copy of the questionnaire or a reminder postcard. Two institutions administered the survey by telephone to the remaining non‐respondents, and the high response rates obviated the need for further mailings. A third institution provided the project team with accurate mobile phone data, and this too yielded a high response rate. Two other institutions used a centrally managed market research agency for the same purpose; this proved less successful, and so a third mailing (postcards or further copies of the questionnaire) was used.</p> <p>Graduates from all institutions had the option of responding to the appropriate version (structured or random) of the survey online and were prompted in the covering letter to the questionnaire and the reminder postcard. One university proposed to contact all of its graduates by email and collect their responses by a link to the survey website. However, most of the students' university email addresses had been cancelled after their graduation, and fewer than 10% responded to the survey. We therefore repeated the experiment with a sample of Open University graduates, yielding a substantially higher response rate (the Open University's graduates were used for this and other separate experiments and were therefore not included in the main analysis of the results).</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-6">Response rates across institutions</hd> <p>Responses were received from 17,173 students, representing 38.8% of the 44,209 students surveyed. The response rate varied between 9.6% and 70.5% across different institutions, although the majority achieved between 40% and 60%. In general, this depended upon the particular mechanisms used for distributing the survey and for sending reminders, although there were additional factors including the quality of an institution's contact data. The highest response rates were achieved at the two institutions that conducted their own follow‐up telephone interviews. One of these achieved a response rate of 70.5% by including 97% of the graduates who were contactable within the UK or Ireland. Given the time of year when the survey was carried out (July–August), there was a common pattern whereby about 30% of graduates were away from their permanent address and hence unable to complete the survey.</p> <p>The next highest response rates were achieved at the two institutions that used the centrally managed agency to carry out follow‐up telephone interviews. In these cases, the agency was given less time to contact the students and had limited opportunity to interact with the institutions. This led to response rates that were about 10% lower than those at the institutions that had carried out their own follow‐up telephone interviews. There was little evidence that awareness‐raising techniques made any difference to the response rates unless they involved the students' union, friends or families. Finally, there was little evidence that collective reward mechanisms (such as offering a donation to the student hardship fund that increased with the overall return) made much difference to the response rates.</p> <p>These results suggest the following crude model of responding. Within each cohort of recent graduates, there is a core of about 30% who cannot be contacted either because they are away from their home address or because of inadequate contact information held centrally by their institution. About 20% of the cohort will respond to a first mailing, another 10% will respond to a second mailing and another 5% will respond to a third mailing. Postcards prove slightly more effective as reminders than sending further copies of the questionnaire. Email contact (using valid addresses) may yield an additional 10%. Telephone contact increases the response rate considerably, albeit at a significant cost, and seems to be somewhat more effective if carried out by the institution itself. With only limited telephoning, it is relatively easy to obtain an overall response rate of between 40% and 50%.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-7">Response rates across students</hd> <p>The response rate varied across different subjects of study, from 31.8% in computer science to 50.9% in agriculture and related subjects. It varied with age (being lowest in students aged 26–30 and highest in those aged over 50); with gender (women were more likely to respond than men); and with ethnicity (white students were more likely to respond than were students from ethnic minorities). All these trends were confirmed when variation among institutions, variation among subject groups and the effects of the other demographic and programme‐related variables were taken into account. The response rate appeared to vary with social class, but this was due to a confounding of social class with other variables, and was not statistically significant when those other variables were taken into account. The response rate was not significantly affected by the presence or absence of disability.</p> <p>The students were classified into three broad groups by comparing their educational qualifications on admission to their programmes with the General Certificate of Education, Advanced Level (GCE A‐level), which is the most common university entrance qualification in the UK: high (beyond GCE A‐level); medium (at GCE A‐level or the equivalent) and low (below GCE A‐level). The response rate appeared to vary with the level of qualifications, but this was due to a confounding of entrance qualifications with the other variables, and was not significant when those other variables were taken into account. The response rate varied with the nature of the educational outcome, being highest for the students who were awarded first degrees and lowest for those who had withdrawn from their programmes. In the case of the students awarded first degrees, it was highest for those who graduated with first‐class honours and lowest for those who graduated with third‐class honours. All these trends were confirmed when variation among the institutions, variation among the subject groups and the effects of the other demographic and programme‐related variables were taken into account.</p> <p>Thus, the response rate was related to age, gender, ethnicity and educational outcome, though apparently not to social class, disability or entry qualifications. This is consistent with previous findings that people who respond to surveys are different from those who do not in terms of a variety of demographic characteristics (Goyder, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>], ch. 5). However, none of the effects was apparent at all 22 institutions, indicating that they are contingent phenomena that reflect variations in institutional practices rather than characteristics of the students.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-8">Complete versus incomplete data</hd> <p>As noted earlier, the questionnaires were returned in three different formats: 11,963 students returned a questionnaire in a structured format; 4911 students returned a questionnaire in a random format; and just 299 students responded online. There were 69 blank questionnaires; these were discarded, leaving 17,104 questionnaires with genuine responses.</p> <p>Table 1 shows the overall percentages of responses to each of the 45 items. (These do not add up to exactly 100% because of both rounding and missing responses.) The most frequent response was '2' (mostly agree), except for the item 'There was good advice available to ensure that I made the choices in my studies that were right for me', where the most frequent response was '3' (neutral), and for the five negatively worded items, where the most frequent response was '4' (mostly disagree). In general, the results indicate that the respondents felt broadly positive about their experiences of higher education.</p> <p>Table 1. Percentage frequency distribution of responses in the first pilot study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>n/a</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>1. The teaching on my course</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Staff were good at explaining things.</td><td>16.6</td><td>63.5</td><td>13.1</td><td>5.4</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Staff made the subject interesting.</td><td>15.1</td><td>55.1</td><td>20.4</td><td>7.6</td><td>1.3</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Staff motivated me to work well.</td><td>13.6</td><td>40.2</td><td>28.0</td><td>14.0</td><td>3.6</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Staff were enthusiastic about what they were teaching.</td><td>26.3</td><td>47.9</td><td>17.2</td><td>6.4</td><td>1.6</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Staff made an effort to understand our difficulties.</td><td>15.1</td><td>41.3</td><td>25.0</td><td>13.4</td><td>4.4</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Staff prepared their teaching thoroughly.