Introduction

Students' perceptions
of quality in higher
education

The discourse on quality in higher education

is extensive with, for example, numerous
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) codes of
practice that attempt to define quality and
then promote its enhancement. The authors
wanted to ascertain the key elements that a
sample of business studies, management,
education and nursing undergraduate and
postgraduate students considered to be
essential for high quality education. As
recipients of higher education, it was their
perceptions of quality that were of interest.
Students' views on all aspects of their
higher education experiences are now being
widely canvassed and regarded as essential to
the effective monitoring of quality in
universities. Their views will form some of the
wide range of data that will be in the public
domain so that members of the various higher
education stakeholder groups have the
information to make judgements about levels
of performance in particular universities
(HEFCE, 2002; QAA, 2002).

Yvonne Hill
Laurie Lomas and
Janet MacGregor

The authors
Yvonne Hill is Head of Adult Nursing Studies at
Canterbury Christ Church University College, UK.
Laurie Lomas is Senior Lecturer in Higher Education at
King's College, London, UK.
Janet MacGregor is Head of Midwifery and Child Studies
at Canterbury Christ Church University College, UK.
Keywords
Quality, Students, Perception, Teachers, Performance

Methodology

Abstract

From a preliminary search of the literature,

there appeared to be very little empirical
research into student perceptions of quality in
higher education. Therefore it was not
possible to draw upon previous work to guide
the investigation. Thus the research design
was based on grounded theory. This is an
inductive approach which DePoy and Gitlin
(1994) describe as an integration of both
quantitative and qualitative strategies.
Although it is principally in the qualitative
domain, its main objective is to generate
theory, as its name suggests, and utilise the
constant comparative method. The purpose
of this method is not only to reveal and group
issues into categories, but also to explore the
diversity within the categories and any links
that might exist. Although only one question
was asked in the focus groups ``What does
quality education mean to you''? the groups
themselves honed their responses towards the
quality of the learning environment, and the
lecturer.
Grounded theory dictates that the sample
selection should involve those participating in
the social process under investigation
(LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 1998). This
sample consisted of six focus groups

This study aims to ascertain student perceptions of a

quality experience in higher education. The empirical
research made use of focus groups involving a range of
higher education students. The main findings are that the
quality of the lecturer and the student support systems
are the most influential factors in the provision of quality
education.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

Quality Assurance in Education

Volume 11 . Number 1 . 2003 . pp. 15-20
# MCB UP Limited . ISSN 0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/09684880310462047

15

Students' perceptions of quality in higher education

Quality Assurance in Education

Volume 11 . Number 1 . 2003 . 15-20

Yvonne Hill, Laurie Lomas and Janet MacGregor

Data

comprising pre- and post-registration nursing

students, two diploma in management studies
groups and a group of postgraduate certificate
in learning and teaching students, all
undertaking courses at the university college.
Whilst it is recognised that a larger sample
group could have been sought from a wider
student population, the groups chosen
represented the academic disciplines in which
the authors work. These student groups were
also considered to have a good insight into the
question under investigation. More
importantly, it was thought that the three
disciplines might view quality education
differently and offer varying insights into the
phenomenon.
Focus groups were considered to be the
most appropriate method for this type of
research as many students were likely to feel
more comfortable voicing their opinions in
the company of friends and colleagues. These
groups also provided a forum for individuals
to reflect on, and react to, the opinions of
others. Parahoo (1999) supports the use of
focus groups in grounded theory and suggests
that underlying conflicts and disagreements
can be uncovered which were previously not
known to the researcher or to some of the
group using this method.
The method of data analysis within
grounded theory is a cyclical process that
involves collecting data, analysis and theory
generation until the grounded theory becomes
formally related to, and incorporated with,
existing knowledge (Crookes and Davies,
1998). Each group's data were analysed using
the constant comparative methods as
developed by Strauss and Cobin (1990),
where it was compared and contrasted with
all the other groups' data to form a ``bigger
picture''. Emerging patterns from each data
set were coded according to the categories,
compared with existing theory gleaned from a
literature search and then reduced, refined
and subsequently expanded by other data
collected from the total sample. Validity and
reliability were addressed by the three
researchers meeting at every stage to ensure
that important parts of the data were not
being overlooked or categorised
inappropriately.
Ethical issues were addressed by inviting
participants to take part in the focus groups,
giving them the option to withdraw if they felt
uncomfortable and making the results
available for their further scrutiny to
agree accuracy.

