Kim Chuan Goh and Noi Keng Koh

Introduction

Most higher education institutions have some form of quality assurance procedures and methodology for judging the degree to which macro and micro organisational aims, objectives and outcomes have been achieved (Doherty, 2008). One measure of quality is students’ feedback, not just on learning and teaching and how they evaluate programmes, but also how they rate their overall experience as undergraduates in terms of their learning and personal growth. Students’ feedback is a good indication of whether they feel an institution has supported their academic, intellectual and social development, and whether its perceived performance meets or exceeds their expectations (Elliot and Shin, 2002).

Feedback has various functions according to the particular learning environment in which it is examined (Mory, 2004) and should be different for different levels of study, undergraduate or postgraduate (Knight and Yorke, 2003). The ostensible purpose of gathering feedback from students, whether on courses, teaching quality or the overall student experience, is to assess what is working and what could be improved in that programme (Cook-Sather, 2009). As Kuh et al. (1997: 437) argue: ‘for some outcomes, student reports may be the only source of useful data’.

Types and importance of student feedback

Brennan and Williams (2004) argue that there are two principal reasons for collecting feedback from students. The first is to enhance the students’ experience of learning and teaching, and the second to contribute to the monitoring and review of quality and standards. In addition, they found seven further purposes for collecting student data, ranging from ensuring the effectiveness of course design and delivery to contributing to staff development, emphasising quality assurance.

For Harvey (2003), feedback from students is more action-oriented. It provides internal information to guide improvement and external information for potential students and other stakeholders, including accountability and compliance requirements. Overall, there appear to be six main reasons why feedback is collected. Feedback can:

Different surveys have been conducted to gauge student satisfaction in higher education institutions. Some surveys are used to gauge student satisfaction with their learning of specific courses. For example, Narasimhan (2001) has used formal and informal approaches to gaining feedback from students and proposes an approach that involves comparing students’ expectations and perceptions with those of the teacher, to improve the quality of the teaching sessions.

Other surveys focus on first-year undergraduates’ learning experience and look at how they adjust to campus academic life. Numerous studies have shown the importance of assessing students’ learning and satisfaction in their early experiences of higher education. The need to pay particular attention to students’ satisfaction is driven by a number of factors: the transition from school to university; the demands of customer-centric expectation; and the need to reduce attrition.

The challenging transition from pre-university to tertiary education adds importance to the quality of the learning experience, including the support given to students in adjusting to campus life and learning in the early part of their course. Understanding these early experiences plays a critical role in managing transitions to tertiary study, in retaining students (Krause, 2005) and in setting up the educational foundations for academic success (Upcraft and Gardner, 1989; Kuh et al., 2005). Citing previous studies, Torenbeek et al. (2010) indicate that insufficient preparation for – and thus a bad fit with – university leads to adjustment and integration problems, resulting in early withdrawal. Learning is a profoundly ‘reflective and emotional construct’. Universities should find ways to minimise the problems of adjustment and help students to adapt and thrive in the new environment, learning approaches and learning styles (Zepke et al., 2006). It is thus important to obtain information on how students move from school to the campus learning environment.

Secondly, as university education is seen as a service industry with increasing ‘commodification’ of its core business, students are now regarded as clients or customers (Smith et al., 2007) whose choices are influenced by feedback from current students. Meeting customer needs and expectations is now the main objective of universities in order to maintain, if not increase, recruitment. It has become increasingly important to assess undergraduate students’ experience of their studies at a university in order to gauge their satisfaction of the learning experience as well as personal growth, so that further support and improvements can be made. Thus, Elliot and Shin (2002) point out that in the increasingly competitive and dynamic educational environment where institutions are competing for students, the general public is demanding accountability and higher education institutions are becoming more cognisant of student satisfaction (Murray, 1997), which has a positive influence on students’ motivation and retention, and also the university’s recruiting efforts and fundraising.

As a result, universities are trying their best to reduce attrition either in enrolment or as a result of switching courses, since if both the above are not checked they will lead to wastage of resources (Torenbeek et al., 2010). In a survey of non-completion students, the quality of learning experience was found to be an important factor in their decision to withdraw at the end of first year, thus emphasising the importance of constructive feedback at this critical time (Yorke, 2002).

