Benchmarking In Higher Ed: Using Data, Evidence & Student Evaluations To Drive Institutional Excellence

Professor Nnamdi O. Madichie: “Universities should avoid relying exclusively on student satisfaction scores when benchmarking teaching quality. Instead, student evaluations should be considered alongside peer reviews, classroom observations, curriculum assessments, evidence of student learning and other relevant indicators”

Higher education institutions operate in an increasingly competitive environment where teaching quality, research productivity, student experience, equity, graduate employability and institutional reputation are important indicators of success. To remain effective and relevant, universities must regularly evaluate their performance, identify areas for improvement and learn from institutions that demonstrate good practices.

Benchmarking provides a systematic approach to achieving these objectives by comparing institutional performance against relevant standards, sector averages and the practices of other institutions. According to Advance HE, benchmarking enables higher education institutions to understand how their performance compares with relevant groups, set targets, monitor progress and identify opportunities for improvement. However, benchmarking should not simply be about determining which institution performs better. Its primary purpose is to support evidence-informed decision-making and encourage institutions to pursue ambitious and sustainable improvements.

Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are one of the measures frequently used to assess educational quality and inform institutional decision-making. Nevertheless, questions concerning their reliability and validity highlight the need to interpret benchmarking data carefully and combine different forms of evidence when evaluating university performance.

This article revisits my initial proposition nearly two decades ago, where I interrogated the reliability and validity of “Students’ evaluation of teaching (SET) in higher education.” On reflection in the current higher education crisis environment, I reflect on the concept and importance of benchmarking in higher education, the role of data and evidence in institutional improvement, the application of student evaluations of teaching, and the limitations that universities should consider when comparing their performance.

UNDERSTANDING BENCHMARKING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Benchmarking is a systematic and continuous process of comparing institutional performance against relevant standards or other institutions to identify strengths, recognize performance gaps and implement improvements. In higher education, benchmarking can be applied to several areas from teaching and learning right through to international engagement. Benchmarking can be internal, when faculties or departments within the same university compare their performance; external, when institutions compare themselves with other universities or sector-wide, when institutional outcomes are measured against broader higher education standards.

The United Kingdom’s Advance HE encourages an aspirational approach to benchmarking. Rather than merely seeking to match the average performance of other institutions, universities should establish ambitious targets that encourage meaningful progress. An institution that performs above the sector average in student retention, for example, may still need to investigate whether particular student groups experience disproportionately high dropout rates.

Benchmarking should, therefore, be regarded as a mechanism for continuous improvement rather than simply a means of ranking institutions.

THE ROLE OF DATA & EVIDENCE IN BENCHMARKING

Reliable data and credible evidence are essential for effective benchmarking. Universities need accurate, consistent and comparable information to understand their performance, identify areas requiring intervention and make informed strategic decisions. Data can help institutions identify performance gaps, allocate resources, evaluate policies and monitor progress towards strategic objectives. For example, if a university discovers that its graduation rate is lower than that of comparable institutions, it can investigate possible contributing factors, including students’ academic preparedness, financial constraints, teaching approaches and access to academic support.

Advance HE also emphasizes that institutional data must be interpreted within its broader context. A favorable comparison does not necessarily demonstrate substantial progress, particularly when the benchmark itself is low or institutional performance has remained largely unchanged over time. Consequently, universities should examine both their relative position and their performance trends over time. They should also combine quantitative indicators, such as graduation rates and research output, with qualitative evidence obtained from students, academic staff, employers and other stakeholders.

This approach reduces the risk of making decisions based on isolated indicators and helps institutions develop a more comprehensive understanding of their performance.

BENCHMARKING TEACHING QUALITY & STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Teaching quality is a fundamental dimension of higher education. Universities need reliable ways to evaluate instructional practices, identify weaknesses in teaching and learning, and improve students’ educational experiences. Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used to obtain feedback on students’ perceptions of teaching effectiveness. These evaluations can provide useful information about clarity of instruction, course organization, engagement, assessment practices and the learning environment. However, the use of student evaluations as a measure of teaching quality raises important questions about reliability and validity. In my 2011 article “Students’ Evaluation of Teaching (SET) in Higher Education: A Question of Reliability and Validity,” I explicitly highlighted the need to critically examine whether student evaluations consistently measure what they are intended to assess.

Reliability concerns the consistency of a measurement, while validity concerns whether the measurement adequately represents the concept being evaluated. Student evaluations may provide valuable feedback about the learning experience, but they should not automatically be interpreted as definitive evidence of teaching effectiveness. For example, student ratings may be influenced by factors such as expectations, course difficulty, assessment outcomes, class size and response rates. A lecturer who teaches a challenging course may receive lower satisfaction ratings even when the course is academically rigorous and promotes substantial learning.

