The great QILT cover-up is that everybody from pedagogues to publicists say its’ student experience survey comparisons are ignored because they are flawed.
In truth, people pour over the results for their close competitors, but hyper-local market intel means losing a sense of how similar institutions fare.
Enter Anja Pabel (CQU) and Mahsood Shah (Swinburne) crunched the numbers in the Student Experience Surveys 2017-23 for the four lobby groups and an amalgam of all others, reporting their findings in a new paper.
They found:
- The average for the Australian Technology Network, Independent Research Universities and Regional Universities Network lobbies and the “others” group averaged over 75 %, 2017-19, with the Group of Eight trailing. Covid hit the Go8 hardest.
- All groups bounced back in ’22, and exceeded pre-pandemics scores in ’23.
- On education quality experience the Go8 did worst during Covid the Regional Universities Network members best. In 2020 the Eight were over 10 % below the RUN members, but the gap closed in ’22,
- The groups underperformed on learner engagement with all taking a 10% hit 2019-2020, except for the Go8, which bottomed out at 40% satisfaction in 2020, 15% below its 2019 score, itself 10 % lower than the competition. All bounced back in 2023 to have higher ratings than in 2019.
Overall, Pabel and Shah suggest the data demonstrates domain strengths across the groups. Thus, the Go8 went into the pandemic on a low base for learner engagement and improved after. RUN led on learning resources – they know how to do distance education.
The ATN universities are strong in student support and skills development As for universities grouped together because they are not aligned, they had the highest collective rank for teaching quality and overall education.
While they do not state it, the authors have an idea that the imminent Australian Tertiary Education Commission could take up, to create “a step change in student experience.”
“Integrating SES data into performance funding and reward systems could catalyse a major shift, encouraging institutions to strive for excellence and productivity. Such funding would also support targeted professional development, reward quality teaching, and enhance the overall learning experience through dedicated staff and resources.”
