simplifies how teaching is understood, reducing it to a figure that obscures important aspects of learning. This shift has accelerated over the past decade. With the introduction of learning analytics tools, student feedback has become increasingly quantified across higher education. Unit evaluations are now an indispensable part of delivery. Beyond programme- level measurements, national surveys are administered to thousands of students. Their results then feed into league tables used to compare universities. The same measurements also inform internal performance reviews, as well as accreditation processes. At the same time, advances in virtual learning environments (VLEs) have enabled universities to track behavioural data, such as how frequently students log into learning systems, which are often used as proxies for student engagement. As a result, student experience now sits alongside research output and financial indicators as core measures of performance. When measurements mislead Part of the appeal lies in the ability of numbers to create clarity in environments that are difficult to evaluate. This is particularly true for teaching quality and student experience, complex processes shaped by factors such as curriculum design and personal circumstances. Scores also simplify comparisons. Departments can track whether satisfaction has increased or declined, or how results compare with those of other programmes. For university leaders, such information offers an objective basis for decision-making. It can then be translated into priorities and improvement projects. However, the same qualities that make measurements useful can also make them misleading – and sometimes harmful. A score may fluctuate for reasons unrelated to teaching quality or programme design, such as assessment difficulty. An assessment designed to push students beyond their comfort zone can lead to a noticeable drop in unit evaluation scores. And once unit evaluations become the dominant way to monitor teaching, small fluctuations can be misleading. In addition, feedback collected during assessment periods often differs from feedback gathered after marks are released, when responses may reflect frustration. Treating these fluctuations as evidence of improvement or decline leads universities to react to data that is less stable than it appears and less meaningful than it seems. Yet, what is less visible is how such measures quietly reshape everyday conversations in universities. Meetings
Schools need to stop treating feedback as just another dashboard metric. True insight requires moving beyond data points to embrace open dialogue around the nuanced, lived experiences of their cohorts; the University of Bath School of Management’s Soheil Davari elaborates In search of satisfaction
U niversities are increasingly judged by numbers and student satisfaction surveys are at the centre of that shift. With scores feeding directly into league tables and rankings that determine institutional reputation, they influence how prospective students choose where to study and how universities present themselves to external audiences. In this context, student voice is often framed through these surveys in strategy documents and accreditation reports, signalling commitment and showing how feedback affects teaching. In practice, this relies on quantitative survey results being treated as indicators of teaching quality. However, a reliance on numerical indicators
22 Business Impact • ISSUE 3 • 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online