Students' interpretations of the meanings of questionnaire items in the National Student Survey
Students' interpretations of the meanings of questionnaire items in the National Student Survey
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13538322.2014.924786
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Kane, Suzanne
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bennett, Roger;Kane, Suzanne
在许多国家，大学生满意度调查的结果被用于各种教育管理目的。在联合王国，国家当局用来衡量学生满意度的主要工具是全国学生调查。是次研究探讨的问题是，不同个人特质的学生会否对用以量度新高中程度的个别项目的措辞，有不同的理解（例如，何谓“即时”反馈或何谓“公平”评分）。在英国一所大学的319名商科学生完成了关于他们的学习方向，与他们的课程，学习技能和家庭背景的参与程度和他们的理解的主要方面的含义的新高中的问卷调查。联合分析方法被用来确定解释的变化。研究结果显示，不同学习取向及不同投入程度的学生对新高中英语各主要维度的意义可能有不同的看法。这使人们对采用学生对这些问题的评估的总体平均值用于教育管理和决策目的的效用产生了疑问。在目前的样本中，所有样本的结果与对方案参与程度低的个人的结果之间的差距尤其明显。
In many countries the outputs from university student satisfaction surveys are used for a variety of educational management purposes. Within the United Kingdom, the main instrument employed by state authorities to measure student satisfaction is the National Student Survey (NSS). The issue investigated by the current research related to whether students with different personal characteristics might ascribe disparate meanings to the wordings of particular items designed to measure certain dimensions of the NSS (for example, what is meant by 'prompt' feedback or by 'fair' marking). A sample of 319 business studies students in a UK university completed questionnaires concerning their learning orientations, levels of engagement with their courses, study skills and family backgrounds and their interpretations of the meanings of key dimensions of the NSS. A conjoint analysis methodology was applied to identify variations in interpretations. The results suggest that students with different kinds of learning orientation and different levels of engagement may hold disparate views on the meanings of key NSS dimensions. This brings into question the utility of employing overall average values of students' assessments of these matters for educational management and decision-making purposes. Within the present sample, disparities between the all-sample outcomes and the results for individuals who exhibited low levels of engagement with their programmes were especially pronounced.