Q1 (2)

Maureen Brookes is currently Undergraduate Programme Director and Senior Lecturer in Marketing
in the Department of Hospitality, Leisure & Tourism Management. Maureen joined the department in
1995 after a long career in the hospitality industry. In 1998 she implemented a longitudinal survey to
assess hospitality student perceptions of their entire academic experience.
Vol. 2, No. 1.
ISSN: 1473-8376
www.hlst.ltsn.ac.uk/johlste
Evaluating the ‘Student Experience’: An
Approach to Managing and Enhancing Quality
in Higher Education
Maureen Brookes (meabrookes@brookes.ac.uk)
Oxford Brookes University
Gipsy Lane, Headington, Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK.
DOI:10.3794/johlste.21.27
 Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education
Abstract
This paper presents an argument for student evaluation of entire hospitality programmes or courses in
higher education. It reports on the approach undertaken within one hotel school to monitor the total
‘student experience’ and demonstrates the potential benefits of using this approach to aid quality
management and enhancement.
Keywords: student, evaluation, quality management and enhancement
Introduction
Student evaluation of teaching quality in higher education is a well-recognised practice and research
on the subject has been conducted for over seventy years (O’Neil, 1997). The merits of student
evaluation have also been well debated, with some academics arguing that students are not suitably
qualified to judge quality of teaching (see for example, Wallace, 1999) and others offering strong
support for the use of student evaluation for quality assurance purposes (see for example, Oldfield and
Baron, 2000; Murray, 1997). Within hospitality and tourism programmes, much of the recent
literature relates to the use of student evaluations of individual modules or units of study for faculty
and administrative purposes (see for example, Mount and Sciarini, 1999; Knutson et al., 1997).
However, where student feedback is used as a mechanism for quality assurance, there is also support
for student evaluation of entire courses or programmes of study in order to facilitate a more
comprehensive assessment (Wilson et al., 1997). This paper reports on such an approach taken within
the School of Hotel and Restaurant Management (since renamed the Department of Hospitality,
Leisure and Tourism Management) at Oxford Brookes University, England. It begins by discussing
the forces driving quality management processes in higher education and the methods employed by
the School to evaluate undergraduate programmes. The paper reports on a number of benefits of
incorporating student views on their broader educational experiences and concludes that this is an
essential part of a quality management and enhancement process.

Brookes, M. (2003) Evaluating the ‘Student Experience: An Approach to Managing and Enhancing
Quality in Higher Education.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 2(1), 17-26. 18
Managing quality in higher education
The massive expansion of student numbers and changes in government funding has put the issue of
quality firmly on the agenda of higher education institutions (Oldfield and Baron, 1998). With the
introduction of tuition fees in 1998, students began to view themselves as paying customers,
demanding value for money and the right to be heard (Spira, 1996). As in many other parts of the
world, the general public began to demand greater accountability and called for valid, reliable and
comparable performance data on teaching quality in higher education (Wilson et al., 1997).
In response to these forces, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher Education was
established to ensure all government-funded education is of approved quality, to encourage
improvements in the quality of education and to provide public information on the quality of
individual higher education programmes. Quality is assessed at subject level by peer review against
six aspects of provision: curriculum design, content and organisation; teaching, learning and
assessment; student progression and achievement; student support and guidance; learning resources;
and quality management and enhancement (QAA, 1997). As the results of these quality audits are
published, the QAA system provides a comparative indicator of the quality of higher education
provision that is necessary in a climate of greater accountability. The results from the most recent
audit for hospitality and tourism have recently been published. Given the increasingly competitive
environment in hospitality and tourism education, with both increased provision and declining student
numbers, these audit scores are very important to individual institutions.
The increasingly competitive environment has also led a number of higher education institutions to
monitor levels of student satisfaction (King et al., 1999). Measuring student satisfaction as an
indicator of quality is consistent with a total quality management approach (TQM). Wiklund and
Wiklund (1999) report that several universities are now adopting TQM and as a result, a customer
focus has become a core value for many. While the precept that students are customers is not
universally accepted (see for example, Wallace, 1999), there has been growing support for the use of
student satisfaction surveys as an indicator of teaching quality (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998).
Furthermore, Murray (1997) reports that the use of these surveys has led to measurable improvements
in teaching quality. As such, student feedback can be used as an effective tool for quality
enhancement. Harvey (1995) also advises that student satisfaction goes hand in hand with the
development of a culture of continuous quality improvement.
It has been argued that any quality management tool must serve two functions; one of accountability
and one of enhancement (Jackson, 1996). While the QAA approach serves the accountability
function, additional internal mechanisms are required to best serve the quality enhancement function.
Jackson (1996) argues that the function of enhancement is fulfilled when institutions are better able to
understand the strengths and weaknesses in their policies, practices and procedures. Soliciting
feedback from students on their entire learning experience enables this understanding to be achieved.
Furthermore, if used appropriately, it enables student views to be integrated into quality enhancement
decisions (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998).
Designing the ‘student experience’ survey
Established over fifty years ago, the School is one of the oldest providers of both undergraduate and
postgraduate hospitality and tourism education in the UK. The School has long been concerned with
quality management and enhancement and a number of sound, established mechanisms are in place.
Until 1997 however, there was little formal input from students on their evaluation of their broader
educational experience. With 25 per cent of the School’s student population from outside of the UK,
and more students entering the programmes with different educational backgrounds and experiences,
it became clear that we had to monitor our ability to meet the needs of this diverse student population
on a broader basis. By actively soliciting student opinions on their overall experience, the voice of
another stakeholder could be incorporated into a process of continuous quality improvement. A

