Adendum: Module Evaluation Principles and Process
1. Module evaluation forms a core strand of the University’s ongoing enhancement of the student learning experience.
2. The University has in place a system that facilitates module evaluation being conducted consistently and meaningfully, in order to inform and support this ongoing enhancement. The software that is used to facilitate module evaluation is called EvaSys.
3. A Module Evaluation Steering Group meets with the purpose of undertaking discussion to guide and inform the ongoing development and implementation of the approach to module evaluation.
4. Module evaluation arrangements, including survey questions and process, are reviewed at least annually in order to ensure effectiveness and to appropriately take account of relevant internal and external developments.
5. Each module is to be evaluated every time it is delivered using the specified University module evaluation system. Faculties are required to make appropriate arrangements to ensure that this occurs.
6. Faculties must take action in response to feedback through plans identifying any agreed actions, timescales for implementation and lines of responsibility. Feedback and action plans are to be discussed and monitored by faculty Learning and Teaching Committees.
7. Faculties should use the feedback obtained through module evaluations to proactively enhance the student experience. As such, feedback may be used in relation to the quality of teaching, approaches to teaching, staff-student engagement, learning resources, facilities, student support etc.
8. While faculties should use module evaluation feedback to support and inform the ongoing enhancement of teaching, questions relating specifically and explicitly to named members of staff will not be included in questionnaires.
9. Students are informed via email by Academic Registry of their responsibility to provide constructive feedback. The email contains a link to information on module evaluation on the University website. While a student’s feedback might be critical of a module, it must not breach the Student Code or be otherwise inappropriate.
10. If a comment is received that a member of staff considers to be inappropriate, and the Dean of Faculty agrees, the comment will be referred to the Academic Registrar who will consider whether or not the entire response should be deleted. If this is the case, the comment will not be included in the feedback and the anonymous student will consequently lose their opportunity to have their comments on the module considered.
Question Setting and Survey Design
11. The content and layout of module evaluation questionnaires is managed by the Academic Registry team to ensure appropriateness in terms of length and question quality.
12. Four sets of questions are in place for use in respect to the following types of modules: standard: dissertation/research; placement/work experience; field work in place. This ensures that the University adopts a consistent approach to module evaluation across the institution. Question sets are developed by the Academic Registry in consultation with the Steering Group.
13. Questions are set on the basis of facilitating consistent and meaningful evaluation of the student experience at module level, as well as a direct comparison between modules of similar types.
14. All module evaluation questionnaires are completed by students on an anonymous basis and offer opportunities for free text comments to be provided as well as responses to rating scale questions.
15. The module evaluation system supports evaluations being undertaken in a range of ways such as online and paper questionnaire. The format of the questionnaire used within specific modules is to be determined only on the basis of the approach which is most appropriate to the mode of module delivery and the student group, and that which has the potential to achieve the optimal response rate.
16. In order to ensure that feedback is gathered from as many students as possible, the default minimum response rate target for each module evaluation is 60%.
17. Faculties must endeavour to achieve this response rate, and response rates are monitored by the Academic Registry who, where appropriate, liaise with faculties to discuss how improvement in response rates might be achieved.
18. However, feedback obtained from every module evaluation, regardless of response rate, should be used and considered by faculties.
Data and Results
19. The University is responsible for the effective and appropriate management of data collected for module evaluation purposes. As such, data is handled in a secure and confidential manner, and in line with Data Protection legislation.
20. The Academic Registry manages the data and results from module evaluations, using EvaSys and arranges for results to be made accessible to faculties.
21. Annex 1 outlines the arrangements for access to various elements of module evaluation data. The general principle used in determining access to results is that those responsible for a module, programme or for the faculty, and those who contribute to the teaching of a module should have access to all data.
22. Free text comments are included at the end of the reports for each module and are grouped by question number.
23. Those receiving module evaluation data are required to handle and use it in line with Data Protection legislation and guidance.
24. Raw data (excluding the responses to the open questions) is made available to faculties via the University’s Business Intelligence (BI) tool.
25. Sets of data relating to specified groups of modules can be prepared for faculties or divisions by the Academic Registry.
Annex 1 – Permitted access to module evaluation results
||Quantitative data / Scores
|Deans of Faculty
|Associate Deans of Learning and Teaching
Academic Registry, September 2016