Whether because of the outcome of a more consumer focussed ideology or the consequence of the implementation of student fees, the expectations that HE should take seriously the expressed wants of students has become reality. Furedi (2009) writing in the ‘Times Higher Education’ (THE) suggests that this culture has come from external pressures and relates to the consumer-orientated charters started in the 1980s such as the ‘Citizens’ Charter’ and ‘Patients’ Charter’, which all promoted complaining as a vehicle for encouraging efficient delivery of public services. Even organisations, Furedi (2009) discusses, that were opposed to the then Conservative Government, supported this with the National Union of Students
48 (NUS) having its own ‘Students’ Charter’ in 1992. This he says led to the introduction in the last four years of the National Student Survey (NSS).
The NSS is commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Councils or equivalent in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the DFEL, the Training and Development Agency (TDA), and Skills for Health (SfH). It is also supported by the NUS (The National Student Survey 2009).
It is an online questionnaire and has a set format of 22 questions covering areas such as teaching, assessment, support, organisation, resources, personal development and overall satisfaction. It also has open questions for positive and negative comments, and may have extra questions commissioned by individual institutions. All final year undergraduates are asked to complete the online survey which is anonymous and the results are published with open access on unistats.com (The National Student Survey 2009).
One of the criticisms of student satisfaction surveys are the complexities of what is being measured, this is a common problem as discussed by Garcia-Aracil (2009) in her research on European graduates level of student satisfaction in HEIs. She found that between countries and institutions there was no clear definition of what constitutes satisfaction as a concept. This lack of clarity as discussed by Stringer and Finlay (1993) in exploring the validity of student feedback, makes it very difficult they say to make judgements, as there is no single agreed criterion which constitutes a good or bad course. They suggest a comparison with learning
49 outcomes, highlighting potential problems between the needs and wants of students.
Williams and Cappuccini-Ansfield (2007) state, that at the time of them writing, that it was too early to make judgements on the NSS as a new quality tool, therefore they compare it with an institutional model to evaluate its use for individual institutions. They acknowledge that the NSS has been tested for statistical internal reliability but suggests that this is no guarantee of validity. This would be argued by Richardson, Slater and Wilson (2007), as in their reporting of the success of their pilot schemes, it was an area that was addressed. This is also supported by O’Leary (2007) who concludes that the aggregated results show sufficient consistency. As validity is concerned with ensuring the measuring instrument is measuring what it is supposed to do, as discussed by Coombes (2001), the conclusions from the two stage pilot schemes of obtaining students’ views of their educational experience by Richardson et al (2007), would seem to suggest some degree of validity. This was acknowledged by them in saying that the pilots of different procedures and modes would enable the construction of a “relatively robust model of response rate” (Richardson et al 2007: 23) in order to inform the NSS.
In considering the potential impact of their responses’ and therefore a possible criticism of the NSS, the lack of understanding of the possible use of the information as highlighted to students was reported in the THE. Final year students at the University of Sussex asked for their responses’ to be withdrawn in response to the University’s decision to close its linguistic course (Newman 2009).
50 The NSS (The National Student Survey 2009) describes itself as a national survey which has been conducted annually since 2005 (Since 2008 for higher education students in further education establishments). With the major purpose of enabling prospective students (and it is presumed parents and funders) to make informed choices of what and where to study. As discussed by Richardson, Slater and Wilson (2007), with the abandonment of HEFCE’s subject review mechanisms (they did still continue in health), there was still a need to publish key data on quality to enable prospective students to make more informed choices of where to study and this became a major driver for the NSS. O’Leary (2007) comments on the original scepticism of the NSS when it was launched in 2004 including tales of manipulation of the data in Australia, which the NSS was based on, and a low response rate therefore seen as under representative. He suggests that the serious of the approach by the students and the response by the universities, has reassured many of the original sceptics including him.
The NSS site (The National Student Survey 2009) also points out that it can be used by universities, colleges and student unions to facilitate best practice, and to enhance the student learning experience. The dual purpose of its role, as a comparison aid and an internal quality mechanism, could cause potential problems with the interpretation of the results as discussed earlier. Yorke (2000), discusses how there can be a dual purpose for student satisfaction surveys, but acknowledges that they tend to be problematic.
Its use as a comparison aid is critiqued by Williams and Cappuccini-Ansfield (2007) whilst acknowledging that it was too early to judge the actual NSS. In discussing the
51 growth in popularity of league tables such as the ‘THE’ and ‘Guardian’ tables, they state that “Most league tables have dubious real value and tend to reproduce various versions of the reputational status quo” (P.167). The league tables, they say, ignore the different strengths of universities, especially when there is more than one in a city. Also the nature of some disciplines to be more ‘critical in nature’, and that the early responding students have been shown to be more satisfied (Williams and Cappuccini-Ansfield 2007). They also add that the timing of the NSS may be detrimental to institutions own internal quality processes, as the students may not wish to provide feedback many times over (Williams and Cappuccini-Ansfield 2007).
The National Student Surveys’ for nursing programmes would have provided a useful tool to explore the added-value of non-nurse lecturers, unfortunately both the generic nature of the questions and the late inclusion of nursing to the survey meant that at the time of completing this study the relevant information was not available.
The next section in this policy chapter moves from a specific voice that of the student, to much larger influences, the rest of the world.