2009 Student Satisfaction Survey: Key Findings
Presented at the
Management Committee
19 May 2009
Professor George Subotzky
Executive Director: Information & Strategic Analysis
2009 Student Satisfaction Survey
• Key indicator of management and operational
service delivery & priorities for improvement
• 5th annual survey: allows tracking institutional
performance & service delivery over time –
particularly significant around 5-year reviews
• 5 Indices and composite USSI:
– General Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (GUSI)
– Unisa Registration Efficiency Index (UREI)
– Unisa Student Support Service Index (USSSI)
– Unisa Academic Performance Index (UAPI)
– Unisa Administrative and Professional Services
Index (UAPSI)
– Combine to form the composite Unisa Student
Satisfaction Index (USSI)
Scores of 5 Indices & Composite USSI, 2005-9
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
UAPSI
UAPI
(Admin &
USSI
(Academic) Professional (Composite)
)
GUSI
(General)
UREI
(Registration)
USSSI
(Student
Support)
2005
76.31
75.91
67.91
71.13
74.96
73.24
2006
62.37
73.3
66.77
69.47
71.79
68.74
2007
73.09
73.9
64.63
69.07
70.23
70.18
2008
71.68
64.07
63.13
67.53
75.14
68.31
2009
63.84
62.44
59.11
62.79
67.56
63.15
2008-9
-7.84
-1.63
-4.02
-4.74
-7.58
-5.16
2005-9
-12.47
-13.47
-8.80
-8.34
-7.40
-10.09
Overview of Main 1-year Trends: 2008-9
All indices down
• Composite Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (USSI):
down 5,16 points to an unprecedented low of 63,15
• General Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (GUSI):
down 7,84 points to 63,84
• Unisa Admin & Professional Services Index (UAPSI):
down 7,58 points to 67,56
• Unisa Academic Performance Index (UAPI):
down 4,74 points to 62,79
• Unisa Student Support Service Index (USSSI):
down 4,02 points to 59,11 – 1st time below 60 for any index
• Unisa Registration Efficiency Index (UREI):
down 1,63 points to 62,44 (following 9-point drop last year)
Overview of Main 5-year Trends: 2005-9
All indices down
• Composite Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (USSI):
down 10,09 points to an unprecedented low of 63,15
• Unisa Registration Efficiency Index (UREI):
down 13,47 points to 62,44
• General Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (GUSI):
down 12,47 points to 63,84
• Unisa Student Support Service Index (USSSI):
down 8,80 points to 59,11
• Unisa Academic Performance Index (UAPI):
down 8,34 points to 62,79
• Unisa Admin & Professional Services Index (UAPSI):
down 7,40 points to 67,56
Top 10 Satisfaction Items, 2009
2009
Items
Change of examination centre
Clarity on examination centre location where you will write
your examinations in 2009
Unisa Internet Website
Change of address
myUnisa e-learning environment
Account/balance enquiries
Clarity on method and process of payment
Information and availability of examination timetables
Statements of courses (modules) passed
Usefulness of assignments
Index
score
Rating
76.55
1
76.48
75.33
74.93
74.55
74.27
73.46
73.29
72.37
71.92
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bottom 10 Satisfaction Items, 2009
2009
Items
Index
score
Rating
Contact Centre (Call Centre)
49.76
1
Parking
51.70
2
Assistance and guidance from Help Desk/Ask Me’s
52.04
3
Curricula advice
52.27
4
Efficiency of student advisors
53.54
5
General organisation of the registration process
53.95
6
Efficiency of ‘Check Point’
54.00
7
Unisa Regional Office
54.12
8
Office of Experiential Learning (Work Integrated Learning – WIL)
54.33
9
Student Representative Council (SRC): National Executive Council
54.68
10
Items reflecting largest declines in satisfaction
between 2005 and 2009
Implications for Planning
• Along with other review & reflective sources, the annual
student satisfaction survey identifies areas for serious
attention in order to improve service delivery, success,
excellence, quality & relevance
• It therefore represents a key set of indicators of
institutional performance and improvement initiatives
• The 5-year longitudinal trends indicate a disturbing
steady decline in student satisfaction across all indices
• Clearly, the University has not responded adequately to
these indications over the years and has not been able to
effect the required changes in the operational areas
concerned in a coordinated and integrated way
Conclusion
• A hallmark of an effective learning organisation is its ability to learn
from its intelligence sources and to rapidly effect the strategic or
operational changes required – this is the role of actionable
intelligence
• The shorter the feedback loop, the more effective is the learning and
change/improvement process
• Within the integrated strategic management framework, these
insights must generate effective, concerted, integrated and
coordinated change/improvement efforts
Main Recommendation
To achieve an effective, integrated solution, the following 2 steps are
recommended:
1. The primary responsibility and process for managing the
improvement process must be confirmed
• Clearly, primary responsibility for this belongs to the DSPQA
• The process must integrate related initiatives, including:
– Quality Improvement Plans
– Ongoing monitoring & evaluation/organisational
performance management in relation to the IOP and 2015 SP
– Strategic project reviews
– Service excellence
– Risk management & internal audit initiatives
– It will also have to draw from other performance indicators
and sources of intelligence, such as the monitoring of student
complaints
Main Recommendation (2)
2.
Utilising these various sources, an annual Improvement Action Plan
is drawn up, comprising:
– Clear identification of the problem areas/issues
– Clear identification of the responsible operational units
– A clearly defined process of formally referring the problem
areas/issues to the operational units concerned
– This would include requesting the operational units to draw up
detailed improvement plans, with clearly specified internal
responsibilities, targets, performance measures and timelines
– These would be submitted to the DSPQA by a specified date
(prior to the finalisation of the IOP) for approval in terms of
planning consistency and practicability (adequate resources,
time and identified dependencies)
– Once approved, these would be integrated into the IOP which
would then be monitored and evaluated as part of the IOP
reviews