In short, early experiences data have the potential to inform understanding of many aspects of university life, including student affairs, pedagogical quality, recruitment and selection, attrition and retention, equity and student learning processes (Krause and Coates, 2008). The ‘effective feedback’ for these students is that it provides emotional support and facilitates integration into university. This supports arguments in previous literature, which suggest that feedback has various functions according to the particular learning environment in which it is examined (Mory, 2004) and should be different for different levels of study (Knight and Yorke, 2003).

Mid-programme experience (MPE) surveys, which are conducted with students mid-way into their programme as part of the student experience surveys (SES), are similar to the surveys of early experiences. MPE surveys allow institutions to ask about their students’ experience mid-term, to assess transitional beliefs, values and, in this case, their developmental growth. Using this information, faculty members can gain access to student transformation and help students to head in the right direction for the remaining years of study.

First-year undergraduate experience and MPE surveys benefit the students while they are still at the institution. If the survey findings point to any lack of support or quality of academic engagement or socialisation opportunities, appropriate steps can be taken to improve these before the students finish their course.

End-of-programme evaluation is completed by graduating students. It will not benefit those particular students but those who enrol in the future. While end-of-programme evaluation might inform the revision of subsequent iterations of the course, it is less helpful in assessing ‘student experience’ – how much students have learned, improved, or grown in their programmes (Wickramasinghe and Timpson, 2006; Cook-Sather, 2009). End-of-programme evaluations are usually standardised at a given institution to make comparisons across disciplines (Wickramasinghe and Timpson, 2006). Consequently, questionnaires tend to be programme generic rather than student directed.

The different surveys are important as a form of accountability to the students and other stakeholders. Negative experiences would not only cause dissatisfaction with the institution but also undermine its reputation, with attendant implications for future enrolments. However, one caution is that in improving students’ experience to bring about an enjoyable experience, an institution should not pander to the students’ desires to offer a certain ‘life-style’ which they may expect, but which may not equate with academic learning (Gardner, 2005).

Emotional aspects of learning, personal growth and identity

Learning is recognised as a complex, reflexive and emotional construct (Christie et al., 2008), and this is particularly true of the years spent in a higher education institution at an age where individuals are still developing their personalities and identities. As learning involves an emotional component, students may have to negotiate upsetting experiences, leading to psychological stress, vulnerability and insecurity, while positive experiences can engender feelings of hopeful anticipation, exhilaration and discovery (Griffiths et al., 2005). It is thus important that the learning environment in a university understands and encourages an active learner approach (Zepke et al., 2006).

There is a dearth of research on the emotional dimensions of learning (Boler, 1999; Brown, 2000) as compared with the academic interest in learning experiences (Gibbs, 1992; Kolb, 1984). There is a need to understand the difference that confidence, motivation, perseverance and creativity make to the individual’s wider disposition to learning, as well as the potential changes in learning identities students experience as they move from one setting or life stage to another, with attendant emotional implications.

The change from familiar to unfamiliar environments brings into focus the social issues of learning and the theory of ‘social situatedness’ of learning (Taylor, 1998; Lave and Wenger, 1991). This theory emphasises: ‘the inherently socially negotiated character of meaning and the interested, concerned character of the thought and action of persons-in-activity … in, with, and arising from, the socially and culturally structured world’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 50–51). Lave and Wenger further argue that: ‘because the place of knowledge is within a community of practice, questions of learning must be addressed within the development cycles of that community’. Learning is the forming of an identity, not just the acquisition of knowledge, habits and skills. While it is important for universities to be concerned with the quality of their teaching programmes, the social and collaborative aspects of students’ learning experiences, captured in the accounts of the social situatedness of learning, are also important determinants of graduate outcomes, and should be included in efforts to enhance the quality of student learning (Smith and Bath, 2006).

The social process of learning also involves the issue of dispositions to learning. These dispositions are a part of the social process of identity formation that is sensitive to biographical narratives and cultural influences (Hodkinson and Bloomer, 2000; Osborn et al., 2003). Being and becoming a learner is a product of the complex interplay of social and economic structures which shape people’s lives, the educational institutions which determine the processes of engagement with learning, and the learners themselves (Crossan et al., 2003). Learners with inherently ‘fragile’ identities will have to negotiate new uncertain learning environments; their disposition to learning is affected by a range of psychological factors. Learning as a process of identity formation is inherently risky and uncertain (Gallacher et al., 2002; Jackson, 2003). It is thus important that learners quickly adjust and become embedded in a community of practice precisely to ameliorate some of the emotional difficulties faced.