decision was therefore taken to launch the ‘student experience’ where students would be asked to
assess the quality of their educational experience.
A review of the current literature on student evaluation and feedback enabled the author to make a
number of initial decisions regarding the methodological approach to be adopted. An investigation
into current ‘best practice’ followed, via interviews with other Schools within and external to the
University. A recent ‘themed audit’ conducted by the University into the use of student feedback was
beneficial at this stage.
From this early investigative work, it became clear that a survey method using self-completion
questionnaires would enable data to be collected from as large a sample of the student population as
possible, in a cost effective way (Finn et al., 2000). Harvey et al.’s (1997) Student Satisfaction
Manual and Ramsden’s Course Experience Questionnaire (1991) were used as guidance at this stage
to determine the style of the questions. However, quality criteria are related to specific situations
(Richardson, 1998) and therefore must be identified by students themselves (Oldfield and Baron,
2000; Aldridge and Rowley, 1998). Therefore, a series of focus groups were held with students to
help determine the content of the questionnaire. The decision was taken that one section of the
questionnaire would determine student perceptions of curriculum design, organisation and content,
and a second section would assess student perceptions of the quality of teaching and learning; student
support and guidance; and learning resources and facilities provided within the School and University.
These sections contained a series of statements identified as important to students, in a manner similar
to other student satisfaction surveys (see for instance, Aldridge and Rowley’s (1998) review, although
a much shortened version is used). This design also enabled us to bring our internal process more in
line with the external quality control requirements of the QAA. As the questionnaire is measuring
student attitudes or perceptions, a quantitative Likert-type scale was selected as appropriate (Clark et
al., 1998). Student perceptions and feelings are recognised as valid criteria for student feedback
(Fraser, 1991). In order to monitor how the needs of particular student bodies are met, questionnaires
are designed to include demographic data such as age, gender and country of origin, as well as
programme and mode of study.
King et al. (1999) argue that student feedback only provides a snapshot of student opinion and,
therefore, the real value of student feedback lies in its use in longitudinal studies (Wilson et al., 1997).
Given its purpose as a tool for quality management and enhancement, a longitudinal approach
(Oppermann, 1997) was adopted in order to provide comparability and benchmark performance across
different cohorts of students and over time.
However, in order to be an effective quality enhancement tool (Jackson, 1996), the questionnaire also
had to provide richer data to facilitate decision-making on quality enhancement. For this reason,
questionnaires include another section comprised of a series of open-ended questions. Students are
asked to provide feedback on different aspects of their experience and how they believe improvement
could be achieved. This section is also used to investigate any current student issues identified by
student representatives and to obtain feedback on actions taken as a result of previous surveys.
It was next necessary to determine the best time to administer the survey. This issue is particularly
important for our School due to the fact that students join programmes at various entry points.
Sciarini et al. suggest that formative feedback is more in line with a continuous quality improvement
process which seeks to ‘add value to student learning experience’ (1997:37). However, the value of
summative feedback in quality assessment is also recognised (O’Neill, 1997). It was decided
therefore, that these approaches could be combined effectively in the design of the ‘student
experience’. As a result, three different self-completion questionnaires were developed that could be
administered to different cohorts of students at different times of the academic year and as they
progress through their programmes of study. First year students are surveyed in the first term of their
programme to determine their initial perceptions of their experience and to help identify ways in
which we can improve their induction and integration into the School and University. Students who
are studying at advanced level, but not in their final year of study, are surveyed in the second term,
about halfway through their programme. Graduating students are surveyed in the final academic term