The data were collected from focus groups by

the authors, who used the question, ``What
does quality education mean to you?'' The
comments were collated and collapsed to
themes. Four themes emerged in relation to
what students perceived quality education to
be. The themes are presented in order of
importance to the student groups.
(1) Quality of the lecturer
Delivery in the classroom. Students appreciated
lecturers who knew their subject, were well
organised and were interesting to listen to.
Student comments:
.
``Teaches at the right level so that
we understand''.
.
``Well prepared and presented sessions''.
.
``Well organised, sequence of
content evident during the course''.
.
``Knowledge of new developments
and research in the area''.
.
``Ability to transmit enthusiasm for the
subject''.
.
``Stimulating and interesting''.
Feedback to students during the session and in
assignments. Students appreciated lecturers
who were flexible in delivery of the subject
and were sympathetic to their individual need
for success.
Student comments:
.
``Flexibility in order to meet individual
learning needs''.
.
``Approachable''.
.
``Encouraging and inspiring in both
written and oral feedback''.
.
``Constructive and positive''.
.
``Consistent, clear information which is
reviewed and developed''.
Relationship with students in the classroom.
Students appreciated lecturers who were easy
to be with and helped them to learn.
Student comments:
.
``Good communicator, interactive with
students''.
.
``Good facilitator of debate and
discussion''.
.
``Supportive lecturer who does not make
you feel stupid''.
.
``A light touch, who can have a bit of
fun''.
.
``Can encourage risk taking and creativity
in the group''.
16

Students' perceptions of quality in higher education

Quality Assurance in Education

Volume 11 . Number 1 . 2003 . 15-20

Yvonne Hill, Laurie Lomas and Janet MacGregor

(2) Student engagement with learning

The students valued a curriculum that was
related to their worlds but broadened their
horizons.
Student comments:
.
``Flexible curriculum that took account of
the student group experience''.
.
``Appropriate content to course''.
.
``Allowed students to challenge practice
when linking theory to the `real world'''.
.
``Assignments relevant to workplace''.
.
``Going away with more than I came
with''.
.
``Being introduced to new perspectives''.
.
``Use of sound, up to date evidence''.

and multidimensional and requires

examination at institutional, departmental
and individual levels (Elton, 1998).
It has been argued that many of the factors
contributing to high quality education are
related to particular teaching and learning
styles. The empirical work of Lammers and
Murphy (2002), who studied the delivery of
sessions in a range of academic disciplines in a
US university, indicated that lecturers had a
role in giving information. However, the
research indicated that they do not necessarily
stimulate thought, change attitudes or
develop behavioural skills that are necessary
for complex interactions essential in higher
education. Effective higher education, they
argue, involves the appropriate blend of
physical factors such as the course
characteristics and classroom arrangement
and ``instructor factors'' such as enthusiasm,
expertise and teaching style. Many of the
students in the sample made the point that
they highly valued lecturers who were
encouraging, constructive and positive and
transmitted enthusiasm for their subject (1,
all three bulleted points).
Other key ``style'' factors which are crucial to
the complex interactions of higher education
are considered to be democratic participation
and transformative, collaborative and critical
learning that values and encourages diversity
(D'Andrea and Gosling, 2001). Again, the
students made mention of the effective
lecturers who were adept at facilitating debate
and discussion and who were also supportive
(1, final bulleted point).
Andreson (2000) also emphasises the
importance of these interactions and stresses
the students' engagement with the subject
and the passion and enthusiasm conveyed to
them by the lecturer. This passion and
enthusiasm helps to demonstrate to students
that the lecturer cares about them and that
there is concern about their intellectual
growth. However, there are worries amongst
many academics that the increase in student
numbers in higher education (Gibbs, 2001),
with the consequent greater use of e-learning
and resource-based learning, will adversely
affect the student/lecturer relationship. This is
because it is considered to be far more
difficult to impart enthusiasm and passion
through a computer programme than it is
with face-to-face contact (Nixon et al., 1998).
Andreson (2000) and Nixon et al. (1998)
also argue that the nexus between teaching
and research is highly influential. Research

(3) Social/emotional support systems

The students found support from college
support systems, their peers and families.
They wanted to be surrounded by a positive
atmosphere that valued learning.
Student comments:
.
``Student support unit''.
.
``Child care satisfactory''.
.
``Part time accepted''.
.
``Course valued by workplace''.
.
``Network of other students on the
course''.
.
``Shared experiences from workplace
learn from each other''.
.
``Other students motivated to be on the
course and achieve''.
(4) Resources of library and IT
Very few students mentioned resources as
important in quality education. This was a
surprise as these resources are readily
available in this university college.
Student comments:
.
``Readily available library and IT
services''.
.
``Wide range of information sources''.