Student support and context

Three kinds of support are extended to students in any campus: human and material resources (such as tutors, peers or equipment); information, advice or guidance (such as clarity of assessment criteria, advice about essay writing or guidance on student loans); and family and mutual support emanating from ‘being in the same boat’. Jacklin and Riche (2009) have adopted a socio-cultural perspective of student support as it is a: ‘socially situated, complex and multifaceted concept, which should not be seen as essentially individualistic and problem-focused in its orientation’ (735). Much discussion of student support tends to view students negatively as having deficits, needing support and being where the problem is located. Others such as Tait (2000) understand student support in terms of services and functions in three areas: cognitive (supporting learning); affective (ensuring a supportive environment); and systemic (ensuring effective administrative systems). Others like Haggis (2006: 526) frame ‘student problems’ more pedagogically, in terms of the curriculum and ‘processes of interaction around the curriculum’, while Wilcox et al. (2005) and Robinson et al. (2007) emphasise social contexts and social support, especially that which comes from family and other students. Understanding student support requires an exploration of institutional factors and the cultures and contexts within which that support operates.

It is no longer the case that most students enter higher education when they leave school. For example, many students take gap years and more mature entrants are becoming increasingly common. Students might be married and could be parents, while some of course will have come straight from school. Higher education institutions should be aware of these differences and provide different kinds of support.

Background to NIE study

At the National Institute of Education (NIE), an institute of the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, all faculty members are evaluated in an annual performance appraisal in three areas: research, teaching and service. The faculty performance appraisal takes a developmental approach and aims to motivate staff to strive towards excellence in their work.

Faculty members are expected to exhibit high standards by being innovative, creative and effective in teaching their subject disciplines and courses. They are also expected to study new pedagogies in learning and teaching and translate these scholarly activities into innovative and effective teaching, creative and effective curriculum development, strong assessment practices, and the development of teaching materials and resources that are widely adopted and regarded as significant contributions to learning and teaching.

Each staff member receives a performance rating for each of the three areas – research, teaching and service. Performance ratings range from 1 (far below expectations) to 5 (far above expectations). Appraisal of the teaching area includes assessment of a range of programmes, a number of different courses, class sizes, new courses taught, off-campus teaching, coordination of courses with large numbers of students, administrative duties and more. The reporting officer can moderate the scoring system by considering additional factors such as attitude towards work, collegiality, and willingness to collaborate and share. From the perspective of positive motivation, it is essential to celebrate, recognise and reward the good work of teachers (Machingambi and Wadesango, 2011).

Other institutes of higher learning in Singapore as well as NTU carry out periodic reviews of the courses and requirements of the undergraduate degree programmes. Reviews are regularly conducted at the level of each individual course, programme and school. In addition to sharing experiences in learning and teaching as well as processes, systems and tools of assessment of learning outcomes between schools, some schools use peer-to-peer exchange of ideas and resources, peer coaching and summative peer review.

At another state-funded university in Singapore, teaching evaluation scores and comments provide useful quantitative and qualitative feedback on how well a school is delivering on its promise of teaching excellence. A detailed statistical analysis of each term’s teaching evaluation is performed independently and sent to the management team, to be used as an input for school and university-level teaching awards, faculty selection for professional developmental courses, and for appraisal such as contract renewal and tenure. One institute pays particular attention to the student feedback score as an indicator of teaching competence, since it constitutes 40 per cent of the total appraisal system. This chapter exemplifies the overall aim of seeking formative feedback from students on their learning experiences and growth at mid-programme.

Collecting student feedback and satisfaction surveys forms a part of the accountability mechanism. Apart from being publicly accountable for the efficient use of public funds, institutions are accountable to their students for the quality of teaching and also to industry for the knowledge and skills base of new graduates (Milliken and Colohan, 2004). Thus student satisfaction surveys could serve as a comprehensive tool for improving higher education and enhancing student learning experiences in general, and as a managerial instrument for adjusting and adapting higher education institutions to a changing and a tougher economic reality and demands (Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2002). It has become evident that students have increasing expectations of the programmes they take, and recent research has shown an apparent discrepancy between the student’s expectation of the university and the university’s understanding of the role of a student (Skyrme, 2007). The quality of the overall student experience is crucial to the success of programmes. Ensuring the quality of education is important as the educational value is embedded in the rigour of tertiary programmes (Desoff, 2006).