of the year to assess their perceptions of their entire experience of studying within the School and at
Oxford Brookes University. All three surveys are administered each academic year.
A pilot study was conducted and, as a result and after further consultation with student
representatives, the questionnaires were altered to allow for some variability across the three
questionnaires, but with consistency across the different cohorts surveyed in order to enable
benchmarking. Table 1 below, gives an example of the first section of the questionnaire for first year
students.
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means ‘definitely disagree’ and 5 means ‘definitely agree’, circle your responses to
the following statements.
Section 1: Effectiveness of Curriculum Design, Organisation & Content
[extent disagree (1) -
agree (5)]
The criteria for acceptance on the programme were made clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5
The aims and objectives of the programme are clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5
The standard of the work expected of students is clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5
The amount of effort required by students was made clear from the start. 1 2 3 4 5
The majority of modules so far are reasonably challenging. 1 2 3 4 5
There is a wide choice of modules available to choose from. 1 2 3 4 5
I understand the role of my personal tutor. 1 2 3 4 5
I plan to make effective use of my personal tutor during my programme of study. 1 2 3 4 5
Staff from the School were very helpful during induction week. 1 2 3 4 5
I feel that I made the right choice of programme to study. 1 2 3 4 5
I understand the learning outcomes for each module I am currently taking. 1 2 3 4 5
It has been easy to meet other students on the programme. 1 2 3 4 5
Table 1: Survey of First Year Students (Stage 1)
The second section of the questionnaire however, is standardised across all questionnaires as indicated
in Table 2 below.
Please rank on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest, the quality of the following:
Section 2: Perceived Quality of Experience [rank 1(low) - 5 (high)]
Teaching & Learning 1 2 3 4 5
Accommodation 1 2 3 4 5
Teaching rooms 1 2 3 4 5
Administrative Support - School 1 2 3 4 5
Administrative Support - University 1 2 3 4 5
Personal Tutor System 1 2 3 4 5
Catering Facilities 1 2 3 4 5
IT facilities 1 2 3 4 5

Library Resources 1 2 3 4 5
Sports/Leisure Facilities 1 2 3 4 5
Table 2: Survey to all Cohorts of Students
The final qualitative section, by its very nature and purpose, alters across different surveys. Examples
of the types of questions asked of graduating students are included in Table 3.
1. How would you describe the atmosphere in the School?
2. In your opinion, are there any ways that support to students could be improved,
a) within the School?
b) within the University?
3. If the School received additional funding, where do you think the money should be spent?
4. Are there any additional modules you feel should be added to the programme?
5. Were there any times that you have felt under excess pressure? If yes, could you describe the cause of the
pressure?
6. Would you recommend the course to a friend?
7. How would you describe the ‘student experience’ in the School?
Table 3: Survey of Graduating Students: Qualitative Feedback
Assessing the ‘student experience’: the process
Harvey et al. (1997) recommend following a clear set of procedures in order to ensure student
participation. All surveys are conducted during the fourth teaching week of each term. Compulsory
modules or programme-wide student meetings are used in order to capture the views of a greater
percentage of the student population. Non-teaching staff administer the survey and discuss its
importance for quality improvement with students on each occasion. In order to facilitate cross-
tabulation of results against different student bodies and longitudinally, both quantitative and
qualitative data are analysed through descriptive statistics and cross tabulation using SPSS.
Qualitative answers are coded using a post-defined (Miles and Huberman, 1994) method that calls for
one researcher to manually develop a number of numerically coded categories based on frequency of
occurrence. Recognising the potential bias in this system, check-coding takes place; a process that
also provides a good reliability check (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Findings are presented at the Undergraduate Programme Committee meeting in week 6 of each term,
where student representatives provide further insight and increase the reliability of the findings.
Appropriate recommendations are discussed in consultation with student representatives and, where
further investigation is deemed necessary, it is usually done through the use of focus groups facilitated
by a researcher employed outside of the School. A full written report with recommendations is
presented for approval the following week at School Board of Studies, the committee responsible for
all programme decisions. Figure 1 depicts the process followed for the ‘student experience’ and how
the findings are used to inform decision-making.
Areas of concern outside the School remit are passed on through appropriate university-wide
committees. The full report is then made available to students before the end of the term in order to
‘close the feedback loop’. Harvey et al. (1997) suggest that this is a vital process for successfully
involving students in quality management and we believe it demonstrates our commitment to taking
student feedback seriously. As such, the report is posted electronically on the school intranet and
manually on the student notice boards. In addition, student representatives are asked to further
disseminate the results of the survey and the resulting actions undertaken.