</td><td>20.9</td><td>49.9</td><td>19.7</td><td>6.7</td><td>2.1</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>The course was intellectually stimulating.</td><td>33.3</td><td>45.2</td><td>13.6</td><td>5.5</td><td>1.9</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>I received prompt feedback on my work.</td><td>11.1</td><td>34.3</td><td>22.7</td><td>22.4</td><td>8.7</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>I received detailed comments on my work.</td><td>13.7</td><td>37.2</td><td>21.1</td><td>19.4</td><td>7.9</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td><italic>2. The assessment on my course</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>There was a good mix of examinations and other assessments.</td><td>27.5</td><td>46.2</td><td>12.4</td><td>8.3</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>The criteria to be used in marking were clear in advance.</td><td>27.9</td><td>39.3</td><td>16.6</td><td>11.6</td><td>4.1</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment arrangements and marking were fair.</td><td>21.1</td><td>46.0</td><td>18.9</td><td>9.2</td><td>3.8</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment tasks were bunched towards the end of a module/course.</td><td>24.0</td><td>32.4</td><td>17.3</td><td>18.9</td><td>5.5</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>To do well on this course you mainly need a good memory.</td><td>10.3</td><td>20.7</td><td>22.9</td><td>30.6</td><td>13.8</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>It was clear what standard was required in assessed work.</td><td>18.3</td><td>46.9</td><td>18.6</td><td>12.1</td><td>3.0</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>The method used to produce my final overall grade was clear.</td><td>23.1</td><td>35.1</td><td>17.0</td><td>14.6</td><td>8.0</td><td>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>It would be possible to get through this course just by working hard around exam times.</td><td>7.9</td><td>16.1</td><td>13.2</td><td>30.7</td><td>28.1</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td><italic>3. Knowledge and skills</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>I feel confident in the subject knowledge I acquired.</td><td>23.5</td><td>53.9</td><td>14.1</td><td>6.5</td><td>1.6</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>The course developed my problem solving skills.</td><td>21.8</td><td>45.1</td><td>20.5</td><td>8.4</td><td>2.1</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>The course sharpened my analytic skills.</td><td>30.4</td><td>47.4</td><td>14.5</td><td>5.3</td><td>1.5</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>The course helped me develop my ability to work in a team.</td><td>25.6</td><td>40.2</td><td>18.0</td><td>10.9</td><td>3.7</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>The course improved my communication skills.</td><td>31.3</td><td>44.0</td><td>14.4</td><td>7.0</td><td>2.3</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>The course helped me develop the ability to manage my own work.</td><td>38.6</td><td>44.2</td><td>10.8</td><td>4.0</td><td>1.4</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>The course helped me to present myself with confidence.</td><td>26.2</td><td>43.4</td><td>18.8</td><td>7.8</td><td>2.7</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems.</td><td>19.0</td><td>45.6</td><td>24.3</td><td>7.5</td><td>2.2</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>There were sufficient opportunities to apply the theoretical knowledge I acquired to practical situations.</td><td>16.0</td><td>36.5</td><td>24.0</td><td>15.1</td><td>5.2</td><td>2.7</td></tr><tr><td><italic>4. Course organisation and management</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>The course was well organised and ran smoothly.</td><td>15.1</td><td>43.5</td><td>20.4</td><td>14.1</td><td>6.5</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>The course was flexible enough to fit in with my other commitments.</td><td>23.1</td><td>43.8</td><td>17.7</td><td>9.4</td><td>3.7</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>The course enabled me to pursue my academic interests.</td><td>25.9</td><td>47.1</td><td>18.0</td><td>5.8</td><td>1.8</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>I found the overall workload was too heavy.</td><td>4.5</td><td>14.6</td><td>30.6</td><td>39.9</td><td>9.6</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>I was given enough time to understand what I had to learn.</td><td>11.3</td><td>49.4</td><td>23.2</td><td>12.8</td><td>2.4</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>I was asked for my opinions about the course.</td><td>33.3</td><td>37.6</td><td>12.7</td><td>10.0</td><td>5.4</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>The background work volume suggested (for example, through reading lists and practice tasks) was unrealistic.</td><td>11.2</td><td>24.3</td><td>26.9</td><td>28.9</td><td>6.9</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>It was clear what I was required to attend, prepare, and do throughout the course.</td><td>34.4</td><td>47.5</td><td>10.2</td><td>5.3</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td><italic>5. Support and advice</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>I received helpful feedback from staff about my progress on the course.</td><td>13.1</td><td>35.3</td><td>22.6</td><td>20.3</td><td>8.0</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>I had as much contact with staff as I needed.</td><td>22.4</td><td>36.4</td><td>16.2</td><td>17.5</td><td>7.1</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>I found other students helped me understand the course.</td><td>26.5</td><td>42.7</td><td>17.5</td><td>9.3</td><td>3.1</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Good careers information and advice were available.</td><td>16.0</td><td>29.1</td><td>23.7</td><td>15.8</td><td>10.4</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>There was good advice available to ensure that I made the choices in my studies that were right for me.</td><td>8.5</td><td>27.8</td><td>29.9</td><td>21.0</td><td>8.8</td><td>3.4</td></tr><tr><td>During my first year, I received sufficient support and advice with my studies.</td><td>14.3</td><td>35.8</td><td>21.1</td><td>17.2</td><td>8.4</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Over the course as a whole, I received sufficient support and advice with my studies.</td><td>15.1</td><td>41.4</td><td>21.0</td><td>14.8</td><td>6.5</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td><italic>6. Learning resources</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Course materials (paper‐based and online) were useful.</td><td>29.2</td><td>50.3</td><td>12.1</td><td>5.6</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>The library resources were good enough for my needs.</td><td>29.0</td><td>38.4</td><td>11.3</td><td>13.4</td><td>6.5</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>I was always able to access general IT resources when required.</td><td>29.9</td><td>37.1</td><td>12.0</td><td>13.5</td><td>5.3</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>When it was needed, there was sufficient access to specialised equipment, computing facilities, or rooms.</td><td>22.0</td><td>38.6</td><td>15.9</td><td>13.1</td><td>6.2</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td><italic>7. Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of the course.</italic></td><td>29.4</td><td>49.5</td><td>10.1</td><td>7.6</td><td>2.9</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td><italic>8. Overall, I feel the course was a good investment.</italic></td><td>37.7</td><td>40.3</td><td>11.8</td><td>6.1</td><td>3.5</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td><italic>9. I would recommend the course to a friend.</italic></td><td>33.9</td><td>35.2</td><td>16.3</td><td>8.0</td><td>5.9</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Note</italic>. The response categories are as follows: 1, strongly agree; 2, mostly agree; 3, neither agree nor disagree; 4, mostly disagree; 5, strongly disagree; n/a, not applicable.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The missing responses were relatively uninformative. They were consistently below 1% and were distributed in an unsystematic manner. The overall proportion of respondents who missed one or more items was 8.8% for the structured questionnaire and 8.7% for the random questionnaire.</p> <p>Twelve items produced 'n/a' ('does not apply') responses from 2% or more of the respondents for one or more of the formats. Of the 17,104 respondents, 2934 (or 18.6%) had responded 'n/a' to one or more of the 45 items. This proportion was lower for those who returned the structured questionnaire (17.6%) than for those who returned the random questionnaire (21.4%). This suggests that randomising the questionnaire removes contextual cues that help respondents to interpret the items in an appropriate way (cf. Strack & Schwarz, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref9">13</reflink>]). The proportion was lower still for those who responded online (14.4%), suggesting that online administration may encourage the respondents to reflect more carefully on the intended meaning of the questionnaire items.