1. Students’ feedback - Can higher education quality management systems put it to good use? Babes-Bolyai University, 18 September 2009 Monica Zaharie Melinda Szabo Center for Quality Management

2. Uses of stakeholders’ feedback  Along with the educational expansion and the increasing demand for accountability in higher education a greater emphasis on stakeholders’ input  internal use: information meant to facilitate institutional progress, management strategies ( Telford, Masson, 2005 ), internal evaluations reports  external use: information for external evaluations, university rankings

3. Actions taken at Babes-Bolyai University The QA system is focused upon the stakeholders needs and expectations:  Students ratings of instruction: since 2002  Employers expectations survey - The analysis of the employers’ opinions and their requirements regarding higher education graduates  Faculty staff’ satisfaction survey - Identification of the teaching staff development needs and their work satisfaction level  Graduates’ labor market insertion survey  Students’ satisfaction survey - Identification of the students’ satisfaction level concerning a broad range of aspects - it is a relatively new practice.

4. Argument for student satisfaction surveys  Students’ satisfaction with educational and administrative institutional aspects - indicator for students’ intent to remain within the institution ( Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1986 );  It is less expensive to maintain a present customer than to recruit a new one ( Babin & Griffin, 1998; Oliver, 1993 )  The national QA evaluation methodology (which is closely following the Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European HE Area), includes indicators regarding students’ satisfaction  Though satisfied with the academic programs, students may be disappointed in other aspects, such as career counseling or material conditions (Kotler & Fox, 1995)

5. Methodological design  Questionnaire: 47 items, grouped around three major categories: teaching and learning, material base, and support services.  satisfaction is dependent on students’ expectations and theirs actual experiences (Summers, 2005)  on a 5 points Likert scale, measures both the students’ satisfaction and the importance they render to each of the dimensions assessed.  997 questionnaires filled in by Romanian students in 2008  online based survey questionnaires in 2009

6. Results  most important aspects: - teaching and learning dimensions (mean 4.33) - support services (mean 4.31) - material base (mean 4.25),  most satisfying aspects: - material base (3.31), - teaching-learning activities (mean 3.09), - support services (mean 2.90) - Highest gap: services and facilities

7. Results Most important aspects:  chances to find a job adequate to graduates’ qualifications (mean 4.65);  fairness of the examination (mean 4.55)  accommodation availability  practical skills development during faculty (mean 4.50); Least important (high σ – group is not that homogeneous):  sports base facilities (mean 3.75);  efficiency of student organizations and representatives (mean 3.95);  following the initial course planning during the semester (mean 3.95)

8. Results  highest level of satisfaction:  following the initial course planning during the semester (mean 3.62),  access to information regarding the admittance system (mean 3.51),  the learning space provided, such as classroom dimensions, thermic and acoustic conditions (mean 3.46),  lowest level of satisfaction:  photo-copy services available at the faculty (timetable, price, promptitude) (mean 2.39),  student counselling services, career counselling, support for international mobility (mean 2.44)

9. Results  biggest gap between the importance attached and the satisfaction level of 1.8 and 1.9 points was found for the dimensions measuring:  career counselling services,  the chances to find a job after graduation,  housing facilities offered by university,  photo copy services,  significant differences among junior students (first and second year of study) and senior students F (year of study; 790) = 3.979; p<0.01, the latter ones being less satisfied than the young ones

11. Discussions and conclusions  Clear identification strengths and weaknesses of BBU  Main difficulties of this survey: related to the students’ retention in filling in the evaluation forms, because of the growing number of surveys  Lower results values (both for satisfaction and importance) on the online survey  There are no improvement in the results on the satisfaction surveys in the two consecutive years  Possible explanations: lack of improvement actions taken  Particularities of the online based surveys

12. Discussions and conclusions  Results obtained are confirmed by the European student Barometer: the lowest results for BBU regard  - practical course contents  - assistance with career planning  - administration services  - accommodation availability  as strengths: BBU students are more satisfied with the future professional career

13. Questions Thank you! monizaharie@staff.ubbcluj.ro