Assessing the ‘student experience’: the findings
The first ‘student experience’ survey of 104 graduating students was conducted in June 1998. Forty-
four students completed the questionnaire, representing 42 per cent of the graduate student population.
The quantitative results from the first survey indicated a generally positive perception of the quality of
their experience. For instance, over 90 per cent of respondents rated the quality of teaching and
learning, library resources, and sports and leisure facilities as above average (3 or higher). In
addition, over 85 per cent of respondents felt they had achieved the aims and objectives of the
programme and were adequately prepared for a career in the hospitality industry. Over 90 per cent felt
that the modules studied were reasonably challenging. The qualitative section of the survey indicated
that 86 per cent of the respondents would recommend the course to a friend and the most frequent
responses given to describe their experience within the School were “friendly”, “welcoming”,
“interesting” and “challenging”.
Although one survey only provides a snapshot of student perception (King et al., 1999), it enabled us
to pinpoint a number of areas for improvement. By comparing student ratings for the various criteria,
it was clear to see where students felt there was need for improvement. For example, only 44 per cent
of respondents considered that there was a reasonably wide choice of modules available to choose
from. Module choice was subsequently improved by increasing the availability of resource-based
modules to all three terms of study in the academic year. Subsequent ratings improved and the latest
survey indicates that 80 per cent of respondents now feel there is a wide choice of modules available.
Other enhancements of provision for students as a result of the survey include changes to the
induction programme, a re-induction programme for returning intern students and increased
SURVEY UNDERTAKEN
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
REPORT TO UNDERGRADUATE
PROGRAMME COMMITTEE
ACTIONS AGREED AT
BOARD OF STUDIES
FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS
ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED
RESULTS MONITORED
FINDINGS &
ANALYSIS
FURTHER
INVESTIGATION
Figure 1: Implementing the ‘Student Experience’

