Student Voice

An economic view on the impact of student voice on education

By Eve Bracken-Ingram

At Student Voice, we view the involvement of students in decisions surrounding their education as key for increasing engagement, motivation, and academic performance of students. The capturing of student voice allows institutions to improve educational practices to create a more effective and inclusive higher education experience. The 2021 article by Hemming and Power (Source) explored the role of student voice in higher education through an economic lens. It argues that there may be a financial benefit and requirement for higher education institutions to take student voice into account. Due to rising financial implications for students attending university and the business model approach of institutions, the status of a student within the higher education framework has changed. Self-funded students are now viewed as consumers and there is a growing sense of student entitlement. Due to the increased power of students as customers, there is a rising need for universities to adapt their teaching and assessment processes to meet student’s expectations and desires.

In higher education institutions, student voice is commonly captured via Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) surveys conducted at the end of term. SET allows students to voice their perception of teaching methods and staff and assessment. Student voice can be influential in higher education institutions in the following ways:

  1. Student evaluations are used to improve quality of teaching.
  2. Student feedback is considered when determining academic promotion.
  3. Quality indications for teaching and learning (QITL), which are determined through student surveys, are used to market the university.

In the context of economics, the third point is of particular interest. If care is not taken to adapt teaching and assessment in response to student perceptions, then QITL will be negatively affected. Consequentially, the university may lose revenue as students choose to study elsewhere.

Assessment is of particular importance to students. Therefore, the key to improving student’s perceptions and QITL may lie in adapting assessment methods to better fit students timelines, workloads, and strengths. Hemming and Power created a conceptual model which highlight the influences that affect student perception of assessment in the higher education business model context. This model identifies 13 key factors which influence student perception of educational methods such as stress and anxiety, strengths and weaknesses, personal motivation, and approach to learning. The relationship between influences, student perceptions, and corporate goals is considered dynamic as these components feedback and influence each other.

Many higher education institutions have already begun taking student perception into account by providing marking sheets to clarify assessment requirements and reducing course length. Through analysis in this article, Hemming and Power predict that universities will begin to react to student voice by:

  • Further reducing time to complete a degree.
  • Adapting assessment methods to reduce workload.
  • Redesigning courses to reflect the desires of students.

This article has argued that higher education institutions should be viewed through an economics lens when considering the effect of student voice. Students now have a powerful role as consumer within these frameworks and as such are capable of influencing change in teaching and assessment methods. It is predicted that universities will adapt their educational methods to reflect these desires, even at the expense of education quality. As educational institutions are further viewed as businesses, the priorities and goals of students, lectures and institutions may change. It will essential that universities maintain high student satisfaction to increase student attraction and retention, and maximise revenue.

FAQ

Q: How do different demographics of students perceive the effectiveness of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) surveys in capturing their voice, and are there alternative or complementary methods that could enhance the inclusivity and accuracy of student feedback?

A: The perception of the effectiveness of SET surveys in capturing student voice can vary significantly across different demographics of students. Some students might feel that these surveys adequately allow them to express their opinions about teaching methods and assessment, while others, particularly those from underrepresented groups, may not feel as heard. This variance in perception can be due to several factors, including the relevance of questions to all student experiences, the timing of the surveys, and the anonymity of responses. To enhance the inclusivity and accuracy of student feedback, institutions could consider implementing focus groups, suggestion boxes, and forums that allow for more open-ended feedback. These methods can complement SET surveys by providing qualitative data that gives a deeper insight into student experiences and preferences. Incorporating text analysis tools to interpret open-ended responses can further help institutions to understand the nuances of student voice across diverse student populations.

Q: What are the potential biases and limitations inherent in the text analysis of student feedback collected through SET surveys, and how do these impact the interpretation and implementation of changes by higher education institutions?

A: The text analysis of student feedback collected through SET surveys can introduce several biases and limitations. These can include language bias, where the nuances of feedback might be lost or misinterpreted if the analysis does not account for slang, idiomatic expressions, or cultural differences in communication. Additionally, the sentiment analysis tools might struggle with detecting sarcasm or mixed emotions, leading to an oversimplified interpretation of student feedback. These biases and limitations can impact the interpretation of the data, potentially leading to changes that do not fully address the students' concerns or misrepresent their feedback. Higher education institutions need to be aware of these limitations and consider them when using text analysis to inform changes. This might involve using a combination of quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods and seeking human interpretation to complement the findings from text analysis.

Q: How do students' expectations and perceptions of education quality, as expressed through their feedback, align with academic and pedagogical standards, and what challenges do institutions face in balancing these perspectives?

A: Students' expectations and perceptions of education quality, as expressed through their feedback, do not always align with academic and pedagogical standards. Students may prioritise aspects of their education experience, such as teaching methods, assessment timelines, and workload, differently from how educators and institutions prioritise academic rigor and pedagogical integrity. This misalignment presents challenges for institutions in balancing the desire to respond to student voice with the necessity of maintaining high academic standards. The challenge lies in making adjustments that reflect students' desires without compromising the educational content's depth and quality. Institutions must navigate these differing priorities carefully, ensuring that changes driven by student feedback enhance the learning experience without diluting academic standards. Engaging in ongoing dialogue with students about the rationale behind academic and pedagogical approaches can help in aligning expectations and perceptions, fostering a more collaborative and understanding educational environment.

References

[Source Paper] Hemming, A., & Power, M. (2021) Student ‘voice’ and higher education assessment: Is it all about the money?, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 18(1).
DOI: 10.53761/1.18.1.6

Related Entries