Evaluation of MSc programmes: MSc in Healthcare Management ...
Evaluation of MSc programmes: MSc in Healthcare Management ...
Evaluation of MSc programmes: MSc in Healthcare Management ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Graduates’ experiences <strong>of</strong> their master’s programme were measured us<strong>in</strong>g both<br />
the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and a number <strong>of</strong> scales that comprise<br />
the Extended Course Experience Questionnaire (ECEQ). The purpose <strong>of</strong> the CEQ is<br />
to evaluate graduates’ perceptions <strong>of</strong> the quality <strong>of</strong> the courses they completed at<br />
college and the extent to which they perceive they have developed generic skills<br />
(A<strong>in</strong>ley and Johnson 2000, McInnis et al. 2001). The value <strong>of</strong> the CEQ is that it<br />
gives a broad perspective on outcomes by focus<strong>in</strong>g on graduates’ perceptions <strong>of</strong><br />
their courses rather than on students’ evaluations <strong>of</strong> particular lecturers. The<br />
CEQ also exam<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong>dicators <strong>of</strong> relative performance <strong>in</strong> higher education at both<br />
system and <strong>in</strong>stitutional levels (McInnis et al. 2001). Theories <strong>of</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formed the development <strong>of</strong> the CEQ (Ramsden 1991, A<strong>in</strong>ley and<br />
Johnson 2000). Its ma<strong>in</strong> strength is that the <strong>in</strong>strument enables the researcher to<br />
l<strong>in</strong>k students’ perceptions <strong>of</strong> the quality <strong>of</strong> a programme to learn<strong>in</strong>g outcomes. In<br />
test<strong>in</strong>g it has been shown to be a reliable and valid <strong>in</strong>strument. It has also been<br />
claimed to be valuable <strong>in</strong> ‘improv<strong>in</strong>g the quality <strong>of</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> universities and<br />
also for <strong>in</strong>form<strong>in</strong>g student choice, manag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stitutional performance, and<br />
promot<strong>in</strong>g accountability <strong>of</strong> the higher education sector’ (McInnis et al. 2001, pg.<br />
3). The CEQ <strong>in</strong>strument has undergone progressive ref<strong>in</strong>ement, development<br />
and test<strong>in</strong>g over the last twenty years culm<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the recent development <strong>of</strong><br />
an Extended Course Experience Questionnaire (Griff<strong>in</strong> et al. 2003).<br />
In its orig<strong>in</strong>al form the CEQ was found to be a reliable and valid <strong>in</strong>strument that<br />
identified the quality <strong>of</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> different academic departments and<br />
<strong>in</strong>stitutions (Ramsden 1991). However, the orig<strong>in</strong>al CEQ <strong>in</strong>strument was deemed<br />
to be lack<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> its ability to capture the wider aspects <strong>of</strong> the student experience<br />
<strong>in</strong> higher education <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the impact <strong>of</strong> a higher education programme on<br />
student outcomes. Therefore to comprehensively capture the experience <strong>of</strong><br />
students at university, <strong>in</strong> addition to the current scales on the CEQ (Good<br />
Teach<strong>in</strong>g Scale; Clear Goals and Standards Scale; Appropriate Assessment Scale;<br />
Appropriate workload Scale and Generic skills Scale), five further scales were<br />
recommended to extend the <strong>in</strong>strument. These new scales <strong>in</strong>cluded the Student<br />
Support Scale, Learn<strong>in</strong>g Resources Scale, Learn<strong>in</strong>g Community Scale, Intellectual<br />
5