</p> <p>An issue with questionnaires about entire degree programmes is whether respondents find it harder to aggregate their experiences across joint or combined programmes. However, the mean number of 'n/a' responses given by students who were taking programmes in two or more disciplines (0.22) was actually less than the mean number given by students taking programmes within single disciplines (0.53). Moreover, the mean number of '3' responses ('you are neutral, or cannot give a definite answer') given by students taking programmes in two or more disciplines (8.14) was also less than the mean number given by students taking programmes within single disciplines (8.44). Accordingly, it was decided that, for the second pilot study, it was unnecessary to include a separate 'n/a' response.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-9">Scales and scale scores</hd> <p>The six original scales all showed at least a moderate level of internal consistency, as shown by values of Cronbach's ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]) coefficient alpha between 0.63 and 0.88. However, the use of principal components analysis suggested that two of the scales were each constituted by two different components. 'The teaching on my course' split into one component concerned with good teaching and another concerned with the amount and timeliness of feedback provided on the students' work. 'Course organisation and management' also split into one component concerned with course organisation and another concerned with the students' workload.</p> <p>The former result is of particular interest, in so far as two studies carried out in Canada and Ireland both found that the Good Teaching scale of the Course Experience Questionnaire appeared to measure two different dimensions concerned with teaching skills and with the quality of feedback, respectively (Broomfield & Bligh, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>]; Kreber, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>]). Richardson ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>]) suggested that quality of instruction was likely to depend upon the competence of individual teachers, whereas the timing and quality of feedback on students' work was likely to depend more upon institutional practices and procedures.</p> <p>A principal components analysis of the entire questionnaire yielded seven components which were then subjected to oblique rotation. The item loadings suggested that these seven components could be captured by the 19 items shown in Table 2. Seven new scales were defined by taking the average responses across these sets of items. Valid data (responses between 1 and 5) on the 19 items had been provided by 14,789 (or 86.5%) of the respondents. The coding of the negatively worded items was reversed, and the scores on the seven scales were themselves also reversed so that they would range from a <emph>low</emph> score of 1 to a <emph>high</emph> score of 5. Table 3 summarises statistical properties of the seven scales.</p> <p>Table 2. Short 19‐item questionnaire</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td><italic>Teaching</italic><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>• Staff were good at explaining things.</p></list-item><list-item><p>• Staff made the subject interesting.</p></list-item><list-item><p>• Staff were enthusiastic about what they were teaching.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><italic>Feedback</italic><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>• I received prompt feedback on my work.</p></list-item><list-item><p>• I received detailed comments on my work.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><italic>Assessment</italic><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>• The criteria to be used in marking were clear in advance.</p></list-item><list-item><p>• Assessment arrangements and marking were fair.</p></list-item><list-item><p>• It was clear what standard was required in assessed work.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><italic>Generic Skills</italic><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>• The course improved my communication skills.</p></list-item><list-item><p>• The course helped me to present myself with confidence.</p></list-item><list-item><p>• As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><italic>Workload</italic><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>• I found the overall workload was too heavy.*</p></list-item><list-item><p>• The background work volume suggested (for example, through reading lists and practice tasks) was unrealistic.*</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><italic>Support</italic><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>• There was good advice available to ensure that I made the choices in my studies that were right for me.</p></list-item><list-item><p>• During my first year, I received sufficient support and advice with my studies.</p></list-item><list-item><p>• Over the course as a whole, I received sufficient support and advice with my studies.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><italic>Resources</italic><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>• The library resources were good enough for my needs.</p></list-item><list-item><p>• I was always able to access general IT resources when required.</p></list-item><list-item><p>• When it was needed, there was sufficient access to specialised equipment, computing facilities, or rooms.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><italic>Note</italic>. Items marked with asterisks are to be scored in reverse.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. Descriptive statistics of seven scales, principal component loadings and correlations with measures of perceived quality</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Correlation coefficients</td></tr><tr><td>Scale</td><td>Mean</td><td>Standard deviation</td><td>Skewness</td><td>Kurtosis</td><td>Coefficient alpha</td><td>Loading</td><td>Overall satisfaction</td><td>Overall investment</td><td>Recommend to a friend</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Teaching</td><td>3.86</td><td>0.70</td><td>−0.91</td><td>1.39</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.60</td></tr><tr><td>Feedback</td><td>3.23</td><td>1.03</td><td>−0.32</td><td>−0.60</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment</td><td>3.72</td><td>0.85</td><td>−0.74</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.47</td></tr><tr><td>Generic Skills</td><td>3.86</td><td>0.82</td><td>−0.81</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.49</td></tr><tr><td>Workload</td><td>3.15</td><td>0.85</td><td>−0.20</td><td>−0.28</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>Support</td><td>3.28</td><td>0.97</td><td>−0.39</td><td>−0.39</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.55</td></tr><tr><td>Resources</td><td>3.70</td><td>0.98</td><td>−0.68</td><td>−0.11</td><td>0.77</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.31</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In each case, the mean score is above the midpoint of the response scale (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>), implying a broadly positive judgement. In general, the skewness can be expected to vary directly with the distance between the mean score and the midpoint of the response scale. Certain of the distributions are leptokurtic ('peaked'); the peaks tended to coincide with whole numbers (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>, 4 or 5), suggesting that some respondents may have uncritically checked the same response for all the items in the scale. All of the scales have high levels of internal consistency as measured by Cronbach's ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]) coefficient alpha, except for workload, where the level of internal consistency would generally be regarded as unsatisfactory.</p> <p>A principal components analysis was carried out on the students' scores on the seven scales, and this suggested that one component should be extracted. The loadings of the scales on this component are shown in Table 3. It was defined by teaching, assessment, support, feedback and generic skills, and it can be plausibly interpreted as an overall measure of the perceived quality of the students' programmes. Resources showed a loading greater than 0.40, which was regarded as salient for the purposes of interpretation. However, workload did not, suggesting that variations in the availability of resources or in the overall workload have relatively little relationship with students' perceptions of quality.