availability of associate lecturers. To date, 13 ‘student experience’ surveys have been conducted; four
with first year students, four with continuing students and five for graduate students. The sheer
number of surveys conducted to date and the way they are monitored across different cohorts prevent
the detailed presentation of all findings within the context of this article.
However, it is still possible to demonstrate how the longitudinal design of the ‘student experience’ has
further enabled us to enhance areas of our provision. One such area is that of the personal tutor
system. Personal tutors offer guidance and support to a set number of students assigned to them on
academic, personal and pastoral matters. The overall ratings for the quality of the personal tutor
system were generally high in early surveys. Mean ratings of quality were between 3.2 and 3.5 (out of
5) and the mode achieved either 4 or 5. Over the first five surveys, the percentage of respondents
ranking the personal tutor system as above average varied between 68 per cent and 85 per cent.
However, further analysis revealed there was some disparity in the student rankings. In one survey
almost 30 per cent of respondents ranked the personal tutor system as 2 or below, despite the
acceptable mean achieved, and this was further supported by the qualitative data. After reporting these
findings and discussing them with student representatives, a decision was taken to investigate personal
tutoring further. Subsequent focus groups revealed that while some students took full advantage of
the system on offer from the start of their academic careers, developed a good relationship with their
personal tutor, and thus ranked it highly, others failed to make use of the system for a variety of
reasons and therefore rated it poorly. Many students simply wanted to see more of their personal
tutors, but perceived them to have limited availability. This finding is consistent with other research
reports on personal tutoring (see for example, Rose, 1996).
As a result of these focus groups, a more proactive approach to personal tutoring has been
implemented within the School. In order to try and get students into the habit of seeing them
regularly, personal tutors initiate contact on a regular basis from the beginning of a student’s academic
career, in conjunction with the development of personal progress files. Students are encouraged to
meet their personal tutors to discuss their academic performance and investigate ways to improve their
approach to learning. In a meeting with personal tutors during induction, the role of the personal tutor
is clearly explained and students are given a progress file that contains a schedule of meetings with
their tutor for the entire year. They are also advised that they can request further sessions as they see
fit. A clearer system of office hours has also been developed with tutors available for five hours each
week at different times and days of the week and these are posted up to three weeks in advance. This
system is explained to students during induction and in the programme handbook. The results of the
subsequent ‘student experience’ surveys suggest that the new approach is perceived as an
improvement, (with the mean rating up slightly and ranging from 3.6 to 4 and the mode of 5 regularly
achieved). Over the last eight surveys administered, between 82 per cent and 86 per cent have ranked
the personal tutor system as above average and the percentage of students rating the system as 2 or
below has fallen to under 10 per cent for all but one of the surveys. The qualitative data also supports
this improved perception of the quality. The longitudinal nature of the ‘student experience’ will
enable us to continue to monitor the effectiveness of the new system. This example highlights the
importance of using qualitative research methods to validate questionnaire responses (Lucas, 1999).
In addition to its purpose as a quality enhancement tool, a number of other benefits have emerged
from the approach taken to evaluating the ‘student experience’ that have a broader, yet still positive
impact on the School. One of these is the development of closer working relationships with the
central providers of other university support services. For instance, comments made by students on
library provision have resulted in a more proactive student approach by the Subject Librarian, and
greater collaboration with academic staff on recommended student reading and secondary research
training for students. Computer Services have also taken note and have recently requested that a copy
of each survey be forwarded to their department for their own quality management purposes. This
closer co-operation can only improve the overall experience of students.
The process undertaken for disseminating the survey results to students has also proved beneficial. As
students progress through their programme of study, they can see the difference their feedback has

made to their educational provision, further supporting the arguments for formative feedback in
quality improvement. The response rates continue to be high and have grown from the first survey at
42 per cent of the graduate population to a usual figure of around 70 per cent of the student cohort.
Students also make the effort to complete all sections of the questionnaire fully, rather than suffering
from the often reported ‘questionnaire fatigue’. Furthermore, by taking the surveys seriously,
students’ critical evaluation skills - key skills required of graduates - are enhanced. Richardson
(1998) also argues that increased analytical ability is a benefit of student evaluation. The process
also encourages all faculty and staff members to become more reflective practitioners. Overall, the
findings further support Harvey et al.’s (1997) argument to close the ‘feedback loop’.
The final benefit relates directly to the ability of the School to compete effectively in a crowded
marketplace. Students consistently describe the School as “friendly”, “helpful”, “supportive” and
“rewarding”. These positive comments made by our students, as well as the percentage of students
who would recommend the programme to a friend are regularly posted on our website for all potential
students to view and are used in the School’s promotional literature. In essence, they are word of
mouth recommendations by those deemed to be in a trusted and authoritative position; current
students.
The ‘student experience’: a tool for quality enhancement
The ‘student experience’ survey is now firmly embedded within the School’s academic calendar.
Student response rates continue to be high and the benefits derived from the process have proved to be
wider than anticipated. Despite predominantly positive feedback and high ratings by the students,
these evaluations have enabled us to fine tune aspects of policies, procedures and practices, and
thereby enhance the quality of our provision. While quality assurance procedures should continue to
draw on a range of processes and expertise, students are clearly key stakeholders who can provide
valuable and reliable data to inform quality improvement decisions. Using student evaluations to
regularly monitor the comprehensive ‘student experience’ has proved to be an effective and essential
component of the quality management and enhancement process in our School and the positive impact
has been far reaching.
However, there are arguably improvements that could be made to further enhance the process. For
instance, it would be helpful to solicit graduate views of their experience after taking up employment
in a manner similar to that of Purcell and Quinn’s (1996) graduate survey. This research, also
undertaken within our School, sought to clarify good practice in achieving the fit between hospitality
management education and industry requirements. Such an approach would enable respondents to
look back and evaluate the whole of their programme in relation to the industry skills and knowledge
required in their current positions. More sophisticated statistical analysis might also prove beneficial,
especially if the survey is expanded.
Despite these limitations, the ‘student experience’ has been seen to make a positive contribution to
our School and has therefore been rolled out to postgraduate programmes of study. Whether it will be
rolled out further across the University remains to be seen. What is interesting to consider is whether
the survey should be rolled out across other hospitality programmes and institutions to provide a
vehicle for external benchmarking.

