Existing Data Collection Approaches and Methodologies

There are numerous projects and research efforts underway to standardize assessment of higher education institutions, departments, faculties and courses, both for purposes of comparison, as well as for tools to identify areas of improvement in different contexts. In this section, some of the prominent work and data collection tools in this field was reviewed. It should be noted that these elements of literature review were important influences on the methodology used in the present study.

The College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) is concerned with educational, cultural, and recreational college facilities, as well as the students’ experiences at college. R. C. Pace developed the CSEQ at the University of California Los Angeles during the 1970s and introduced it as a multi-institutional survey tool in 1979. It had been in continuous operation, with four editions published, but was halted after the spring 2014 administration due to declining numbers of participating institutions (CSEQ 2014). However, rather than its being conceptually obsolete, CSEQ’s decline was mainly due to its influence of the National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE), as further discussed. About two-thirds of the original NSSE’s questions were drawn or adapted from the CSEQ, retaining a focus on student behaviours and investment in educationally purposeful practice, such as process indicators. The widely used NSSE instrument, which has a complementary data collection instrument to gauge first-year experience – the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) – is a good fit for the broader assessment needs of most higher education institutions. (CSEQ 2014)

In the latest (4th) edition of the CSEQ, more than 150 items are used to produce a measure of the institution’s performance with respect to these topics. This is a broad- ranging data collection tool and involves many parts beyond the scope of the present study, such as student background characteristics, including grades, personal aspirations and financial arrangements. However, the survey sections and items that are of interest in the context of the present study ask students to rate the college’s emphasis on the development of scholarly, creative, and analytical qualities, occupational competence, and the practical value of courses. Also covered are student views of relationships with tutors and student satisfaction per se. In the full questionnaire, students indicate the extent of progress concerning typical objectives (Gonyea et al. 2003). The CSEQ was considered in the context of the present study due to its focus on process indicators.

Chalmers and Thomson (2008) composed a meta-review of process indicators in use in Australia and provided institutional tables of the 37 participating institutions. This summary extended the teaching and learning indicators identified in an earlier review of performance indicators (AVCC 2004). While a review of the same that took place in 2004 (Rowe 2004) found the existence and use of performance indicators were variable in Australian universities, Chalmers and Thomson’s (2008) review found process indicators were widely used by Australian Universities. However, their intent was not only to identify and discuss the quality of those indicators but also to derive a system for benchmarking and normalizing the collection of the data to develop a more robust understanding of the individual, collective and comparative performance of higher education institutions.

objectives; these were covered in the present study in terms of pedagogical outcomes, as well as outcomes in line with the principles of the Saudi higher education directives discussed in the introduction and literature review of the present thesis. They also include “Teaching and Learning Indicators”, which were covered in the survey sections on academic contents and students’ opinions of trainers. They also include an Organisational Unit Review, encompassing disciplines, divisions, faculties, schools and centres, which was germane to the present study, because it concerns the different tracks and branches of course under review in the PYP. Another category, “Curriculum Review” consists of units, unit sets and programmes and is covered in the academic contents parts of the surveys. The “Assessment and Feedback Policies” Student Experience explores the provision of resources, particularly those for target groups such as international and first year students. It is is contentious for institutional appraisal, but is unarguably important, and is inherent in the student survey.

Chalmers and Thompson (20080 also identified the following categories of criteria: “Internal and External Performance Funds for Teaching and Learning”, such as the opportunities for faculties to be allocated grants; “Professional Development”, which outlines support provided for staff, such as workshops and peer review and more formal programmes such as the “Graduate Certificate in Higher Education”; “Appointment and Promotion Criteria”, which details teaching, research and service requirements at each level; “Review of Academic Staff”, which provides a summary of measures, frequency, and implications of performance reviews; and “Recognition of Excellence in Teaching and Enhancing the Student Learning Experience”, which details eligibility, remuneration and requirements of awards, grants, citations and fellowships recipients. While these are of undoubted importance as process indicators, the present study remained focussed on the student experience because, with the exception of “Professional Development”, these would only be meaningful for broader academic contexts than that of the one year preparatory year programme.