Analysis of students' views about the quality of higher education (based on the survey results)

Стаття присвячена важливому й актуальному для сучасного стану розвитку вищої освіти України питанню залучення здобувачів вищої освіти до забезпечення її якості. Зміни, запроваджені Законом України «Про вищу освіту» 2014 р. передбачають активну роль студентства у формуванні та оцінювання якості вищої освіти у якості її 1) кінцевих бенефіціарів, 2) респондентів – учасників акредитації освітніх програм під час зовнішнього оцінювання, 3) експертів, залучених до зовнішнього оцінювання згідно з вимогами чинного законодавства. Відповідно, постає низка запитань стосовно: - розуміння здобувачами вищої освіти поняття якості вищої освіти та підходів до її забезпечення; - усвідомлення своєї ролі у формуванні та вдосконаленні якості вищої освіти та - готовності до здійснення впливу задля її підвищення. Звідти походить мета даного дослідження: вивчити думку студентів про якість вітчизняної вищої освіти. З цією метою було проведено опитування студентів, яке мало з’ясувати: - як студенти розуміють якість вищої освіти та її забезпечення; - як оцінюють якість вищої освіти у своєму ЗВО та в Україні в цілому; - чи можуть студенти впливати на якість вищої освіти / освітніх програм та - що заважає їх вдосконаленню. Опитування проводилось у травні жовтні 2020 року; у ньому взяли участь 115 студентів старших курсів бакалаврських програм і студенти-магістри п’яти вітчизняних ЗВО. Дослідження проводилось на умовах анонімності, тому у статті університети рандомно позначені як ЗВО 1, 2, 3, 4 і 5. За результатами дослідження було сформульовано наступні висновки: 1) Цілісного розуміння, що таке якість вищої освіти в студентському середовищі немає. Тлумачення якості вищої освіти різниться в різних ЗВО, хоча більшість респондентів тлумачить цей термін як « нова актуальна інформація та знання» (60 % загальної кількості респондентів. 2) Загалом студенти не високо цінують якість вищої освіти в Україні: понад 60% респондентів вважають її низькою або не можуть визначитися. Разом з тим, здобувачі вищої освіти тяжіють до надання позитивних оцінок освітнім програмам, за якими навчаються, але менш позитивно оцінюють якість вищої освіти в Україні та якість послуг у своєму ЗВО. 3) Студенти різних ЗВО по-різному тлумачать термінологічне сполучення «забезпечення якості вищої освіти» та надають перевагу різним засобам впливу на якість вищої освіти та інструментам її покращення. Але загалом респонденти схиляються до таких засобів та інструментів, що передбачають їх активну участь у процесах забезпечення та вдосконалення якості, обираючи серед можливих варіантів впливу розмову із викладачем або звернення до кафедри чи органу студентського самоврядування, участь у фокус-групі, заповнення оціночної анкети. 4) В цілому респонденти усвідомлено та критично підходять до оцінювання якості вищої освіти, розуміючи власну провину за недостатньо високий рівень якості (67 % опитаних студентів вважають низьку мотивацію студентів фактором, що стримує розвиток якості вищої освіти) та зважаючи на об’єктивні фактори сьогодення (як-то: слабка матеріально-технічна, високе навантаження на викладача), що заважають розвитку вітчизняної системи вищої освіти загалом та підвищенню її якості зокрема. 5) Позитивним фактом є те, що більшість студентів переконані у своїх можливостях впливати на якість вищої освіти й тільки 21 % респондентів заперечують можливість впливу.The article is dedicated to the issue of student involvement in higher education quality assurance and evaluation – a vital and highly relevant issue in today’s higher education of Ukraine. Changes instigated by the Law of Ukraine «On Higher Education» of 2014, foresee an active role of students in the formation and evaluation of higher education quality as 1) final beneficiaries, 2) interviewees and participants in accreditation of study programmes, 3) external evaluation experts during study programmes accreditation, as ruled by current legislation. Taking into account the significance of students’ role in quality assurance, it is necessary to find out: - how university students interpret quality of higher education and higher education quality assurance; - how students perceive their role in the formation and enhancement of higher education quality; - to what extend they are ready and committed to influence and improve the quality of higher education.Accordingly, the aim of this article is to investigate students’ opinion on the quality of Ukraine’s higher education. To this end,students’ survey was conducted with the focus on the following: - what is quality and quality assurance in students’ opinion; - how respondents assess the quality of education in their HEI and in Ukraine in general; - whether students can influence the quality of study programmes and quality of higher education; - what hinders improvement of study programmes and enhancement of quality of higher education.The survey was conducted in May – October 2020; the respondents were 115 students of five Ukrainian universities (years three and four of bachelor programmes and master students) who volunteered to take part in the survey.The research resulted in the following conclusions: 1) There is no integral, holistic understanding of higher education quality among student community. Representatives of different HEIs interpret higher education quality differently, though in total 60% of respondents interpret quality as « new, relevant information and knowledge». 2) On the whole, respondents value the quality of higher education rather low: only 25% of students regard it as high. At the same time, most of surveyed students rate the quality of their study programme higher, than the quality of higher education in their university or the quality of educational services in Ukraine in general. 3) Students of different HEIs are rather diverse in their interpretation of quality assurance of higher education and choice of different means for quality enhancement. On the whole, respondents give preference to those tools that anticipate active students’ participation in quality assurance, like asking the teacher to change the manner of teaching, or leaving a complaint with student self-government, discussing the quality of teaching in a focus group, or filling in an evaluation questionnaire. 4) Students who participated in the survey demonstrated critical thinking and fair judgement of their negative impact on the quality of higher education by stating that low student motivation is the most significant factor that obstructs quality enhancement. Other factors cited by respondents include low teacher motivation, underdeveloped infrastructure at HEIs, teacher workload. 5) The positive finding of the survey is that the majority of students are confident in their capability to influence the quality of higher education in their HEI and only 21% responded they are deprived of the possibility improve higher education quality