</p> <p>The questionnaire had included three extra items as alternative measures of perceived quality. The coding of these items was also reversed, and Table 3 shows the correlation coefficients between the students' scores on the seven scales and their responses to each of these items. All of the scales apart from workload show substantial associations with all three measures.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-10">Scale scores by institution and subject of study</hd> <p>A multivariate analysis of variance was used to analyse the respondents' scores on the seven scales, with their institution and subject group as independent variables. The proportion of variation in the dependent (or predicted) variable that was explained by an independent (or predictor) variable was used as a measure of effect size. In multivariate analyses of variance, the proportion of variation explained is measured by the complement of Wilks's Λ (lambda). This analysis found that inter‐institutional differences accounted for 7% of the variation in scale scores (Λ =.93; <emph>F</emph> = 7.18; df = 147, 96201; <emph>p</emph> <.001), and that differences among the subject groups also accounted for 7% of the variation in scale scores (Λ =.93; <emph>F</emph> = 9.00; df = 119, 93980; <emph>p</emph> <.001). In other words, bare comparisons across different institutions or across different subjects explain relatively little of the variation in graduates' perceptions of academic quality. However, the interaction between these two effects accounted for 24% of the variation in scale scores (Λ =.76; <emph>F</emph> = 2.27; df = 1757, 100863; <emph>p</emph> <.001). This result confirms the validity of the questionnaire in discriminating among graduates from different institutions taking programmes in the same subject group, which is a basic requirement of any instrument to be used for making comparisons of the sort envisaged by the NSS.</p> <p>A major finding was that the respondents' scores did not lend themselves to being represented in the form of a simple overall league table. Instead, Institution A might score better than Institution B on one scale, but the reverse might be true on another scale. Results of this sort would help to inform potential students with different preferences and priorities, but they cannot be captured in a simple ordering of institutions. This led to discussion as to whether the overall satisfaction scores (which could, of course, produce a simple ordering) should be suppressed in any published presentation of the results from a full national student survey. In the event, this suggestion was not adopted.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-11">Scale scores by demographic variables</hd> <p>The students' scale scores were found to vary with both demographic and programme‐related variables. Their scores were associated with age and gender (older students tended to produce higher scores than younger students, and women tended to produce higher scores than men, except on the resources scale, where both of these patterns were reversed). White students tended to produce higher scores than students in ethnic minorities. Scores were also related to social class, academic qualifications on admission and level of intended qualification.</p> <p>Students who had achieved an award tended to produce higher scores than students who were continuing with their studies, who in turn tended to produce higher scores than students who had withdrawn. Students who had achieved a postgraduate award tended to produce higher scores than students who had achieved a first degree, who in turn tended to produce higher scores than students who had achieved other undergraduate awards. In the case of the students who had achieved honours degrees, those who achieved better degrees tended to produce higher scores than those who achieved poorer degrees. In many cases, these effects remained statistically significant when variation across institutions, subject groups and other demographic variables was taken into account. Finally, students with a disability produced scores that were not significantly different from those produced by students with no recorded disability.</p> <p>Where demographic variables were related to students' scores, the magnitude of the effects was often fairly weak in absolute terms: they achieved statistical significance mainly because of the large size of the samples. Nevertheless, whether a qualification had been obtained and the nature of that qualification both appeared to be important determinants of students' scale scores.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-12">The free text data</hd> <p>Respondents were asked the open‐ended question, 'Looking back on the experience, what do you consider to have been the best and worst aspects?' Comments were received from 10,993 (or 64.0%) of the respondents. The comments given by roughly 8% of these respondents were analysed by a small group consisting of two of the authors and their colleagues. This led to 29 headings, and a team of coders was trained to apply these to the entire corpus of data. The responses were coded as being either positive or negative, with each student allowed up to eight distinct codes (four positive and four negative).</p> <p>When specific issues were raised by a group of students at an institution (e.g. poorly planned changes in pedagogy in a subject area), we could usually confirm the circumstances independently. The 10 most common categories were each given by 5% or more of the respondents. In descending order of frequency, these were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • Overall quality of teaching (12.7%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Overall level of support (12.0%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Social life/meeting people/accommodation, etc. (9.8%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Subject being studied (8.4%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Organisation (8.2%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Option choices (6.6%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Useful/relevant to my job (5.7%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Feedback (5.7%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Library (5.3%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Workload (5.0%)</item> </ulist> <p>These might be regarded as the aspects of their experience that students considered to be the most important, regardless of whether or not they had been covered in the questionnaire.</p> <p>The students who produced each category of response were divided into those who made positive comments and those who made negative comments. One issue is whether the individual categories were related to the respondents' overall satisfaction. Nine categories individually accounted for more than 5% of the variation in satisfaction ratings. In descending order of the proportion of variation accounted for, these were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • Overall quality of teaching (28.5%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Overall level of support (22.5%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Subject being studied (16.6%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Staff availability (14.2%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Practical/theoretical balance (7.9%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Useful/relevant to my job (7.8%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Lectures (6.5%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Organisation (6.3%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Personal guidance (6.0%)</item> </ulist> <p>These might be regarded as the more important determinants of students' overall satisfaction with the quality of the programme, regardless of whether or not they had been covered in the main questionnaire.