Discussion
(The numbers and/or letters in the text refer
to the categories in the data section.)
Learning and teaching styles
When considering the quality of teaching in
higher education, one needs to resist the
temptation of seeking simplistic and single
dimensional classifications, rankings and
explanations. The notion of quality is not a
simple one; rather it is problematic, contested
17

Students' perceptions of quality in higher education

Quality Assurance in Education

Volume 11 . Number 1 . 2003 . 15-20

Yvonne Hill, Laurie Lomas and Janet MacGregor

provides an added dimension to teaching and

allows the development of a collaborative
relationship between lecturer and students
within a learning community. In such a
community the subject is therefore more
likely to be accessible and transparent to the
student. The Institute for Learning and
Teaching (ILT) promotes the development of
learning communities, it is in fact one of its
five professional values (ILT, 2001). In their
work with enrolled nurses in higher
education, Hill and MacGregor (1998)
similarly found that students are greatly
supported by those lecturers who are an
integral part of their learning experiences and
who actively collaborate in the learning
process. Specific references to the importance
of lecturer/student interaction were made and
how students welcomed lecturers who were
``easy to be with'' and who helped them to
learn (1, final bullet point). Morton-Cooper
and Palmer (1993) argue that students
particularly value traits of responsiveness and
trustworthiness in their lecturers.
Rowland et al. (1998) reject the notion of
an automatic synergistic relationship between
teaching and research, arguing that they do
not necessarily complement each other. They
identify a reconceptualisation of the role of
academic staff with an increasing separation
of research and teaching. This has been
largely due to differential funding and an
emphasis on research and teaching as two
distinct and unrelated functions. This
dichotomy has developed through the
financial imperative of achieving the highest
possible research assessment exercise scores
and, on the other hand, the exhortations of
staff development and education
development units for staff to improve their
teaching skills. Interestingly, there were no
direct references by students to the value of
research, or otherwise, to lecturers in their
teaching, nor to its impact on the student
experience.
A very large proportion of the students'
comments could be categorised under the two
most popular headings of ``quality of the
lecturer'' and ``student engagement with
learning'' and this demonstrates how highly
they rate the importance of teaching (1 and
2). Elton (1998) regards high teaching quality
as quintessential to excellence in higher
education. He argues that there has to be
change in attitudes amongst certain
academics who believe that their main task is
to profess their discipline. Such academics

consider that they are professors or lecturers

rather than teachers or facilitators of learning.
Elton believes that, first, teaching involves
adequate and appropriate proficiency in
organisation, presentation, assessment and
evaluation. Having gained competence in
these areas, the journey towards teaching
excellence then involves the development of
dimensions of individual excellence such as
empathy, self-reflection, innovation and
pedagogic and subject research. He argues
that a fundamental prerequisite for teaching
excellence is a trained teaching profession.
Social/emotional support systems
The group of students in the empirical study
identified seven areas of support as necessary
for a quality education experience (3). The
most frequently identified was a student
support unit (3, first bulleted point). Many
students appear to enter higher education
(HE) poorly prepared to expand their
knowledge base and experience new
challenges as the widening access initiative is
operationalised. This need for support in the
transition from school/further education
colleges (FE) to HE was investigated by
Rickinson (1998), who studied the histories of
15 first year students offered counselling for
poor performance in a bid to relieve them of
their psychological stress. After three years it
was found that they had all succeeded in their
degree courses. Rickinson suggests that the
help they received to adjust and adapt to new
challenges enabled them to take back control
that they had temporarily lost. He asked
whether vulnerable students ever sought help
or whether they just carried on until problems
emerged. It would be interesting to know how
many should receive counselling help in our
student groups, the quiet individuals or those
who identified the student support unit but
did not see themselves as likely candidates.
That the support unit was identified
demonstrates that it is accepted as a resource,
but Rickinson would suggest that to be
available is not enough. He encourages
teaching staff to be more proactive and seek
out weak students before they fail. Locally,
lecturers advise students who are performing
poorly to ask for help, but the voluntary
nature of attending the unit means that many
access help only when they stumble at
important hurdles in their programme and
need extensive remedial input.
Two other items (3, sixth and seventh
bulleted points) identified by many students
18