Service Quality In Higher Learning Institution : The Case Of UUM

Quality is a core function of a service organization. There is an ongoing debate in higher education about the issue of "quality", but there is little agreement about how it is measured. The views of students do not seem to feature in the national debate. The purpose of this survey is to examine the students's views, as a "user" of higher education, about the attributes of quality in higher education and services, which the student are experiencing. This study is designed to apply the modified SERVQUAL found in Kwan's and Ng's (1991) and also in Parasuraman et al.'s (1988) findings with reference to the students in a different social and cultural context. The study focused on population of students currently available in Universiti Utara Malaysia's main campus in Sintok, Malaysia. 380 students who still study in UUM are selected as samples based upon a simple random sampling. Descriptive analysis, Pearson correlation analysis, and multiple regression analysis are used to analyze the data. There are two main findings in this study. First, comparing to the findings by Kwan and Ng (1999) that both Hong Kong and Chinese students are very practical and only focus on study-related matters rather than social life in campus. Students in UUM are found to be most interested in campus life and the importance of Lecturers's Concern for Students has not been emphasized. UUM students are found quite satisfied with the Communication with University and the Tangible. Secondly, the results from the SERVQUAL Model evaluation suggest that determinants of service quality are different from those in other industries sampled by Parasuraman et al. (1988) where reliability is always deemed most important. The study found that the most important determinants of overall quality for students are empathy, responsiveness, assurance, tangibles and reliability in the higher learning institution context. Recommendations for further study are disscussed at the end of this study

Teachers\u27 perceptions of quality teaching in junior secondary school : Physical education in Lagos State, Nigeria

This study investigates physical education (PE) teachers\u27 perceptions of quality teaching as related to their teaching activities in junior secondary schools in Nigeria. The study also investigated how the perceived teaching quality of the teachers matched their teaching practices and the feasibility of supporting quality teaching in these schools. The research is underpinned by a conceptual framework, which identified quality teaching as an educational process influenced by the curriculum, teacher effectiveness, teacher reflection and belief systems, and teacher development process designed to enhance students\u27 learning. The study incorporated a descriptive survey and interpretive case study for data collection. A pilot study, which involved ten PE teachers (not included in the study) trial tested the research instruments constituted phase one of the study. Initial data collected during phase two of the study, involved surveying all 60 PE teachers in the two Local Education Districts comprising 29 secondary schools. The survey data were analysed with descriptive statistics and some measures of association were applied to give a general picture of the PE teachers’ views about quality teaching. An analysis of curriculum documents complimented phase two of the study. Phase three involved an in-depth case study involving six teachers from six different schools. They were interviewed, observed and engaged in informal discussions that determined their views of quality teaching allowing comparison of their views with their teaching actions. Data collected were inductively analysed employing a thematic cross-case analysis process. Survey results suggested that teachers perceived quality teaching as a multidimensional teaching process that enhanced student learning. The two major themes of their quality teaching descriptions centred on effective teaching incorporating the achievement of lesson objectives, and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The teachers rated highly all Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development\u27s (OECD) dimensions of quality teaching and did not discriminate between the five dimensions. They viewed these dimensions: curriculum knowledge, pedagogic skills, reflection, commitment, and managerial competencies, as important and necessary ingredients for achieving quality teaching. The survey indicated that majority of the teachers considered physical education as a recognised subject and well regarded in their schools. The documents analysis of the study indicated that both the National and State curriculum documents constituted a highly prescriptive form of teacher control in terms of their strict adherence to their uses. A number of problems were identified as impeding the teacher\u27s teaching quality; these were categorised into three areas of self, general resources and workplace conditions. The case study findings indicated that the six teachers\u27 views about quality teaching reflected those of the survey teachers. Messrs Senator and Suru focussed their rhetoric of quality teaching on achievement of lesson objectives through effective teaching, while Ms Toyin, Ms Lilian, Ms Ayodeji and Mr Tony highlighted pedagogical content knowledge, and Ms Lilian combined achievement of lesson objectives with the PCK construct. When the teachers\u27 rhetoric was compared with their teaching practices, a number of inconsistencies were recorded. Findings indicated that most teachers had little sense of transferring their perceptions of quality teaching to their practical PE lessons. The theory lessons observed indicated elements of teaching quality with teachers\u27 rhetoric at times matching their practices. With the exception of two of the six teachers\u27 observed practical lessons that fared better, other teachers suggested to implement quality teaching in their practical classes, which in most cases did not measure up. The study revealed that the teaching context did not support quality teaching. The two major problems impeding quality teaching were inadequate teaching resources and large class sizes. All teachers reported that they achieved quality in their teaching and that the results of their students in the various assessments and examinations, which were mostly knowledge based, reflected the achievement of quality\u27 teaching. The study recommends that teachers should be empowered in the choice of PE content and set expectations realistic to the limiting teaching contexts. Teaching activities that support higher levels of students\u27 involvement are necessary if quality teaching is to be achieved. Considerations to outcomes-based education should be given and the use of student-centred pedagogy by teachers. Further investigations were suggested in the areas of intervention programmes for PE teachers, production of cheap teaching resources and refocussing professional development efforts in both in-service and pre-service programmes