</p> <p>Another issue is whether the different categories overlap with the aspects covered by the seven scales in the short version of the questionnaire. Accordingly, we examined the proportion of variation in the students' use of each category (that is, making positive rather than negative comments) that was accounted for by their scores on the seven scales. In some cases, the proportion of variation accounted for was quite high, indicating a degree of overlap between the categories and the seven scales. However, in 11 cases, the proportion of variation accounted for was less than 10%, suggesting that the categories were tapping aspects of the students' experience that were not well covered by the scales. In ascending order of the variation accounted for, these were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • Placements/year out (1.3%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Social life/meeting people/ accommodation, etc. (1.9%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Exams (3.2%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Fieldwork/projects (3.7%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Deadlines (3.9%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Option choices (4.4%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Openly split course/joint honours (6.1%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Essays (6.8%)</item> <p></p> <item> • In control of learning/flexibility (7.0%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Group work (7.8%)</item> <p></p> <item> • Workload (9.2%)</item> </ulist> <p>Even so, none of these categories accounted for more than 5% of the variation in students' ratings of their overall satisfaction. In so far as the students did not generate any categories of comments that were associated with their perceptions of the quality of their programmes <emph>and</emph> were not already addressed by the seven scales of the short questionnaire, it might be inferred that the latter provide good coverage of aspects of students' experience relevant to their perceptions of the quality of their programmes.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the feedback showed that graduates were pleased to be allowed to make free text comments. They had generally done so in a constructive and helpful manner, and the opportunity seemed to have had an influence on their willingness to complete and return the questionnaire. Accordingly, it was decided that the ability to make comments of this nature should be continued and that their comments (suitably anonymised) should be communicated to their institutions. A further decision was that the role of placements needed to be explored.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-13">The second pilot study</hd> <p>Most of the institutions in the first pilot study had been involved in the survey process in some way, and all of these institutions made it clear that they appreciated their involvement. Nevertheless, there remained strong opposition to the whole idea of a national student survey among the heads of other institutions, who argued strongly for self‐regulation along the lines of other areas of professional activity in the UK (such as health, law and communications). Their resistance was sufficiently strong for HEFCE to suggest to the Government that a full national survey should be postponed for a further year. An additional concern was that the response rate would be affected by new graduates being away from their home addresses. As a compromise, the Government invited HEFCE to explore the feasibility of a student survey to be carried out in January of their final year of study.</p> <p>We were, therefore, asked to carry out a second pilot study in January 2004 with a view to the introduction of a full national survey in January 2005. Specifically, we were asked to survey students in their final year of full‐time study, or who had experienced the equivalent amount of part‐time study. Since it was assumed that some institutions would remain hostile to a national student survey and would be prepared to participate only in the face of a statutory requirement to do so, we were asked to include institutions whose involvement in the survey process was minimal. We were also asked to consider whether the response rates and the students' ratings varied as a result of the shift in the survey's timing.</p> <p>The instrument that was used in the second pilot study was developed on the basis of the results of the first pilot study, and consisted of 35 items in nine scales that reflected different aspects of the student experience. We again expected that the results of the pilot study would enable us to reduce this to a shorter questionnaire for use in a full national survey. More than 40 institutions of higher education had offered to participate in the initial pilot study. We invited 10 of these institutions to take part in the second pilot study, of which eight had participated in the first pilot study. We were also asked to include students funded by the Department of Health at those 10 institutions in addition to those funded by the higher education funding agencies; these students received the same questionnaire plus a tenth scale concerned with the experience of clinical placements (results not reported here).</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-14">Materials</hd> <p>The main part of the survey questionnaire consisted of 35 statements presented in nine scales. The respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a five‐point scale from 5 ('definitely agree') to 1 ('definitely disagree'). There were also two further items to validate the questionnaire as a measure of perceived quality: 'Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of the course'; and 'Overall, I feel the course was a good investment'. The third validation item from the previous questionnaire was removed, as students' responses were found to be very highly correlated with their responses to the overall satisfaction item.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-15">Procedure</hd> <p>The sample was determined and personal details were collected from institutions essentially as before, but with two major improvements. First, the funding councils were asked to filter the sample to exclude students with a low level of activity, as this had been a source of inconsistency in the first pilot study. Second, the institutions were given less freedom in determining which students to delete from the sample, and this seems to have led to greater consistency. The first pilot study had found little difference between responses to the structured and random versions of the questionnaire, but the former had proved easier to administer by telephone. Accordingly, the structured format was used for all the participants.</p> <p>Administration of the survey took place in January 2004. One institution contacted its students by email and invited them to respond by a link to the survey website. For the other nine institutions, paper copies of the questionnaire and reminder postcards were distributed by an independent agency, but the students were prompted to respond online in the covering letter, in the questionnaire and in the reminder postcards. Five institutions simply allowed the central collection of the completed postal questionnaires; two institutions in addition allowed a centrally managed agency to follow up non‐respondents by telephone; and two institutions followed up non‐respondents themselves through their own call centres.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-16">Response rates</hd> <p>Responses were received from 9723 students, representing 37.6% of the 25,838 students who had been surveyed. This is very close to the response rate obtained in the first pilot study. The respondents included 8570 students supported by the funding councils and 1153 students supported by the Department of Health. Once again, the response rate varied widely across different institutions (from 28.1% to 50.0%), mainly depending upon the particular mechanisms used for distributing the survey and for sending reminders.</p> <p>The highest response rates were achieved at the two institutions that carried out their own follow‐up telephone interviews. However, their response rates were lower than those of comparable institutions in the first pilot study, mainly because we had had to restrict the time available for telephone follow‐up in the second pilot study. The next highest response rates were achieved at the two institutions that allowed the centrally managed agency to contact their students. This confirmed that suitably prepared external agencies could administer the survey in a sensitive and efficient manner. The institution that administered the entire survey electronically obtained a response rate of 29%. In general, the online response was better than in the first pilot study because students had easier access to the survey website through their institutions' computing facilities, and perhaps, too, because this cohort was more used to using email as a routine form of communication.</p> <p>As in the first pilot study, the response rates varied widely across different subjects (from 23.1% in education to 51.4% in agriculture and related subjects). The largest difference in the response rates from the two pilot studies occurred in education, where the response rate fell from 40.5% to 23.1%. This may have been due to the timing of the second pilot study, but both response rates were based on relatively small samples (students taking teacher training programmes were not included as they were funded by the Teacher Training Agency, now the Training and Development Agency for Schools). Nevertheless, computer science, architecture and engineering yielded low response rates in both of the pilot studies, whereas agriculture, mathematics, languages and humanities yielded high response rates.