Students' perceptions of quality in higher education

Quality Assurance in Education

Volume 11 . Number 1 . 2003 . 15-20

Yvonne Hill, Laurie Lomas and Janet MacGregor

were the need for shared experiences and

learning with motivated members of the class.
El Awari (2002) studied over 400 nursing
students accessing a variety of modules in
order to determine satisfaction with their
education experience. He looked at module
interest, stimulation and relevance, module
operation and module team. One question
(Q11) showed his students also valued
seminars small enough for all to contribute. It
is this small group work that Larson (2000)
points out that is a vital experience for the
young to develop their internal locus of
control that will enable them to make the
links with the workplace, talk to each other
outside of the lesson and build their coping
skills to meet new challenges. In part 2 of El
Awari's (2002) study, support is found for
Hill and MacGregor's (1998) work on the
experiences of part time nursing students, in
that small groups are valued and sub-groups
defended by their members to ensure
learning. One variable in El Awari's study was
age, where older students showed more
satisfaction than younger colleagues. He
suggested that they had a better earlier skill
training in writing and had the motivation of
the ``last chance'' to develop a career.
However, Hill and MacGregor (1998)
suggest that the mature part-time student
may have more complex reasons for higher
motivation such as changing family roles and
relationships. El Awari also noted that mature
students were more assertive and did not shy
away from one-to-one contacts/discussions
with lecturers and wanted a ``deep'' approach
to their learning in classroom sessions.
Perhaps older students have learnt coping
skills from life experiences that Larson (2000)
explains could be nurtured in those that start
to fail. The present push to provide more
curriculum delivery through large group
lectures will have to be tempered with
ensuring the availability of small seminar
groups, otherwise more students who have
difficulty adjusting to HE will be lost.
The educational experience, Goldenberg
and Dietrich (2002) argue, must be evaluated
more broadly than just behavioural outcomes.
This sample of students described the need
for a positive atmosphere that goes beyond
the need of a well-structured lesson and
pleasant learning environment. In addressing
their psycho-social needs together with their
intellectual stimulus and physical comfort we
see more of the humanistic/educative
approach that Goldenberg and Dietrich

recommend for a quality experience. They

explain how students want to find meaning
and significance in authentic personal
experiences. Our students supported this in
their statements about courses which should
be valued by the workplace and the shared
experiences from learning together allowing
them to become motivated to achieve (3,
fourth, sixth and seventh bullet points). It
seems that it is the quality of the interaction
that leads to the quality of the learning
experience where lecturer/student and
student/student relationships are the key.
This may be difficult to quantify but it is
immediately recognised by students who
experience it.

Conclusion and recommendations

The themes that emerged from this empirical
study show how students value their teachers
and that the quality of their educational
experience is influenced by teacher expertise
in the classroom. They wanted knowledgeable
and enthusiastic individuals who cared about
their learning and helped them as individuals
to move their knowledge forward.
The students also valued the institution
support networks. These networks must be
available and accessible for all students and
personnel must be proactive with teachers to
ensure those in need are supported.
Institutional managers should heed the view
that some small group teaching is vital for
student survival in HE.
Individual teaching excellence needs to be
promoted and then sustained by the academic
department and the institution through its
own resources and resources from the Fund
for the Development of Teaching and
Learning and the Teaching Quality
Enhancement Fund. These resources can be
used, for example, to establish teaching
awards that encourage innovative teaching
and pedagogic research (Gibbs and
Habeshaw, 2002). Rewards for lecturers who
are innovative and respond effectively to
changes in the higher education sector are
essential if excellence is to be maintained
(Elton, 1998). A university or higher
education college should aim to ``add value''
to its excellent lecturers so that they can more
easily continue to meet the needs of the
institution's stakeholders such as students,
employers and the government (Yorke,
2000). In-house learning and teaching
19

Students' perceptions of quality in higher education

Quality Assurance in Education

Volume 11 . Number 1 . 2003 . 15-20

Yvonne Hill, Laurie Lomas and Janet MacGregor

programmes can provide opportunities for

staff to reflect upon their teaching experiences
and general pedagogical issues and these
programmes can be supplemented and
complemented by discipline-specific
workshops which encourage the sharing of
ideas amongst the participants (Clark et al.,
2002). Indeed, this complementarity is
reinforced and supported through two
professional associations; the generic ILT and
the subject-specific Learning and Teaching
Support Networks (D'Andrea and
Gosling, 2001).
Academic staff often complain that they are
overwhelmed by ``red tape'' that prevents
them spending as much time as they would
like on teaching activities. A report of the
Cabinet Office's Better Regulation Task
Force pointed out that there was over
regulation in higher education with
duplicated audit and inspection procedures
(Better Regulation Task Force, 2002). The
General Secretary of the Association of
University Teachers (2002) claims that:

