Selling lemons? The relationship between learning and teaching information on university programme web pages and future students’ course satisfaction

Figures & data

Figure 1. The influence of students and marketing-related experts in determining L&T website information (based on Hosein & Rao, 2015; NUS, 2012; QAA, 2013a; QAA, 2013b; QAA, 2013c; Rao & Hosein, 2017).

Figure 2. Availability of L&T Information and Student Satisfaction Mediation Model.

Table 1. The seven included QAA L&T variables, description and their presence across 38 HEIs (adapted from Hosein & Rao, 2015).

QAA L&T variables	Description	Presence (%)
Class size (CLASS)	For various class types e.g. lectures, seminars, labs	20
Responsibility of student as partner (RESP)	Indication of the responsibility of the student in their learning	22
Support of learning (SUP)	How learning is supported by the availability of resources and/or within different types of class sizes	51
Type and amount of academic support (AS)	Type and amount of support available to students (e.g. reading of drafts, one-to-one tutorials, online support including virtual learning environments)	75
Expected contact time (TIME)	Amount of time student can expect to interact with the member of staff (could either be virtual or face-to-face)	36
Resources and facilities (FACIL)	Ways in which learning is supported by resources and specialist facilities	67
Staff qualifications (QUAL)	If staff qualifications are located on staff webpages (providing that the degree programmes have indicated who the staff teaching are)	46

Table 2. Standardised Total Effects of the Availability of L&T Information and Student Satisfaction Model across 36 HEIs.

	NSSAF15	NSSTC15	NSSAS15	NSSOverall15	NSSOrg15	AS	CLASS
AS	−.328	.000	−.756**	.733**	.000	.000	.000
CLASS	−.762**	.654**	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000
NSSOverall19	−.126*	.000	.085	.594**	.000	−.113*	.000
NSSAS19	.211	−.142	.560**	−.102	.000	−.140^+	−.217**
NSSTC19	.000	.511**	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000
NSSAF19	.731**	.000	.000	.000	−.504**	.000	.000
NSSOM19	.000	.000	−.253*	.000	.819**	.000	.000
RESP	.000	.000	.000	.000	.320*	.000	.000
TIME	.000	.000	−.554*	.856**	.000	.000	.000
QUAL	.000	−.577**	.000	.913**	.000	.000	.000
SUP	.366+	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000

Note: ** p < .01; *p < .05; +p < .1: p-values for the direct effects.

Table A1. The eight excluded variables, description and their presence across the original 38 HEIs (from Hosein & Rao, 2015).

QAA document/criteria	Presence (%)
Class size
Learning experiences of pedagogical approach	53
Resources and specialist facilities	67
Staff teaching
Proportion of staff with teaching qualifications	0
Staff qualification at programme level	43
Range of staff providing learning experiences	34
Student workload
Persons providing academic support	63
Methods of teaching, learning and assessment	91
Anticipated student workload	74

Table A2. Correlations between the 7 L&T variables for the 36 HEIs.

	CLASS	RESP	SUP	QUAL	AS	TIME	FACIL
CLASS	1
RESP	0.034	1
SUP	0.200	0.154	1
QUAL	−0.235	−0.237	−0.249	1
AS	0.235	0.025	−0.054	−0.385*	1
TIME	−0.095	.605**	0.095	−0.251	0.242	1
FACIL	−0.094	0.297^+	0.226	0.296^+	−0.073	0.306^+	1

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

+p < .1.

Table A3. Correlations between the 7 L&T variables and the 2015 and 2019 NSS for the 36 HEIs.

	CLASS	RESP	SUP	QUAL	AS	TIME	FACIL
NSSAS15	−0.042	0.364*	0.383*	0.227	−0.369*	0.306^+	0.153
NSSOrg15	0.235	0.349*	0.331*	0.250	−0.096	0.391*	0.212
NSSOverall15	0.120	0.304^+	0.390*	0.331*	−0.163	0.393*	0.148
NSSTC15	0.241	0.257	0.409*	0.177	−0.137	0.299^+	−0.030
NSSAF15	−0.372*	0.215	0.352*	0.248	−0.440**	0.256	0.139
NSSOverall19	0.078	0.225	−0.055	0.237	−0.290	0.146	−0.057
NSSAS19	−0.300^+	0.184	−0.078	0.146	−0.490**	0.017	−0.109
NSSTC19	0.125	0.192	−0.005	−0.014	−0.257	0.098	−0.295^+
NSSAF19	−0.424*	0.058	−0.124	0.075	−0.447**	−0.137	−0.104
NSSOrg19	0.111	0.243	−0.083	0.219	−0.034	0.258	−0.027

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

+p < .1.

Table A4. Correlations between the 2015 and 2019 NSS variables for 313 HEIs.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. NSSOveral15	1
2. NSSTC15	0.832**	1
3. NSSAS15	0.787**	0.762**	1
4. NSSOrg15	0.859**	0.741**	0.752**	1
5. NSSAF15	0.586**	0.643**	0.745**	0.576**	1
6. NSSOverall19	0.301**	0.209**	0.262**	0.306**	0.146**	1
7. NSSTC19	0.241**	0.300**	0.294**	0.221**	0.250**	0.783**	1
8. NSSAS19	0.086	0.081	0.262**	0.120*	0.298**	0.721**	0.752**	1
9. NSSOrg19	0.145*	0.062	0.144*	0.245**	0.170**	0.841**	0.687**	0.747**	1
10. NSSAF19	0.048	0.087	0.199**	0.092	0.429**	0.613**	0.738**	0.787**	0.694**

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

+p < .1.

Hosein, A., & Rao, N. (2015). An impact study of the guidance documents for higher education providers published by QAA in 2013. Quality Assurance Agency.

 Google Scholar

NUS. (2012). Student experience research. National Union of Students.

 Google Scholar

QAA. (2013a). Explaining class size. Quality Assurance Agency.

 Google Scholar

QAA. (2013b). Explaining staff teaching qualifications. Quality Assurance Agency.

 Google Scholar

QAA. (2013c). Explaining student workload. Quality Assurance Agency.

 Google Scholar

Rao, N., & Hosein, A. (2017). The limits of higher education institutions’ websites as sources of learning and teaching information for prospective students: A survey of professional staff. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 21(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2016.1227386

 Google Scholar