Quality enhancement for e-learning courses: the role of student feedback

The collection of student feedback is seen as a central strategy to monitor the quality and standards of teaching and learning in Higher Education Institutions. The increasing use of technology to support face-to-face, blended and distance courses has led managers as well as practitioners to become increasingly concerned to identify appropriate ways of assuring the quality of this e-learning provision. This paper presents a study of the collection of student feedback in higher education elearning courses and the use of this feedback for quality assurance and enhancement. We carried out a series of case studies of the procedures in place in four e-learning courses, and in each case study we collected the quality assurance documentation and interviewed stakeholders (administrators, educational technologists, tutors and students). The comparative examination of these two sets of data showed that the main strategies for collecting student feedback - module evaluations and student representation - were both strongly affected by the distinctive features of the mode of delivery in e-learning courses, and as a consequence they were not able to adequately support quality enhancement. The remote location of the students impacted on both student representation and on the response rates for module evaluations. The enhancement function of the module evaluations were adversely affected by lack of appropriate course management arising from the disaggregation of course processes and the resulting ambiguity in the allocation of responsibilities

Collecting and using student feedback Date: A guide to good practice

The purpose of this Guide is to help higher education institutions make the best use of their student feedback. This guide is based on a HEFCE funded project undertaken by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI). The purpose of this Guide is to help higher education institutions make the best use of their student feedback. All institutions collect feedback from their students and in many different forms. They use it to improve the quality of the education they provide. In recent years, there has been a shift in the balance between informal and formal types of student feedback with a greater emphasis on the latter. Now, new devolved forms of national quality assurance promise to give an important role to students and there is also an expectation that information from student feedback will be used to inform the choices of students when applying to higher education. Thus, as the importance attached to student feedback increases, ensuring that feedback is collected effectively and used wisely becomes an increasing priority for higher education institutions. This Guide draws on the experiences of the sector to highlight some of the good practices that exist as well as some of the problems that institutions are experiencing in using student feedback. Its focus is upon the use of student feedback for the purpose of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Other purposes are acknowledged but are not the main emphasis of this publication

Profiting Higher Education: What Students, Alumni and Employers Think About For-Profit Colleges

The for-profit higher education sector has attracted significant attention over the past few years -- both from enthusiasts and from critics. For-profit colleges and universities -- most notably large, national and online schools such as the University of Phoenix, DeVry University and ITT Technical Institute -- have seen a steep increase in student enrollment, from serving about 4.7 percent of the undergraduate student population in the 2000 -- 2001 academic year to about 13.3 percent in the 2011 -- 2012 academic year, peaking at nearly 14 percent in the 2010 -- 2011 academic year. And they have become increasingly visible through their ubiquitous advertisements and proactive -- some would say aggressive -- recruitment strategies. Largely missing from the discussion so far have been the perspectives of for-profit students themselves and those of employers who might hire them. This study gives voice to these central stakeholders

Report to HEFCE on student engagement

This study, commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), explored the extent and nature of student engagement in the higher education sector in England. The study was concerned with institutional and student union processes and practices – such as those relating to student representation and student feedback – which seek to inform and enhance the collective student learning experience, as distinct from specific teaching, learning and assessment activities that are designed to enhance individual students’ engagement with their own learning. The study found that institutions view student engagement as central to enhancing the student experience, but the emphasis seems to be placed on viewing students as consumers. For student unions, the emphasis is on viewing them as partners in a learning community. The latter notion seems to be stronger in certain subject areas (for example, Art and Design and Performing Arts) than others. The majority of HEIs and FE colleges rate their student engagement processes – comprising a basic model of student feedback questionnaires and student representation systems – as reasonably or very effective; student unions are less likely to do so. Detailed discussions with staff and students within a diverse range of HE providers showed that actual practices vary between and within institutions and that their effectiveness could be improved. Higher education institutions, student unions and further education colleges with significant higher education provision were surveyed to establish a baseline measure of the nature and extent of student engagement processes. Further exploration of institutions’ formal and informal processes and their effectiveness was undertaken through fieldwork with a number of higher education providers and student unions