The document summarizes the results of a university's first standardized module evaluation survey completed by undergraduate students. Some key findings: - Overall results from 4488 responses to 218 modules were positive, with mean ratings between 3.7-4.6 for individual questions. Students were most positive about teaching, supervision, and academic support. - The lowest rated questions asked about completing suggested readings and the sufficiency of library resources. Assessment feedback questions also received lower ratings. - Most departments' results mirrored the overall positive ratings, though some variation existed around resources. The survey process worked well but could be improved for future iterations.

1. Lawry Price Roehampton University
SERA CONFERENCE 2012 - November 21st/23rd November
Ayr Campus, University of the West of Scotland
“Student evaluations – making them work”
Summary
Any university’s success and reputation is dependent to a very large extent on its ability to deliver a
quality student experience. This paper reports on the main findings from a university’s first
standardised, institutional wide internal undergraduate module evaluation survey. The survey was
developed to build up a comprehensive picture of student’s satisfaction with their undergraduate
module experience. The original and first report related to autumn 2011 modules only while
subsequent spring and yearlong modules were analysed separately at the conclusion to the
academic year 2011/12.
This report therefore focuses on all the university-wide questions that used the five point rating
scale for autumn modules only. It also provides an overview of the process that took place to
conduct this survey and makes some suggestions for improvements for subsequent surveys.
Overall the results from 4488 responses (60% response rate) relating to 218 modules were highly
positive. Mean ratings1 ranged between 4.1 and 4.4 for the seven main question sections (table 1
below) and range between 3.7 and 4.6 for the individual questions. Students were particularly
positive about the teaching, supervision of their work and the academic support on offer during the
module delivery, with an overall mean rating for these areas of 4.4 out of 5. Students were less
satisfied with assessment and feedback and learning resources (both with a mean score of 4.1). The
question ‘I completed all the suggested reading’ was by far the lowest rated question in the survey
with only 46% of students agreeing with this comment.
Table 1: Mean ratings for the seven main scaled question sections
Institutional mean ratings
Academic support during the module 4.4
Quality of teaching and supervision 4.4
Module organisation and management 4.3
Overall satisfaction with the module 4.2
Assessment and feedback 4.1
Learning resources relating to the module 4.1
Me and my module 4.1
1 2 Mean 3
ratings 4 5
____________________________________
1
The mean scores referred to throughout this report relate to un-weighted means. Un-weighted scores are the mean
ratings of modules as a whole so do not take account of module size.
1

2. Lawry Price Roehampton University
The process of the surveying the students worked generally well given it was the first time of
implementation but there were areas identified where improvements could be made and proposals
made for subsequent surveys. Survey data was made available to a range of stakeholders (including
Heads of Department), module convenors, programme leaders and individual lecturers at the
appropriate level of disaggregation for self-evaluation purposes.
Organisation of the Survey
The survey software chosen for hosting the module evaluation survey was Evasys, a system
maintained by Electric Paper, a company who are experts in student-related surveys. 32 questions
were asked covering the following areas:-
1. Me and my module
2. Quality of teaching and supervision
3. Assessment and feedback
4. Academic support during the module
5. The way the module was organised and managed
6. Learning resources relating to the module
7. Departmental specific questions
8. Overall satisfaction with the module
9. A free text section asking students what was good about the module and what could be
improved
Most questions gave the students the opportunity to agree/disagree with statements on a scale
from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree”. There was the additional opportunity for individual
departmental questions as well as a section for students to comment more generally. In order to
avoid the low responses typically associated with online questionnaires it was decided that the
survey would take place on paper during class time. A summary of the process for conducting the
survey is shown at appendix 1. A review of the overall process to take the survey took place in June
2012involving key stakeholders with the aim of improving the efficiency of the process for 2012/13.
The university’s Planning Department, in liaison with its Academic Office, identified the following
issues emerging out of this first institutional-wide survey:-
Awareness among academic members of staff about the process could have been greater.
Concerns were expressed from some academic staff on what the survey data would be used
for and how secure the data was.
Gaps in data on modules for example lack of up to date lecturer information meant
preparing data was time consuming.
Academic departments would benefit from clearer communication on what reports are
provided, to whom, at what level of detail and when.
Key proposals emerging out of this review:-
2