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-17">Complete versus incomplete data</hd> <p>The survey was completed in three ways: 7062 students from nine institutions returned a paper questionnaire through the post; 664 students from four institutions provided responses by telephone; and 1997 students from 10 institutions had submitted their responses online. We discarded 15 students who returned blank paper questionnaires and 46 who had visited the website without completing the online questionnaire. This left 9662 students (8512 supported by the funding councils and 1150 supported by the Department of Health) with genuine responses. Table 4 shows the overall percentages of responses to each item and the percentage of missing responses (these do not always add up to exactly 100% because of rounding). With three exceptions, the most frequent response to every item was '4' ('mostly agree').</p> <p>Table 4. Percentage frequency distribution of responses in the second pilot study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>X</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>1. The teaching on my course</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Staff are good at explaining things.</td><td>16.5</td><td>63.8</td><td>14.1</td><td>4.8</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Staff have made the subject interesting.</td><td>14.4</td><td>54.8</td><td>21.8</td><td>7.6</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching.</td><td>27.8</td><td>48.6</td><td>17.0</td><td>5.4</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>The course is intellectually stimulating.</td><td>31.7</td><td>46.9</td><td>14.6</td><td>5.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Teaching staff have made an effort to understand our difficulties.</td><td>14.1</td><td>39.9</td><td>28.2</td><td>13.7</td><td>3.7</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td><italic>2. Organisation and management</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Deadlines in the course are well spread out.</td><td>15.0</td><td>34.7</td><td>17.8</td><td>23.8</td><td>8.3</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned.</td><td>24.1</td><td>43.1</td><td>17.2</td><td>11.6</td><td>3.7</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Any changes in the course or teaching have always been communicated effectively.</td><td>16.7</td><td>33.2</td><td>21.5</td><td>19.5</td><td>8.8</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>The course is well organised and is running smoothly.</td><td>17.7</td><td>44.2</td><td>20.3</td><td>12.2</td><td>5.3</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td><italic>3. Feedback on my submitted work</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Feedback on my work has been prompt.</td><td>13.0</td><td>37.7</td><td>21.6</td><td>20.0</td><td>7.4</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>I have received detailed comments on my work.</td><td>15.2</td><td>35.6</td><td>20.6</td><td>19.8</td><td>8.4</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand.</td><td>12.0</td><td>32.7</td><td>25.5</td><td>20.7</td><td>8.7</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td><italic>4. The assessment on my course</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>The criteria used in marking have been clear in advance.</td><td>27.7</td><td>41.2</td><td>16.1</td><td>11.2</td><td>3.5</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair.</td><td>20.3</td><td>47.8</td><td>20.4</td><td>8.8</td><td>2.6</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Assessments have tested what we were supposed to learn.</td><td>23.1</td><td>51.4</td><td>17.4</td><td>6.1</td><td>1.6</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td><italic>5. Personal development</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>The course has helped me to present myself with confidence.</td><td>25.1</td><td>43.8</td><td>20.8</td><td>8.0</td><td>2.2</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>My communication skills have improved.</td><td>31.3</td><td>42.7</td><td>17.6</td><td>6.3</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems.</td><td>23.6</td><td>44.5</td><td>22.6</td><td>7.2</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Through the course I have learnt to manage my work effectively.</td><td>24.6</td><td>46.5</td><td>19.2</td><td>7.5</td><td>1.9</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td><italic>6. Workload</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>The overall workload is too heavy.</td><td>7.3</td><td>20.4</td><td>32.6</td><td>32.5</td><td>7.0</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>The background workload suggested (for example, reading lists and practice tasks) has been unrealistic.</td><td>10.3</td><td>25.8</td><td>28.5</td><td>28.7</td><td>6.4</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>I have had enough time to understand what I have to learn.</td><td>8.9</td><td>44.3</td><td>25.1</td><td>17.2</td><td>3.4</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td><italic>7. Support and advice</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies.</td><td>14.3</td><td>43.8</td><td>22.8</td><td>14.5</td><td>4.3</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>I have been able to contact staff when I needed to.</td><td>24.0</td><td>43.8</td><td>15.5</td><td>12.4</td><td>3.9</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Good advice was available when I needed to make choices in my studies.</td><td>16.4</td><td>35.7</td><td>27.3</td><td>15.0</td><td>4.9</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td><italic>8. Learning resources</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>The library resources are good enough for my needs.</td><td>28.2</td><td>38.1</td><td>12.7</td><td>14.8</td><td>5.9</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>I have always been able to access general IT resources when required.</td><td>34.2</td><td>38.6</td><td>12.4</td><td>10.6</td><td>3.9</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>When required, there is sufficient access to specialised equipment, facilities, or rooms.</td><td>19.7</td><td>37.3</td><td>26.9</td><td>11.3</td><td>4.1</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td><italic>9. Other</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Good careers advice and information is available.</td><td>20.7</td><td>35.1</td><td>28.6</td><td>10.3</td><td>4.7</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>The elements of the course fit together well.</td><td>19.8</td><td>52.8</td><td>18.3</td><td>7.0</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>I can see how my studies will help me with my career.</td><td>28.6</td><td>38.1</td><td>19.3</td><td>9.6</td><td>4.1</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>I have enjoyed this course.</td><td>35.7</td><td>42.7</td><td>12.6</td><td>6.2</td><td>2.4</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>I can see myself working in this subject area.</td><td>39.7</td><td>30.3</td><td>16.8</td><td>7.6</td><td>5.0</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>The course is organised in ways that enable me to fit in my other commitments.</td><td>19.7</td><td>44.7</td><td>21.0</td><td>9.8</td><td>4.2</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>It has been difficult to answer many of the questions because of the variability of my experience.</td><td>12.0</td><td>18.2</td><td>33.5</td><td>20.6</td><td>14.4</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td><italic>10. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course.</italic></td><td>25.2</td><td>53.1</td><td>12.0</td><td>7.6</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td><italic>11. Overall, I feel the course is a good investment.</italic></td><td>35.5</td><td>43.6</td><td>13.3</td><td>6.3</td><td>2.8</td><td>1.6</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Note</italic>. The response categories are as follows: 5, strongly agree; 4, mostly agree; 3, neither agree nor disagree; 2, mostly disagree; 1, strongly disagree; 'X', missing data.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Two exceptions were the negatively worded items in Section 6 concerned with workload. In one case, the marginally most frequent response was '3' ('neither agree nor disagree'), followed by '2' ('mostly disagree'); in the other case, the reverse was true. The third exception was the general question at the end of Section 9: 'It has been difficult to answer many of the questions because of the variability of my experience'. Here, too, the most frequent response was '3' ('neither agree nor disagree'), although 30.2% of the respondents either definitely or mostly agreed with this item.