References
Aldridge, S. and Rowley, J. (1998) Measuring Customer Satisfaction in Higher Education. Quality
Assurance in Education 6(4), 197-204.
Clark, M., Riley, M., Wilkie, E. and Wood, R. C. (1998) Researching and Writing Dissertations in
Hospitality and Tourism. London: International Thompson Business Press.
Finn, M., Elliott-White, M. and Walton, M. (2000) Tourism & Leisure Research Methods. Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Fraser, M. (1991) Quality Assurance in Higher Education. London: Falmer Press.
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (1997) Research Methods for Managers. London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Ltd.
Harvey, L., Plimmer, L., Moon S. and Geall V. (1997) Student Satisfaction Manual. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Harvey, L. (1995) Student Satisfaction. The New Review of Academic Librarianship 1(1), 161-173.
Jackson, N. (1996) Internal Academic Quality Audit in UK Higher Education: Part 1 - current practice
and conceptual frameworks. Quality Assurance in Education 4(4): 37-46.
King, M., Morison, I., Reed, G., and Stachow, G. (1999) Student Feedback Systems in the Business
School: A Departmental Model. Quality Assurance in Education 7(2): 90-100.
Knutson, B., Schmidgall, R. and Sciarini, M. (1997) Teaching Evaluations in CHRIE Member
Schools: Perceptions of the Students. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 9(1), 30-32.
Lucas, R. (1999) Survey Research. In B. Brotherton (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Hospitality
Management Research. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 77-96.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. California: Sage Publications.
Mount, D. J. and Sciarini, M. (1999) IPI and DSE: Enhancing the Usefulness of Student Evaluation of
Teaching Data. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 10(4), 8-13.
Murray, H. G. (1997) Does Evaluation of Teaching Lead to Improvement of Teaching? International
Journal for Academic Development 2(1), 8-23.
Oldfield. B. and Baron, S. (2000) Student Perceptions of Service Quality in a UK University Business
and Management Faculty. Quality Assurance in Education 8(2), 85-95.
Oldfield. B. and Baron, S. (1998) Is the Servicescape Important to Student Perceptions of Service
Quality? Research Paper, Manchester Metropolitan University.
O’Neil, C. (1997) Student Ratings at Dalhousie. Focus 6(5), Halifax: Dalhousie University, 1-8.
Oppermann, M. (1997) Longitudinal Studies - A Methodological Clarification. Journal of Hospitality
& Leisure Marketing 4(4), 71-74.
Powell, A., Hunt, A. and Irving, A. (1997) Evaluation of Courses by Whole Student Cohorts: A Case
Study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 22(4), 397-404.
Purcell, K. and Quinn, J. (1995) Careers and Choices in Hospitality Management: An International
Survey. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.
Quality Assurance Agency (1997) Subject Review Handbook October 1998 to September 2000,
December.
Ramsden, P. (1991) A Performance Indicator of Teaching Quality in Higher Education: The Course
Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education 16(2), 129-150.
Richardson, K. E. (1998) Quantifiable feedback: can it really measure quality? Quality Assurance in
Education 6(4), 212-219.
Rose, C. (1996) The Greenwich Experience. Teaching News 42(Spring), Oxford: Oxford Brookes
University, 5-7.
Sciarini, M., Gross, L. and Woods, R. (1997) Outside Input: The Risks and Returns of Evaluating for
Instructional Improvement. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 9(1), 37-40.
Spira, L. (1996) What do we mean by quality? Teaching News 43(Summer), Oxford: Oxford Brookes
University 5-6.
Veal, A. J. (1997) Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide, 2nd
edn. London:
Pitman Publishing.
Wallace, J. (1999) The Case for Students as customers. Quality Progress 32(2), 47-51.
Wiklund, P. S. and Wiklund, H. (1999) Student Focused Design and Improvement of University
Courses. Managing Service Quality 9(6), 434-443.

Wilson, K., Lizzio, A. and Ramsden, P. (1997) The Development, Validation and Application of the
Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education 22(1), 33-53.

Q1 (2)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (14)

Similar to Q1 (2)

Similar to Q1 (2) (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Q1 (2)