3. Lawry Price Roehampton University
A need for review of the overall process (which took place in June 2012)
A timeline of activities and broad outline of the process for 2012/13 would be sent out in the
summer period to all department contacts. By establishing time frames and informing
departments about the basic requirements and also a reiteration of the benefits of the
process, an increased sense of ownership of the project could be generated.
A series of road shows would be offered to academic departments with the aim of raising
awareness of the process as well as giving opportunities for questions. The university’s
Planning Department would consult on this with the established review group to see what
departments would like covered and then design the sessions accordingly in conjunction
with staff from the Academic Office and the Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit of the
University.
The privacy policies would be highlighted at the road shows and the document (appendix 3)
would be distributed before the start of the process.
A review of how to maximise accuracy of the module data would take place as part of the
overall project review.
A timeline of who received which reports and at what level of detail would be discussed at
the project review and subsequently communicated to departments.
Institutional Summary
Overall the results from 4488 responses, relating to 218 modules were highly positive. Mean ratings
ranged between 3.7 and 4.6 for individual questions. Students were particularly positive about
teaching and learning and academic support. ‘There were sufficient opportunities to participate and
ask questions’ was the highest rated question with a mean rating of 4.6 and 90% of respondents
agreeing to this question.
The question ‘I have completed the suggested reading’ was the lowest rated question of the survey
with only 46% of students agreeing with this. Only 58% of respondents agreed that ‘the library
resources relating to this module have been good enough for my needs’ and 57.5% agreed with the
statement ‘I have submitted a lot of my coursework online’. ‘Understanding the marking criteria
before I completed the assessment’ and ‘understanding how to improve my work from the feedback I
received’ both received mean ratings of 4, with 67.5% and 64.7% of respondents agreeing with these
statements respectively.
Key findings by Question& Department
The following summarises headline responses to individual questions by questionnaire theme.
Me and my module– the lowest mean rated question of the survey was for ‘I have completed all the
suggested reading’ with all but one department having this as their lowest mean score. Students
responded positively across all departments to attending sessions and tutorials associated, with 83%
agreeing with this question
3

4. Lawry Price Roehampton University
Overall satisfaction with the module– responses on overall satisfaction were favourable across all
departments. ‘Overall I am satisfied with the quality of the module’ had the highest mean
departmental ratings in this section, ranging between 4 and 4.5. A module’s applicability to
workplace was the lowest rated question with mean values between 3.8 and 4.
Quality of teaching and supervision– scores were highly positive in response to this question.
Students in all departments rated the question on ‘sufficient opportunities to participate and ask
questions’ the highest with departmental mean ratings ranging between 4.3 and 4.7. Levels of
satisfaction were high for all questions in this section with only one mean rating falling below 4.
Assessment and feedback– this section contained some of the lowest scores of the survey. Areas of
most concern for students were ‘I understood the marking criteria before completing the
assessment’, with departmental mean scores ranging from 3.6 to 4.2 and ‘I understood how to
improve my work from the feedback I received’ with departmental mean scores ranging from 3.5 to
4.2. The responses on online submission of coursework needed careful interpretation as some
coursework submissions are submitted on paper as well as online.
Academic support during the module–students responded very positively to this question,
expressing high levels of agreement with being able to discuss matters with lecturers. Mean scores
ranged between 3.9 and 4.5.
The way the module was organised and managed– students expressed high levels of satisfaction on
module organisation and management. Scores for the two questions in this section appear closely
related with mean scores ranging from 3.9 to 4.6.
Learning resources relating to the module – this question had the second lowest mean score after ‘I
have completed my suggested reading’. Out of this it was suggested that there would be value in
investigating whether the two responses were interrelated at module level. Library staff responded
by setting up to use the Evasys system to evaluate these findings. Mean ratings ranged more widely
in this section, indicating wider differentials in satisfaction between departments. Mean ratings for
‘the library resources relating to this module have been good enough for my needs’ range from 3.2 to
4.1 and ‘the moodle site has been good enough for my needs’ range from 3.6 to 4.3.
The remaining two questions were driven by individual Departments and specifically designed to
elicit key messages related to the student experience.The Departmental specific questions produced
results that were highly positive and provided key insights and feedback from students which, when
linked to the free text section(asking students what was good about the module and what could be
improved) were informative tools useful in the context of informing review, planning forward and
prompts for potential change to module content and delivery (with further comment regarding
resources to support learning included).
Separate evaluations and summary reports were produced for Heads of Department and those
responsible for Learning and Teaching. These focused on summaries of the module evaluations,
response rates and gave indicators as to how individual Departments compared to the university
results as a whole. It was re-emphasised here that this was first and foremost an “evaluating the
4