</p> <p>These results indicate that the respondents felt broadly positive about their experiences. Similar distributions of responses were given by the students supported by the funding councils and those supported by the Department of Health. Very similar distributions of responses were given to the items that were included in both surveys, and this reinforced the validity of the process despite the change in the timetable.</p> <p>As in the first pilot study, the missing responses for individual items seemed to be relatively uninformative. They were generally below 0.5% and were never more than 1.0%, except in the case of two general questions: 'It has been difficult to answer many of the questions because of the variability of my experience'; and 'Overall, I feel the course is a good investment'.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-18">Scales and scale scores</hd> <p>Complete data for all 35 items were available for 9048 respondents. They were assigned scores on each of the nine scales by taking the average of their responses across the relevant items. For these purposes, the coding of the two negatively worded items in Section 6 was reversed, and the last item in Section 9 (which sought to assess the validity of the instrument as a whole) was ignored. Consequently, the scores on the nine scales ranged from a low (unfavourable) score of 1 to a high (favourable) score of 5. Statistical properties of the nine scales are summarised in Table 5.</p> <p>Table 5. Descriptive statistics of nine scales, principal component loadings and correlations with measures of perceived quality</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Correlation coefficients</td></tr><tr><td>Scale</td><td>Mean</td><td>Standard deviation</td><td>Skewness</td><td>Kurtosis</td><td>Coefficient alpha</td><td>Loading</td><td>Overall satisfaction</td><td>Overall investment</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Teaching</td><td>3.83</td><td>0.67</td><td>−0.71</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.55</td></tr><tr><td>Organisation</td><td>3.46</td><td>0.85</td><td>−0.39</td><td>−0.23</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.49</td></tr><tr><td>Feedback</td><td>3.25</td><td>1.01</td><td>−0.31</td><td>−0.56</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment</td><td>3.81</td><td>0.80</td><td>−0.64</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.43</td></tr><tr><td>Development</td><td>3.86</td><td>0.83</td><td>−0.75</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.48</td></tr><tr><td>Workload</td><td>3.15</td><td>0.79</td><td>−0.17</td><td>−0.15</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>Support</td><td>3.55</td><td>0.91</td><td>−0.54</td><td>−0.04</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.49</td></tr><tr><td>Resources</td><td>3.72</td><td>0.93</td><td>−0.66</td><td>−0.01</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>3.81</td><td>0.68</td><td>−0.63</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.63</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In each case, the mean score is above the midpoint of the response scale (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>), which implies a broadly positive judgement. In overall terms, the scores are not markedly different from those obtained in the first pilot study, and this suggests that students' views do not change once their degrees have been awarded (this was confirmed by re‐administering the survey to a small sample of the students after their graduation). The distributions of the scores are negatively skewed, and some are also leptokurtic, which once again suggests the uncritical checking of a single response. All the scales have high levels of internal consistency as measured by Cronbach's ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]) coefficient alpha, except for workload, where the level of internal consistency was unsatisfactory.</p> <p>A principal components analysis was carried out on the students' scores on the nine scales. This identified a single component with an eigenvalue greater than one, and a scree test confirmed that just one component should be extracted. The loadings of the nine scales on this component are shown in Table 5. The component was principally defined by the scores on teaching, other, support, assessment, organisation, development and feedback, and it can be plausibly interpreted as an overall measure of the perceived quality of the students' programmes. However, workload and resources appeared to be less important. The questionnaire had included two extra items as alternative measures of perceived quality. Table 5 also shows the correlation coefficients between the students' scores on the nine scales and their responses to each of these items. All of the scales showed substantial associations with both of these measures, with the exception of workload and resources.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-19">The free text data</hd> <p>Students were once again given the opportunity to provide open‐ended comments. Analysis of their responses revealed the same issues, though (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the timing of the survey) assessment and feedback were more prominent in the remarks of final‐year students. A few students were reluctant to criticise their institutions as they had yet to be awarded a degree; such respondents sought further assurance that they would not be identifiable if feedback were returned to their institutions. This is an ongoing issue for the full national survey. Once again, the opportunity to provide open‐ended comments appeared to have helped the overall response rate.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-20">Conclusions</hd> <p>The evidence obtained on the collection of data under different procedures and modes of response allowed the construction of a relatively robust model of response rates that could be used to inform future national surveys of this nature. The questionnaire itself also proved to be remarkably robust, although given its provenance this may be unsurprising. In the first pilot study, there was broad evidence for the integrity of the six original scales, and there was some evidence for two additional dimensions relating to feedback and workload. The properties of the workload scale were not entirely adequate, and it exhibited only a weak relationship with students' overall perceptions of the quality of their programmes. The revised workload scale used in the second study showed higher reliability, but the area of student workload probably warrants further work. As originally anticipated, administering the entire original instrument appears to be unnecessary, and shorter versions such as that shown in Table 2 should be sufficient for obtaining reliable data.</p> <p>Indeed, the short questionnaire identified in the first pilot study showed satisfactory levels of internal consistency (evidenced by coefficient alpha), construct validity (evidenced by its principal component structure) and concurrent validity (evidenced by correlations with alternative measures of perceived quality). It discriminated among students from different institutions who had taken programmes in the same subject, although there was also considerable overlap among different institutions. Moreover, associations between the scale scores and demographic variables might contaminate comparisons among students taking the same subject at different institutions. The responses to the open‐ended question showed that students appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback, but that the questionnaire did address those aspects of their experience that they regarded as important.</p> <p>The results of the two pilot studies were presented through HEFCE to the sector, and it was resolved that a full national survey should be administered early in 2005 to all full‐time final‐year students and all equivalent part‐time students at institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (HEFCE, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>]—both the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the English Department of Health declined to participate in the first year). The survey was administered by an independent agency. Within a relatively narrow window, institutions could choose the precise timing of the survey to suit their internal activities.