Methodology of NIE study

A study was conducted at NIE Singapore to seek formative feedback from students in the field of education on their learning experiences and growth at mid-programme stage. It was designed to gather student teachers’ early learning experiences at NIE and to assess how student teachers develop intellectually, professionally and socially. Specifically, the design of the survey hinged on two key thrusts:

The study aimed to identify the areas of support required to enhance student learning experiences and growth over the remainder of the four-year teacher education course. It would also inform policy-makers and faculty members on student teachers’ formative experiences and suggest possible follow-up actions.

These are the principles which guided the MPE survey.

Findings of NIE study

Discussion and implications of NIE study

This study investigated undergraduate pre-service teachers’ academic and personal growth and professional identity, as reflected in their values and beliefs. The study also gauged their satisfaction and programme experience over the first two years of study, as well as their satisfaction with the level of resources and support provided. The findings of this study indicate the students’ academic growth in knowledge of their academic disciplines, in terms of scope, depth and rigour, as well as knowledge and understanding of learners and learning. The high ratings show that the offering of courses in the first two years and the objective of this concurrent programme have been met. This is reassuring from a programme perspective. What remains is to gauge the level of satisfaction and expectations that these same students have of the rest of the course by the end of the programme.

In the domain of learning experience, the students were affirmative of the lecturers’ expertise in their subject matter, in the way they explained the objectives of the course, and the efforts made to engage students in classroom discourse, thus providing engaged and satisfied learning. This feedback was supported by qualitative feedback on the strengths of the programme, which included learning engagement, developing content knowledge and lecturer feedback and support, theory practice links, developing pedagogical skills, and understanding learners and learning. The identification of these six aspects as the most important strengths showed the maturity and appreciation of these issues in their pre-service course, which is very positive from the programme’s perspective.

The support and resources available to facilitate students’ learning on campus also received the students’ approval as more than adequate for their learning. However, in the area of social life on campus, there appeared to be a serious lack of clubs and societies catering to the students’ needs – although there are currently more than 15 student clubs on the campus, and many more are available on the parent NTU campus. It is important to remember that non-curricular aspects and social life are part of the students’ experience and growth. University education and, in this case, teacher preparation are fundamentally about students constructing their own knowledge and forming their own identity as teachers. However, institutions such as NIE must provide an environment that encourages active student involvement (Krause and Coates, 2008; Davis and Murrell, 1993). NIE could seek more avenues to channel student energy towards educationally effective activities, as student involvement and campus environmental conditions coexist in a mutually shaping relationship, to support student success in what is contained in Outcalt and Skewes-Cox’s theory of ‘reciprocal engagement’ (Kuh et al., 2008). In this respect there is still some way to go. However, it must be stressed that it is also the students’ responsibility to take the lead in forming clubs and societies that meet their needs.

One commendable point highlighted by students was the good opportunity for them to build a social network of friends. The student experience literature says much about the importance of students connecting with each other and the university community in activities beyond the classroom, both social and academic (Zhao and Kuh, 2004; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005; Krause, 2007). Developing knowledge in collaboration with peers plays an important role in individual knowledge construction. Such collaborative activity is reflected in contemporary anthropological theories of situated or distributed learning, which suggest that individuals learn by involving themselves in fields or communities of practice or inquiry (Lave and Wenger 1991; Hutchins, 1995). It is reflected in Laurillard’s (2002) idea that academic learning involves a continuing and iterative dialogue between teacher and student. The research literature widely acknowledges that the more frequently students interact with peers in the learning community in educationally purposeful ways, the more likely they are to engage with their learning (Terenzini et al., 1996; Gellin, 2003). Collaboration confers a range of direct and indirect benefits to learning. It can contextualise knowledge in a conversational context; extend material outside ‘formal classroom’ settings; build learning-centred networks; allow individuals to demonstrate their knowledge; expose the negotiated and generative nature of knowledge; and, not least, enhance interpersonal skills. Such engagement occurs in three contexts: in class, beyond the formal class setting but with connections to it, and in the broader learning community.

