Outcomes of the initial data analysis

The initial analysis of the data supports the evidence in the literature and from other research studies (HEA, 2012) that demonstrate that the results for built environment subjects show lower levels of satisfaction compared to the experience of many other students responding to the NSS. This trend continues with Architecture and Building reporting lower levels of satisfaction compared with the experience of all other students in the wider subject area of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Within the subject grouping, many variations occur within individual programmes of study and across different institutional contexts. As demonstrated by the analysis of the NSS results from 2010 to 2015, built environment students generally report lower levels of satisfaction than in the wider university with some significant variations between programmes within the school.

The data appears to suggest that some student groups within the School are reporting a very different experience to other student groups within the School. This is interesting given the different programmes of study have a significant amount of commonality in terms of the staff and the modules undertaken. This commonality also extends to the organisation and management of the programmes and the resources available. The data for the individual programmes indicates that the perceptions of the student experience can vary significantly between programmes and also fluctuate significantly from one year to the next. Background information from the School indicates that during the period under review, the programmes of study have not changed significantly as the Periodic Review of programmes as part of the university quality assurance processes occurs on a 5 year cycle which had been completed in 2010 and is due to be undertaken in 2015. Therefore a generally stable position in terms of the course structure and content is evident and is unlikely to be responsible for the fluctuating student experience. The School invested heavily in staffing to support the programmes in January 2010 with the recruitment of ten staff, many with industry experience.

An investigation surrounding the individual programmes to establish if any factors may be influencing the significant fluctuations over the period 2010 – 2015 was undertaken using a review of documentation from the School. Reports from the School seem to

indicate that the significant influencer is related to changes in staff associated with the programmes as highlighted below:

Building Surveying shows a significant improvement in reported levels of student satisfaction between 2010 and 2011 that is maintained until 2013 when a significant drop to from 88% to 53% is recorded. The improvement coincides with the influx of staff in January 2010 and the drop reported in 2013 coincides with two Building Surveying staff leaving the School including the Programme Director. The drop in ‘Overall Satisfaction’ levels also mirrors a significant drop in the ‘Teaching on my Course’, ‘Academic Support’ and ‘Organisation and Management’ categories.

The Quantity Surveying programme shows an improvement in satisfaction levels between 2010 and 2011 that also coincided with the appointment of new lecturers with significant industrial experience. The levels of satisfaction have continued to fluctuate although an underlying improving trend is evident. The Quantity Surveying programme has significant numbers of part-time day release students who consistently report lower levels of satisfaction than all other student groups within the school and within the Quantity Surveying programme.

The Construction Project Management programme has maintained a fairly static level of satisfaction with the exception of 2012 when a significant improvement was recorded. Interestingly, this coincided with a change in Programme Director for that year with a change again in 2013. The levels of satisfaction have continued to fluctuate although an underlying improving trend is evident.

The Architectural Design Technology programme generally has consistently high levels of satisfaction over the period in question with a sudden drop in 2011 that again coincides with a change in Programme Director. However, the improving trend has continued with 100% ‘Overall Satisfaction’ reported in 2015.

From the analysis of the Verbatim Comments, the impact of the student perception of the teaching staff is significant not only in ‘Teaching on my Course’ but is also relating to

investigation of the impact of changes to the Programme Director is required to assess if this is significant or a coincidence.

The analysis of the Verbatim Comments demonstrates that the educational background and industry experience of the teaching staff does impact greatly on levels of student satisfaction. Students appear to value staff with some industry experience, friendly approachable staff and staff that can provide a good experience in the classroom. Negative influencers appear to be related to a perceived poor experience in the classroom due to problems with communication, ‘just reading’ from the PowerPoint slides, lack of industry experience that is evident in delivering the module content. Other significant factors relate to the enthusiasm of staff for their subject area, quality of the interaction with students and if the member of staff is approachable and accessible to the students. Evidence from the literature (Gibbs 2004) suggests that the personal interaction between the lecturer and the students is a major factor in the student’s perceptions of the teaching, the assessment and general satisfaction with their experience of higher education. Further investigation is required to explore the factors influencing the perception of the teaching and the lecturing staff and how this relates to their student expectations.

This ‘local’ experience also seems to have the largest impact on how the student reports their perception of services that are provided centrally by the university rather than the School itself. This is demonstrated in matters such as the quality of the university estate in terms of teaching rooms, catering facilities, car parking availability and charges, the library and availability of space to work outside of the scheduled teaching sessions.