Development of the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)

Executive Summary

This project was jointly conducted by the Centre for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE) and the Assessment Research Centre (ARC) of The University of Melbourne. The primary objective of the project was to prepare an extended form of the existing Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) to include measures of the broader aspects of the student experience while maintaining the integrity of the existing instrument. The impetus for enhancing the CEQ is recognition of the diversity of the Australian higher education system and the value attached to the full variety of educational and social experiences of students.

The major steps in the project were:

Extensive consultation with the higher education community in preparing the conceptual framework guiding the development of new items and scales;
Formation of an Advisory Committee and regular meetings to assist with the direction of the project;
Drafting of potential new items and scales on the basis of feedback from the consultation process;
Pilot testing of new items and scales, including focus group interviews to investigate the ways in which students interpret the questionnaire and the items;
Modifying and testing items on a large representative sample of students in Australian universities;
Statistical analysis of the results and refining of scales;
Preparing recommendations for the Advisory Committee on potential items and scales.

The project was commissioned in response to growing concerns within the higher education community that important dimensions of the student experience were not tapped by the CEQ. These included the availability and quality of learning resources, in particular, information technology based services and resources, and the extent to which students were engaged in a community of learners. In addition, the consultations with the stakeholders raised the possibility of addressing lifelong learning outcomes they felt were essential for graduates. From these stakeholder meetings a number of similar themes emerged as the basis for the development of items. Contributors suggested a range of areas that might be addressed by an extended CEQ. These can be generally summarised as themes concerning:

resources and support systems contributing to student learning;
the quality of the wider student experience;
independence and autonomy in approaches to learning;
the perception of the course as an integrated whole;
levels of intellectual interest, challenge and stimulation;
the extent to which the course content is relevant and up-to-date;
"learning to learn" and the development of skills for lifelong learning.

The final five scales recommended for an extended instrument are:

Student Support Scale. Five items concerned with access to, and satisfaction with, key university facilities and services supporting student learning outcomes;

Learning Resources Scale. Five items primarily focussed on the appropriateness and effectiveness of sources of information and course materials;

Learning Community Scale. Five items on student perceptions of the social experience of learning at university;

Intellectual Motivation Scale. Four items that identify perceptions of the impact of the course in inspiring and enabling individuals, as well as a global item enabling students to evaluate their overall university experience;

Graduate Qualities Scale. Six items tapping qualities typically associated with higher order outcomes, especially attitudes and perspectives related to the relevance of the course for lifelong learning.

The existing CEQ items and scales were retained throughout the pilot testing to allow for comparison with existing time series data. The extended questionnaire, with the existing CEQ included in the normal form, did not appear to distort responses to the CEQ items and scales. The statistical analysis suggests that the additional scales do not have an impact on the existing CEQ scales. The new scales provide valid, reliable and stable estimates of student perceptions of the additional dimensions of the student experience.

The additional 25 items expands the instrument to 50 items altogether. While we are aware that this may affect the response rates in some institutions — an issue that was raised by stakeholders — we believe that some attention to the design of the instrument may counter questionnaire fatigue to some extent. However, the experience of the data gathering in this project suggested the need for some rethinking of the nature and timing of the survey process. This needs to be seen against the potential of the valuable information that can be collected by an expanded instrument to inform the sector and institutions on a wider range of student experiences.

Full Report

Return to the Top of the Page

Any comments or queries should be sent to: wwweditor@dest.gov.au

This page was last updated on Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Department of Education, Science and Training
Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia
DETST Web Site Privacy Statement
Disclaimer