A
real action vs no real action,
150
Australian Graduate Survey (AGS),
83
Australian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE),
86–7
student feedback practice and use,
81–95
institutional-level use,
88–9
national initiatives that have influenced collection and reporting,
88
national or sector-wide use,
82–8
university practices and uses of student feedback,
90–4
courses/programmes of study, institutional experience,
93–4
Australian University Quality Agency (AUQA),
89
F
Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE),
108
real action vs no real action,
150
feedback to students,
155–7
students’ perspectives on feedback flyer,
156–7
managing student expectations,
151–5
students’ ownership of feedback process,
153–5
student feedback/action cycle,
147
First Year Experience Questionnaire (FYE),
87–8
S
module-level feedback,
14–15
Seashoal Lows University,
33–5
Staff Student Engagement Questionnaire (SSEQ),
108–10
Staff Student Engagement Survey (SSES),
108
Student Course Experience Survey,
93
student engagement,
107–8
Student Engagement Questionnaire (SEQ),
107–10
student engagement scales,
109
Student Evaluation of Courses and Teaching (SECAT),
17
Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET),
91
external and internal links,
110–14
cross-institutional results,
111–14
mean square fit statistics,
113
psychometric disconnect,
114
scale mean score relationships,
113
variable map from Rasch analysis,
112
faculty-level satisfaction with provision,
12
feedback/action cycle,
147
feedback to students,
20–2
improving university teaching,
61–76
Faculty of Engineering, Lund University,
66–9
influencing lecturers,
75
student evaluations,
69–72
institutional approach to unit evaluation,
136–7
unit evaluation online access complaints,
138
unit evaluation online response rates,
140
institute-level satisfaction,
9–11
Malaysian perspective,
49–59
educational competitiveness and ranking,
51–3
higher education performance,
52
Malaysian universities,
54–6
module-level feedback,
14–15
practice and use in Australian national and university context,
81–95
institutional-level use,
88–9
national or sector-wide use,
82–8
within-university practices and uses,
90–4
preoccupation with surveys,
7–9
programme-level satisfaction,
12–14
teacher performance appraisal,
16–17
assessment of instruments,
101–2
United States and global context,
29–44
academic programmes and instruction,
32–3
meta-profession model of faculty,
40–1
root causes of customer failures,
42
web-based or paper-based surveys,
119–29
administrative considerations,
121–2
survey response rates,
122–4
trend data analysis,
124–5
student feedback cycle,
50
Student Satisfaction Approach,
146,
158
Student Satisfaction Survey (SSS),
18–19
students as learners and teachers (SaLT),
51
Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ),
90–1
Students Evaluations of Educational Quality (SEEQ),
16–17
Survey Management Systems (SMS),
133,
137
Swedish Higher Education Act (2000),
62–3
U
institutional approach,
136–7
online access complaints,
138
online response rates,
140
Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM),
54–5
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM),
56–7
University Experience Survey,
85
University of Cambridge,
21–2
University of Central England,
147–8,
150
ease of locating books on shelves,
152
usefulness and promptness of feedback,
149
student satisfaction with availability of Internet,
148
University of Central England (UCE), ,
10,
50
University of Queensland,
90,
92
University Sains Malaysia (USM),
55