5. Lawry Price Roehampton University
module” process and certainly not an evaluation of the individual lecturer/module leader overseeing
delivery of the particular module.
Review and changes for follow on processes
A full review process followed the completion of this first round of completed autumn module
evaluations. Some key changes in operational matters were put in place for the spring period as well
as a confirmed commitment and accepted view that the same module evaluation template would be
used to maintain a consistency for the academic year in question.
The revised quest for even better response rates and therefore more detailed and accurate data to
emerge from the exercise was a key objective. To achieve this a further concerted raise awareness
campaign to reiterate and communicate purpose, value and worth of the activity was put in place for
students and staff alike – “buy-in” was deemed to be crucial for on-going success for all stakeholders
in the process. There was recognition too that the very careful planning that had been invested in
the project, over a long lead-in period (including a contained pilot exercise preceding full university-
wide implementation) had played its part in initial success. The need to finally go with what was in
place for an autumn module evaluation (to also meet the timescale originally planned)was a key
decision but also acknowledged potential shortfalls where specific data was lacking.
The outcome was that individual departments did indeed prosper from receiving data-rich feedback
on a scale not available nor experienced before and module leaders and designers were placed in a
position to fully utilise this accrued information and detail both for review purposes and future
planning. Ultimately the drivers behind students satisfaction were more pronounced, open and
transparent, the key aim of the project in the first place. Rather than wait for the results of NSS
(National Student Survey) and other related barometers to gauge student response about their
experiences, the university was now able to monitor this across the particular academic year in
question. The beginnings therefore of a culture of module evaluation had been established on
which to further build.
5

6. Lawry Price Roehampton University
Appendix 1
UNDERGRADUATE MODULE EVALUATION PROCESS FLOW CHART
LTEU and Planning Academic Office arrange
Planning extract module
design/agree print of standard
data from SRS
questionnaire questionnaires
Planning reconcile
module, lecturer and Timetabling provide Academic Office provide
timetabling information additional details on details of lecturers
and send to programme modules teaching modules
convenors to fill in gaps
Academic Office arrange Academic Office make
Planning upload modular for printing of packs for each module:
information into Evasys • questionnaires • Collate questionnaires and
and generate coversheets • cover sheets -differeent one per coversheets
for Academic Office. module • Put in A4 envelopes
Departmental Offices Academic Office distribute
Students complete
distribute questionnaires packs to departmental
questionnaire
to lecturers offices
Departmental offices Academic Office compile
Lecturer return completed
return completed completed questionairres
questionnaires to
questionnaires to and cover sheets and send
Departmental offices
Academic Office for scanning
Electronic Paper scan
Planning send individual coversheets/ forms into
reports out through the Electric Paper upload ScanStation
software to module responses into Evasys • Include checks
lecturers
Planning send summary
reports to Heads of
department and LTAG
chairs
6

7. Lawry Price Roehampton University
Appendix 2
PRIVACY POLICY – MODULE EVALUATION DATA COLLECTION & USE
(ACADEMIC STAFF)
PRIVACY POLICY
All students will be invited to complete an anonymous module evaluation form to
provide feedback on the learning experience in each module
Programme reps will invite students to contribute more informal feedback which can
be fed back to the programme team at a programme board meeting
Academic staff may invite students to share their views on a programme (for example
through focus groups)
Student feedback enables you to:
• reflect on teaching and assessment strategies in the light of comments
• evaluate the extent to which changes you have made are successful in enhancing
learning
• gain a richer picture of the student experience of a module
• ensure that student expectations of a module are accurate
• notify students of changes made in areas which have been highlighted as important
to them
• collect evidence of teaching quality at your discretion (to take to an appraisal meeting
for example or to use as evidence for promotion).
Disclosure of your Information
Surveys are anonymous. They are completed either online or in class. Staff teaching each
module are provided with overview data in graphical form. Heads of Department are
provided with department statistics.
Feedback to Programme Reps may be less anonymous and clearly programme reps are not
anonymous, however any reports to programme boards will make points in general terms so
as to protect individual students and staff.
Data retention
Module evaluation data will be retained securely for three years.
Changes to our Privacy Policy
Any changes we may make to our privacy policy in the future will be posted on the University
website
Contact: Director of Learning and Teaching Enhancement
Questions, comments and requests regarding this privacy policy are welcomed and should
be addressed to lteu@roehampton.ac.uk
7