</p> <p>The procedure was in line with recommendations made in the light of the pilot studies. The agency initially used email to invite the entire population of students to complete the survey online. The printed questionnaire was mailed to all students who had not responded online. Finally, the remaining non‐respondents were contacted by telephone. The response rates at each stage were generally consistent with expectations, except that online responding proved more popular, reflecting that the Internet is becoming a standard way of 'doing business' for students in higher education. There was little formal involvement on the part of the institutions themselves (partly to prevent the introduction of any bias), but student unions often assisted considerably with awareness‐raising. Conversely, the response rates were lower at three institutions where the students' unions were opposed to the survey. The overall response rate had been expected to be 50%, but in the event 60% was achieved in 2005 and 56% in 2006. At the time of writing, full analyses of the results are still awaited, but preliminary findings are broadly in line with those of the pilot studies. In particular, there is significant variation on the individual scales across different institutions teaching the same subject, once again implying that the data are fit for purpose.</p> <p>Results from the 2005 and 2006 National Student Surveys were published on the Teaching Quality Information (TQI) website (<ulink href="http://www.tqi.ac.uk">http://www.tqi.ac.uk</ulink>), along with other information from the Higher Education Statistics Agency on, for example, entry qualifications, student progression, student achievement and graduate destinations. The data are presented in a way that does not permit the creation of simplistic league tables. Institutions have also submitted external examiners' reports for individual disciplines together with their own commentaries. Problems remain in explaining complex arrays of data to the intended users, and so the site will continue to evolve.</p> <hd id="AN0026655592-21">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This research was supported by grants from HEFCE to the Open University. The project was guided by a steering committee appointed by HEFCE, chaired by Gillian Slater. Among the members of the committee, Noel Entwistle and Keith Trigwell were especially helpful in suggesting items to be included in the survey instruments. The distribution and the electronic scanning of the printed questionnaires were carried out by Nick Haycox and his colleagues in the Open University's Survey Office, and the online versions were designed by Kelvin Lack.</p> <ref id="AN0026655592-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ainley, J. and Long, M.1994. The Course Experience Survey 1992 Graduates, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Brennan, J.2003. Collecting and using student feedback on quality and standards of learning and teaching in HE: a report to HEFCE by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (Open University), NOP Research Group and SQW Ltd, Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref11" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Broomfield, D. and Bligh, J.1998. An evaluation of the 'short form' course experience questionnaire with medical students. Medical Education, 32: 367–369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cronbach, L. J.1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16: 297–334.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref8" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Goyder, J.1987. The silent minority: nonrespondents on sample surveys, Cambridge: Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref1" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). 2001. Information on quality and standards of teaching and learning: proposals for consultation, Bristol: HEFCE. Consultation 01/66</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref2" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). 2002. Information on quality and standards in higher education: final report of the Task Group, Bristol: HEFCE. Report 02/15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref19" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). 2004. National Student Survey 2005: outcomes of consultation and guidance on next steps, Bristol: HEFCE. Report 2004/33</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref12" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Kreber, C.2003. The relationship between students' course perception and their approaches to studying in undergraduate science courses: a Canadian experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 22: 57–75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McInnis, C., Griffin, P., James, R. and Coates, H.2001. Development of the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, J. T. E.2005. Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30: 393–421.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, J. T. E. and Woodley, A.2001. Perceptions of academic quality among students with a hearing loss in distance education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93: 563–570.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strack, F. and Schwarz, N.1992. "Communicative influences in standardized question situations: the case of implicit collaboration". In Language, interaction and social cognition, Edited by: Semin, G. R. and Fiedler, K.173–193. London: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By JohnT. E. Richardson; JohnB. Slater and Jane Wilson</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref13"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ775739
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The National Student Survey: Development, Findings and Implications
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Richardson%2C+John+T%2E+E%2E%22">Richardson, John T. E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Slater%2C+John+B%2E%22">Slater, John B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wilson%2C+Jane%22">Wilson, Jane</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. Oct 2007 32(5):557-580.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.html
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 24
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2007
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Surveys%22">Student Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Integrity%22">Integrity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pilot+Projects%22">Pilot Projects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Response+Rates+%28Questionnaires%29%22">Response Rates (Questionnaires)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22National+Surveys%22">National Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Open+Universities%22">Open Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Experience%22">Student Experience</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28Northern+Ireland%29%22">United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28Wales%29%22">United Kingdom (Wales)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03075070701573757
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0307-5079
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: A pilot study investigated the feasibility of a survey of students completing undergraduate programmes in the UK regarding their experiences of learning and teaching. A questionnaire containing 45 items in six scales was distributed to 44,209 students from 22 institutions. It was returned by 17,173 students, and analysis of their responses broadly confirmed the integrity of the scales. A second pilot study investigated the feasibility of a survey of final-year undergraduate students. A questionnaire containing 35 items in nine scales was distributed to 25,838 students at 10 institutions. It was returned by 9723 students, and again analysis of their responses broadly confirmed the integrity of the scales. The findings informed the National Student Surveys administered to final-year students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Contains 5 tables.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 13
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2007
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ775739
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ775739
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03075070701573757
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 24
        StartPage: 557
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Integrity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pilot Projects
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Response Rates (Questionnaires)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: National Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Open Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (Wales)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The National Student Survey: Development, Findings and Implications
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Richardson, John T. E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Slater, John B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wilson, Jane
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2007
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0307-5079
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 32
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1