The Course Experience Questionnaire Symposium 1998

Terry Hand
Kerry Trembath

The University of New South Wales

99/2

July 1999

Evaluations and Investigations Programme Higher Education Division Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs

©Commonwealth of Australia 1998
ISBN 0 642 23899 5
DETYA No. 6358.HERC99A

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without permission from AusInfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Legislative Services, AusInfo, GPO Box 84, Canberra ACT 2601.

 The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

1. Background

1.1 Background to the 1998 CEQ Symposium

The fourth Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) Symposium, CEQ98, was held at The University of New South Wales from 29 to 30 September 1998. Academics, managers and general staff involved in teaching, performance evaluation, planning, institutional research, student services and public relations, representing all the Australian universities, four New Zealand universities, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA), the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC) and Australian Centre for Educational Research, attended the symposium. The primary purpose was to review the CEQ and seek views on its continued relevance and future as a key higher education performance indicator for improving teaching performance and accountability.

The programme was designed to present a balanced view of current thinking in regard to the CEQ. The title of the symposium ‘Where to from Here’ was chosen by the Symposium Steering Committee because it was of the view that a crossroads had been reached in terms of the future of the CEQ. The Steering Committee thought that it was an appropriate time to pause and give careful consideration to such issues as, how much emphasis should continue to be placed on the CEQ? Should it be maintained in it present form? Should the collection be expanded to include a wider range of students? Should aspects of the collection be changed? How much time and money are we prepared to spend on collecting and maintaining the data?

It was apparent from feedback received by the Graduate Careers Council of Australia (GCCA), which is responsible for managing the CEQ collection, that there was no clear consensus among universities about the value of the CEQ and how it should be developed in the future. The programme for CEQ98 provided the opportunity to for these issues to be addressed and for such a consensus, if there was one, to emerge.

Professor Michael Koder, Chair of the GCCA Management Group, opened the Symposium and chaired the final session. In the opening plenary session, presentations were made by Professor John Niland, Vice-Chancellor of The University of New South Wales and President of the AVCC , and Mr Michael Gallagher, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. These presentations set the context for the ensuing programme. Other plenary sessions focused on particular aspects of the development and utilisation of the CEQ and were presented by a broad range of CEQ stakeholders. Speakers from RMIT University; Queensland University of Technology; The University of Western Australia; University of Technology, Sydney; The University of New South Wales; and The University of Melbourne presented institutional case studies which generated a great deal of interest and discussion.

The plenary sessions presented system-wide and DETYA perspectives of the CEQ; identified different ways universities are using the CEQ and the importance that individual universities placed on the CEQ data; explored the CEQ methodology and recent developments; discussed ways of complementing the CEQ data; and considered the possibility of enhancing the content and presentation of the CEQ. Key issues included: the future of the CEQ as part of a national database; changing the focus of the CEQ from its original concentration on learning outcomes to measuring performance and quality assurance; the use of CEQ data for establishing ‘league tables’; and the possibility of introducing a teaching quantum linked to resourcing along the lines of the research quantum.

The parallel sessions provided people with the opportunity to participate in discussions related to their particular areas of interest. A summary of the points arising from these sessions was considered in the final plenary session.

In the final plenary session the ideas from the preceding sessions were drawn together and participants were invited to comment on them. The focus for this session was identifying a way forward to further develop and refine the CEQ. It was clear from the discussion that institutions place a high value on the CEQ as an instrument for monitoring institutional performance and that the national collection should be maintained.

Professor Michael Koder who presented a synthesis of the ideas flowing from the Symposium in the final session and chaired the ensuing discussion, informed participants that the GCCA Survey Management Group would be considering the ideas and discussing them in focus groups before seeking comments from the university community.

This report contains the written papers that were received from the presenters to CEQ98. Not all of the presenters provided a written paper. Some provided only a synopsis of their presentation and where this is the case it has been included in the report.

2. Introduction

2.1 Introduction to the 1998 CEQ Symposium

Welcome to the second Symposium on the Course Experience Questionnaire. I welcome you this morning to on behalf of the Graduate Careers Council of Australia (GCCA), the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) and the host institution The University of New South Wales (UNSW).

This particular Symposium is supported financially and in other ways by DEETYA, by the many people who have put the programme together, and those who have taken the time to come here today. In addition, support for the Symposium has been received from various groups, which have a direct interest in university teaching, e.g. the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations and Committee of University Teaching and Staff Development. I believe that all Australian universities and some from New Zealand are represented here today and that presence underlies a very strong commitment to improving the quality of teaching in universities.

You may recall that the CEQ emerged from work on performance indicators undertaken by the late Russell Linke on behalf of the AVCC and DEETYA. In the 1990s, when that report was being considered, there was no national database of any significance on teaching performance indicators and there were very few studies that provided benchmark data of acceptable validity.

Those that were interested in the quality of teaching were aware that this area was not well served. There was an acknowledged need to measure the quality of teaching, or at least to measure some of the relevant attributes of teaching but people could see no simple solution to the problem of collecting these data. The CEQ has provided a partial solution to the problem but I don’t think any of us believe that it is the only solution, rather, it is just one of the components that can be used to assess the quality of teaching. More importantly, the introduction of the CEQ has brought with it a growing focus on the need to assess the quality of teaching which is, I believe, the key to the search for best practice in teaching.

The discussion at this Symposium is not merely about the CEQ as an instrument but goes beyond to the notion of best practice in the fullest sense. It is also worthy of note that the CEQ has brought the quality of university teaching into the public domain and the community has expressed a keen interest in this knowledge. Frankly, they have a right to know.

I would like to reiterate that the CEQ represents an element, one component of the measurement of the quality of teaching. It would be a mistake to equate the measurement of student satisfaction with teaching quality. Indeed, in some ways, satisfaction and mediocrity are comfortable companions; those who accept that ‘challenge’ is part of the learning environment are less comfortable with satisfaction.

Over the next two days we hope to take stock of innovation and initiative that has been stimulated by the introduction of the CEQ and other instruments. The emerging postgraduate research course experience questionnaire is indicative of current innovation. Very importantly, as with the first Symposium which focused on ‘best practice’, we are talking about the instrument being owned by the higher education institutions and we are seeking information and ideas about the best way to shape the instrument to meet the changing needs of institutions.

Again, may I thank you very much for being here today and for your willingness to contribute to the deliberations that are going to occur over the next two days.

Download Full Report