Share This Article:

On the Contribution of Student Experience Survey Regarding Quality Management in Higher Education: An Institutional Study in Saudi Arabia

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:114KB) PP. 464-469
DOI: 10.4236/jssm.2010.34052    5,660 Downloads   9,625 Views   Citations


We appraise comparatively and analytical data under Student Experience Survey (SES) to discuss the possible generalizability of related College level differentials in Saudi Arabia. For this, data collected from students of two academic programs namely Bachelor of Dental Surgery, College of Dentistry; and B.Sc. Nursing, College of Nursing, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, were considered. These data relate to experience of students halfway of respective academic program. The percentage of participation in SES by students was 100% and 94% respectively. Students of neither the programs reported high quality perception about any of the 20 items considered under SES. With a target of satisfaction by at least 50% students, students from College of Nursing expressed better satisfaction than those from the College of Dentistry. Same is true in case of aiming to achieve satisfaction by at least 75% students. However, to gain satisfaction by at least 80% students, each of the 20 items in both colleges need focus of college as well as university administrators towards required improvements. In summary, suitable to its varying environment, each program/college in a university requires specific improvement planning.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

A. Rubaish, "On the Contribution of Student Experience Survey Regarding Quality Management in Higher Education: An Institutional Study in Saudi Arabia," Journal of Service Science and Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, 2010, pp. 464-469. doi: 10.4236/jssm.2010.34052.


[1] P. Gravestock and E. Gregor-Greenleaf, “Student Course Evaluations: Research, Models and Trends,” Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, Toronto, 2008.
[2] M. Theall and J. Franklin, “Looking for Bias in all the Wrong Places: A Search for Truth or a Witch Hunt in Student Ratings of Instruction?” In: M. Theall, P. C. Abrami and L. A. Mets, Eds., The Student Ratings Debate: Are they Valid? How Can We Best Use Them? [Special Issue], New Directions for Institutional Research, Vol. 109, 2001, pp. 45-46.
[3] W. J. McKeachie, “Students Ratings: The Validity of Use,” American Psychologist, Vol. 51, No. 11, 1997, pp. 1218-1225.
[4] M. Yorke, “‘Student Experience’ Surveys: Some Methodological Considerations and an Empirical Investigation,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 34, No. 6, 2009, pp. 721-739.
[5] L. P. Aultman, “An Expected Benefit of Formative Student Evaluations,” College Teaching, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2006, pp. 251.
[6] T. Beran, C. Violato and D. Kline, “What’s the ‘Use’ of Students Ratings of Instruction for Administrators? One University’s Experience,” Canadian Journal of Higher Educatuon, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2007, pp. 48-70.
[7] L. A. Braskamp and J. C. Ory, “Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Institutional Performance,” Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1994.
[8] J. P. Campbell and W. C. Bozeman, “The Value of Student Ratings: Perceptions of Students, Teachers and Administrators,” Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2008, pp. 13-24.
[9] W. E. Cashin and R. G. Downey, “Using Global Student Rating Items for Summative Evaluation,” Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 4, 1992, pp. 563-572.
[10] M. R. Diamond, “The Usefulness of Structured Mid-term Feedback as a Catalyst for Change in Higher Education Classes,” Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2004, pp. 217-231.
[11] L. C. Hodges and K. Stanton, “Translating Comments on Student Evaluations into Language of Learning,” Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 31, 2007, pp. 279-286.
[12] J. W. B. Lang and M. Kersting, “Regular Feedback from Student Ratings of Instruction: Do College Teachers Improve their Ratings in the Long Run?” Instructional Science, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2007, pp. 187-205.
[13] H. W. Marsh, “Do University Teachers Become More Effective with Experience? A Multilevel Growth Model of Students’ Evaluations of Teaching over 13 Years,” Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99, No. 4, 2007, pp. 775-790.
[14] R. J. Menges, “Shortcomings of Research on Evaluating and Improving Teaching in Higher Education,” In: K. E. Ryan, Eds., Evaluating Teaching in Higher Education: A Vision for the Future [Special Issue], New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 83, 2000, pp. 5-11.
[15] A. R. Penny and R. Coe, “Effectiveness of Consultations on Student Ratings Feedback: A Meta-Analysis,” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 74, No. 2, 2004, pp. 215-253.
[16] R. E. Wright, “Student Evaluations of Faculty: Concerns Raised in the Literature, and Possible Solutions,” College Student Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2008, pp. 417-422.
[17] F. Zabaleta, “The Use and Misuse of Student Evaluation of Teaching,” Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2007, pp. 55-76.
[18] A. S. Aldosary, “Students’ Academic Satisfaction: The Case of CES at KFUPM,” JKAU: Engineering Science, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1999, pp. 99-107.
[19] W. E. Cashin, “Students do Rate Different Academic Fields Differently,” In: M. Theall and J. Franklin Eds., Student Ratings of Instruction: Issues for Improving Practice [Special Issues], New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 43, 1990, pp. 113 -121.
[20] A. Al Rubaish, L. Wosornu and S. N. Dwivedi, “Using Deductions from Assessment Studies towards Furtherance of the Academic Program: an Empirical Appraisal of an Institutional Student Course Evaluations,” The International Journal for Academic Development (Communicated).
[21] R. Gob, C. Mc Collin and M.F. Rmalhoto, “Ordinal Methodology in the Analysis of Likert Scales,” Qualilty & Quantity, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2007, pp. 601-626.
[22] K. R. Sundaram, S. N. Dwivedi and V. Sreenivas, “Medical Statistics: Principles & Methods,” BI Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2009.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.