Student teachers grow professionally, even during their pre-service years. Although their identity is in its infancy, their knowledge that they would become teachers will have directed them to form an identity. From the students’ perspective, this implies that the potential profession contributes to the ‘sense of being’ (Reid and Solomonides, 2009) that is at the core of their ability to transform knowledge as it becomes meaningful in different contexts. Identities are, first and foremost, shaped and reinforced in and by strong and stable communities and the social processes generated within them (Henkel, 2005). The results of this study are gratifying, as second-year student teachers have already formed certain beliefs and identities consistent with the new concept of student-centred learning. As regards ‘pupil learning’, teachers’ role in the areas of ‘care, lead and inspire’ and ‘teaching beliefs’, the highest rankings were given to those that reflect the new way of thinking about these areas: that all pupils can learn if they are given the right support; that teachers should show care and concern for all pupils; and that it is important to teach for deep understanding so that pupils master concepts and skills. The converse was true for statements that are at variance with these highest rankings in the respective domains.

According to the qualitative feedback, the student teachers identified six strengths of the programme at mid-point. These were: learning and engagement (25.6 per cent); developing content knowledge (20.1 per cent); lecturer feedback and support (17.9 per cent); theory-practice links (12.7 per cent); developing pedagogical skills (12.4 per cent); and understanding learners and learning (11.3 per cent). The students identified areas for improvement, such as: programme structure and time-tabling; programme delivery; learning resources and support; assessment; theory-practice links; and ICT support. Programme structure and time-tabling have always been an issue with students at NIE. However, their complaints in the current study revolved around three issues: more opportunity to choose modules and electives; time-tabling; and course workload. The first issue is not easily resolved as, given the course structure and the components students have to fulfil, there is little room for many electives to be offered. Also, given the size of the undergraduate cohort which is divided into different subject disciplines, the ability to offer electives is limited and not cost-effective, given small student numbers per class. However, in the area of time-tabling, this could be ameliorated by extending the teaching time or having more blended learning, thus lessening the need for face-to-face contact in classrooms. As for workload, the programme office will need to investigate whether it would be possible to cut away any areas of overlap or duplication so that the total workload could be reduced without sacrificing the rigour and expectations of the programme.

Issues have been raised about programme delivery, and the comments made are valid and academically sound. Students advocated deep learning. Areas that need greater depth of treatment should be addressed, the need to understand different learners from among the undergraduates and to tailor learning according to their needs reflects what students have learned about learners and learning in school, the use of field trips and problem-based learning and cutting down on repeated presentations in class would allow for more meaningful engagement.

While the survey indicated that sufficient resources, support and facilities were available at NIE, the qualitative feedback also indicated that there was still room for improvement in these two areas. With regard to assessment, students wanted to see a more even spacing of assignments. They also wanted to see the ‘closing of the learning loop’ through assessment when feedback and comments on their assignments and exams were fed back to them.

The last area for improvement was in the theory-practice nexus. This was an area of strength but certain aspects could also be strengthened. The valid feedback centres on more realistic classroom situations to be brought into classroom discourse, and that the teaching practice assignments should enable students to observe more diverse classroom situations than at present. These should be given due attention. Finally, the summative feedback was most instructive. All the students found their learning experience at NIE a satisfying one, whether it was the quality of academic learning, helping them gain a deeper understanding of the academic content of subjects, or sustaining their motivation to learn more about the academic subjects in the programme. These same students would still put NIE degree programme as one of their first choices for university admission because their learning experience at NIE in the past two years had been an enriching one, and overall, they were satisfied with the quality of their learning experience.

Conclusion

The results of this study, which was conducted to seek formative feedback from the students on their learning experiences and growth at mid-programme stage at NIE Singapore, are favourable. The programme was structured to provide the students with rigorous academic insights as well as the necessary support and resources for a meaningful academic, professional and social experience and engagement in their first two years of undergraduate study. The student feedback provides a useful yardstick that can be used for benchmarking and for continual improvement. These results can be regarded as indicators of institutional performance and hence, if academic administrators and department heads lead the campaign for better instruction, there is a greater chance that student ratings will contribute to improving the quality of higher education.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to acknowledge the grant provided by the National Institute of Education Singapore under RS7/09 GKC that enabled this research to be conducted and the Office of Academic Quality Management in administering the survey and in data analysis.

References