Therefore, universities should avoid relying exclusively on student satisfaction scores when benchmarking teaching quality. Instead, student evaluations should be considered alongside peer reviews, classroom observations, curriculum assessments, evidence of student learning and other relevant indicators. A multidimensional approach offers a more balanced basis for evaluating teaching effectiveness and identifying opportunities for professional development.

THE RELIABILITY & VALIDITY OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING

Let us look at it this way: Reliability, on the one hand, refers to the extent to which a measurement produces consistent results under comparable conditions. If student evaluations vary substantially across similar courses or between repeated measurements without an identifiable explanation, their reliability may be questionable. Validity, on the other hand, concerns whether the instrument measures the intended construct.

For instance, a questionnaire designed to assess teaching effectiveness should distinguish, as far as possible, between students’ perceptions of teaching and other factors that influence their satisfaction. A high student satisfaction score does not necessarily demonstrate that students have achieved the intended learning outcomes.

Similarly, a low score does not automatically indicate poor teaching. The interpretation depends on the questions asked, the students responding, the course context and the purpose for which the results are used.

CHALLENGES & LIMITATIONS OF BENCHMARKING IN HIGHER ED

Although benchmarking can strengthen institutional decision-making, several limitations require careful consideration. First, institutions differ in their missions, resources, student populations and academic priorities. Direct comparisons may therefore be misleading if these differences are ignored.

Second, ranking systems and performance indicators use different methodologies. A university may perform well according to one set of indicators but less well according to another. Rankings should consequently be interpreted in relation to their stated objectives and underlying measures. Third, an excessive focus on numerical targets may encourage institutions to prioritize easily measured outcomes over more complex aspects of educational quality, such as critical thinking, student development, academic integrity and social responsibility.

Fourth, data may be incomplete, outdated or inconsistently collected. These weaknesses can undermine the credibility of comparisons and result in inappropriate decisions. Finally, benchmarking identifies differences in performance but does not necessarily explain why those differences exist. Additional qualitative investigation may be needed to understand the factors influencing institutional outcomes. These challenges reinforce the importance of using multiple sources of evidence and interpreting benchmarking findings within their appropriate context.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE BENCHMARKING

To maximize the benefits of benchmarking, higher education institutions should adopt a strategic and evidence-informed approach. First, universities should develop comprehensive performance frameworks that integrate teaching and learning, research, student experience, equity, graduate outcomes and institutional management. This helps prevent overreliance on any single indicator. Second, institutions should strengthen their data collection and analysis systems to ensure that comparisons are accurate, consistent and transparent. Third, benchmarking findings should inform practical improvement strategies rather than being used exclusively for reporting or institutional competition. Fourth, student evaluations of teaching should be interpreted cautiously and combined with other measures of teaching effectiveness. This is particularly important when evaluation results influence high-stakes decisions about academic staff. Finally, institutions should adopt an aspirational approach to benchmarking. Being better than the average does not necessarily mean that an institution has achieved excellence. Universities should continue to question whether their current performance meets their educational objectives and whether further improvements are possible.

Benchmarking is an important instrument for promoting accountability, evidence-informed decision-making and continuous improvement in higher education. By comparing institutional performance against relevant standards and learning from effective practices, universities can identify weaknesses, establish ambitious targets and strengthen educational quality. However, the value of benchmarking depends on the quality of the data, the appropriateness of the comparisons and the way the findings are interpreted. Student evaluations of teaching illustrate this challenge – although they provide useful insights into students’ experiences, questions about their reliability and validity mean that they should not be treated as a definitive measure of teaching effectiveness. Universities should, therefore, combine quantitative indicators with qualitative evidence and use benchmarking to support informed, balanced and context-sensitive decisions.

Ultimately, benchmarking should not merely determine where an institution stands in comparison with others. It should help the institution understand how it can improve. By integrating reliable data, critical evaluation and ambitious improvement targets, higher education institutions can develop stronger teaching practices, improve student outcomes and pursue sustainable academic excellence.

Professor Nnamdi O. Madichie is an international scholar who has written extensively on the higher education sector, especially in the context of Africa and the Middle East. He is a Research Fellow at the Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria, South Africa. He is also Professor of Marketing at the Unizik Business School, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria. In addition to these, he is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (now Advance HE) for England & Wales, Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute, Chartered Institute of Marketing (both in the UK), as well as more recently a Fellow of the Association of Marketing Academic Practitioners of Nigeria. He can be contacted at n.madichie@unizik.edu.ng.

© Copyright 2026 Poets&Quants. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Poets&Quants, please submit your request HERE.