Evaluating Undergraduate Education: the use of broad indicators

Donald, Janet G.; Denison, D. Brian

doi:10.1080/0260293960210103

Cited by 38 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, lessons from quality audit of HE may be learnt. In particular, the findings that low-quality teaching and research pressures deleteriously influence graduates' satisfaction (Donald & Denison, 1996) may be considered. Third, the mode of delivery of the course may be important: part-timers give less (Harrison et al, 1995), but sandwich degrees and higher degrees may be investigated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

What Determines Alumni Generosity? Evidence for the UK

Belfield¹,

Beney²

2000

Education Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the scale and determinants of alumni giving, using datasets from two public-sector, doctoral-granting universities in the UK. The importance of alumni generosity-both as revenue and as a performance measure-is considered, comparing new UK evidence with extant findings on US donor behaviour. Evidence is presented on systematic differences in alumni generosity, based on personal characteristics, solicitation efficiency, and the characteristics and quality of the Higher Education received by graduates. Distinguishing the propensity to give from the scale of giving, there are evident differences by gender, income, by type of campaign and by subject studied.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

What Determines Alumni Generosity? Evidence for the UK

Belfield¹,

Beney²

2000

Education Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Taking previous research (Harvey, 2001(Harvey, , 1997Lee et al, 2000;Donald and Denison, 1996;Morrison, 1999;Marsh, 1991;Rich et al, 1988;Guolla, 1982;Feldman and Theiss, 1982) and the authors' personal observations as a basis, it is assumed that there are four major groups of factors which seem to affect student satisfaction: 1) institutional factors 2) extracurricular factors, 3) student expectations and 4) student demographics ( Figure 1). Some of these factors are similar to Harvey's 2001 study.…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 98%

Student Satisfaction in Higher Education

Aldemir¹,

Gülcan²

2004

Higher Education Management and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Customer satisfaction has been a goal within the services marketing area for many years. There has been considerable debate over whether higher education students are customers. Funding sources for higher education (HE), regard student satisfaction as one of the measurable components of a university's success in Australia. If it is accepted that HE students are indeed customers, then the marketing models that are applied to services marketing clients could also be applicable within the higher education arena. Methodology Approach: The research methodology chosen for this paper is a combination of Interpretivism and Critical Incident Theory. The authors have used open interviewing and open ended questionnaires to encourage open dialogue between the researcher and those being questioned. A questionnaire was developed using Qualtrics, which was delivered to every property undergraduate student in Australia. Findings: The current Australian HE student is contributing towards the cost of their tertiary education in a considerable way. For this reason and many others, modern HE students have different needs and expectations from students in the past and they are similar to any other service customer. Responses from the interviews and the questionnaire indicate a degree of dissatisfaction with issues around teaching quality and delivery, outdated and inappropriate materials and the lack of practical application such as formal work experience, site visits and case studies. Originality: This research seeks to evaluate higher education property student satisfaction and identify important factors that universities can concentrate on in their goal of improving the student experience.

show abstract

“…Individual institutions set periodic program assessment policy that is reviewed by the Conference of Rectors and Principals of Quebec Universities (CREPUQ). For example, McGill University instituted a cyclical program review process in the early 1980s; in 1992, graduates from the previous ten years were invited to evaluate their program, teaching and student life, and the relevance of their studies to experiences after graduation, for use in quality assurance and program improvement (Donald and Denison, 1996). In Ontario, quality assurance for the twenty-nine universities follows a differentiated pattern: academic peer review, internal cyclical reviews of departments and programs, a provincial Undergraduate Program Review Committee, and the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies for graduate program appraisal.…”

Section: Performance Accountability Across Canadamentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the quality of teaching in Canada

Donald

2006

New Drctns Hghr Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Canada has a significant investment in postsecondary education: more than half the population of some thirty-two million people have a postsecondary certificate, degree, or degrees (Statistics Canada, 2004, cited in Canadian Association of University Teachers, 2005. The size of the country, extending over six time zones, sets the context for social development in the ten provinces and the territories. There is no federal ministry of education or formal accreditation system; the provinces have jurisdiction over their universities. The Canadian constitution, enacted in 1867 as the British North America Act and revised in 1982, awards authority to the federal government for defense and trade but authority to the provinces for health, education, and language. Although funding for postsecondary education is primarily in the form of transfer payments from the federal to the provincial governments, which have vested responsibility for all levels of education, the provincial governments allocate funds to the universities. The federal government reserves the right to fund research and support students. In response to the diversity of needs in the regions, responsibility and accountability are distributed among the provinces and individual institutions. Thus the pilot question in this volume of how trends of economic globalization and increased performance accountability in higher education have affected the enhancement of teaching and learning in Canada over the past thirty years must be read through the lens of decentralized authority and hence responsibility.

show abstract

Evaluating Undergraduate Education: the use of broad indicators

Cited by 38 publications

References 13 publications

What Determines Alumni Generosity? Evidence for the UK

What Determines Alumni Generosity? Evidence for the UK

Student Satisfaction in Higher Education

Enhancing the quality of teaching in Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About