El Awari (2002), ``Student nurse satisfaction levels with

their courses: part 1 effects of demographic
variables'', Nurse Education Today, Vol. 22,
pp. 159-70.
El Awari (2002), ``Student nurse satisfaction levels with
their courses: part 2 effects of academic
variables'', Nurse Education Today, Vol. 22,
pp. 171-80.
Elton, L. (1998), ``Dimensions of excellence in university
teaching'', International Journal for Academic
Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp 3-11.
Gibbs, G. and Habeshaw, T. (2002), Recognising and
Rewarding Excellent Teaching, Open University
Press, Buckingham.
Gibbs, P. (2001), ``Higher education as a market: a
problem or solution'', Studies in Higher Education,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 85-94.
Goldenberg, D. and Dietrich, P. (2002), ``A humanisticeducative approach to evaluation in nursing
education'', Nurse Education Today, Vol. 22,
pp. 301-10.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
(2002), Information on Quality and Standards in
Higher Education (02/15), HEFCE, Bristol.
Hill, Y. and MacGregor, J. (1998), ``Support systems for
women in part-time study'', Journal of Further and
Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp 143-9.
Institute for Learning and Teaching (ILT) (2001), About the
ILT: Programme Accreditation, ILT, York.
Lammers, W. and Murphy, J. (2002), ``A profile of teaching
techniques used in the university classroom'', Active
Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 54-67.
Larson, B. (2000), ``Classroom discussion: a method of
instruction and curriculum outcomes'', Teaching and
Teacher Education, Vol. 16, July/August, pp 661-77.
LoBiondo-Wood, G. and. Haber, J. (1998), Nursing
Research: Critical Appraisal & Utilisation, 4th ed.,
Mosby, St Louis, MO.
Morton-Cooper, A. and Palmer, A. (1993), Mentoring and
Preceptorship, Blackwell, Oxford.
Nixon, J., Beattie, M., Challis, M. and Walker, M. (1998),
``What does it mean to be an academic? A
colloquium'', Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 3
No. 3, pp. 277-98.
Parahoo, K. (1999), Nursing Research, Principles, Process
and Issues, Macmillan, London.
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2002), QAA External
Review Process for Higher Education in England:
Operation Description (03/02), QAA, Gloucester.
Rickinson, B. (1998), ``The relationship between late
adolescent undergraduate student counselling and
successful degree completion'', Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 23, pp. 95-102.
Rowland, S., Byron, C., Furedi, F., Padfield, N. and Smyth,
T. (1998), ``Turning academics into teachers'',
Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 3, pp 133-41.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative
Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage, London.
Yorke, M. (2000), ``Developing a quality culture in higher
education'', Tertiary Education and Management,
Vol. 6, pp 19-36.

The burden of bureaucracy has reached

unmanageable proportions. Staff are increasingly
prevented from getting on with their jobs because
of the amount of red tape they have to deal with.
Whilst it is absolutely right and proper that
universities should be accountable for how they
use public funds, the scale of red tape is now
ludicrous (http://www.aut.org.uk/news).

References
Andreson, L. (2000), ``Teaching development in higher
education as scholarly practice: a reply to Rowland
et al. turning academics into teachers'', Teaching in
Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp 23-31.
Association of University Teachers (2002), ``Government
report is a damning indictment of university red
tape'', available at: www.aut.org.uk/news (accessed
8 August 2002).
Better Regulation Task Force (2002), Higher Education:
Easing the Burden, Cabinet Office, London.
Clark, G., Healey, M., Jenkins, A., Wareham, T.,
Chalkley, B., Blimhof, J., Gravestock, P.,
Honeybone, A., King, H. and Thomas, N. (2002),
``Developing new lecturers: the case of a disciplinebased workshop'', Active Learning in Higher
Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 128-44.
Crookes, P. and Davis, S. (Eds) (1998), Research into
Practice, Bailliere Tindall, Edinburgh.
D'Andrea, V. and Gosling, D. (2001), ``Joining the dots:
reconceptualised development'', Active Learning in
Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp 64-80.
DePoy, E. and Gitlin, L. (1994), Introduction to Research,
Mosby, St Louis, MO.

20