Covering Note: Student Feedback from Central Services

Background Information

 

Feedback is currently collected from students using 3 forms:-

 

 

As from May 2004, completed forms are returned to Professional Development by University Departments for reading by the Optical Mark Reader (OMR).  This function was previously carried out within the Quality Enhancement Unit. 

 

Raw data read by the OMR is transferred to Corporate Information Services (CIS).  This enables University Departments to download Departmental data in the form of Breakdown and Summary sheets for analysis.  Professional Development only have access to data which has been read relating to Central Services, that is, the University Library, Media Services and Computing Services.

 

Module Feedback

 

The Module feedback form (Appendix 1), enables Departments to obtain feedback from up to 3 lecturers teaching on a particular module and includes two questions relating to the Library, two questions relating to Media Services and one question relating to Computing Services.

 

Degree Programme Survey

 

The Degree Programme Survey form (Appendix 2), includes two questions relating to the Library and three questions relating to Computing Services.

 

Feedback for Projects, Placements, Dissertations, etc

 

The Projects, Placements and Dissertations (PPD) form, (Appendix 3), enables Departments to obtain feedback from up to 3 lecturers and includes feedback from the Library via two questions.

 

Analysis of Data

 

Once all data has been collected for each Semester, Breakdown sheets relating to Central Services are prepared by Professional Development (PD) – (Appendix 4).  Where a mean score for a specific question falls below 3, this is identified by PD and reported to the relevant Central Services Section for analysis.  This report states the Department Code, Module/Programme Code and the number of forms which have been read.

 

Following data analysis, reports are forwarded to PD from the University Librarian, Director of Media Services and Assistant Director of Computing Services.

General Comments

 

Following receipt of reports from Central Services (CS) for 2003/04 (particularly Computing Services and the Library), it has become apparent that on particular modules/programmes, certain questions may not be relevant.  In such cases, students are requested to complete the “Does not apply to me” column, but this does not always occur and results can therefore be distorted.  A number of University Departments address this issue by blanking out the irrelevant question from the forms prior to distribution to students, thereby ensuring a more accurate result.  This simple amendment can be made at the same time as individual Departmental questions are added to forms.

 

We have experienced a problem with Breakdown sheets re PPD feedback on CS.  Questions 11 and 12 on the PPD form (Appendix 3) actually relate to feedback from the Library and not Media Services and Computing Services as per the Module Feedback form (Appendix 1).  The Breakdown sheet has indicated negative results for the incorrect provider and have therefore been misleading.  On checking last year’s report from Computing Services, this problem was actually identified, but no action taken.

 

The report from Computing Services includes a Module Code MMC504, which  states  “no such module”.

 

Computing Services confirmed it would be helpful if Breakdown reports included the name of the module or programme and if they could be sent electronically.

 

Issues/Actions

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The improvements mentioned above will assist in reflecting more accurate data for Central Services to act upon.

 

Jo Wilkins                                                                                               January 2005

Professional Development

 

Secretary’s Note:  The feedback forms and sample breakdown sheet are not incorporated in the web version of this document.  Copies can be obtained from Jo Wilkins, Professional Development, on request.

 

 

LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY

DIVISION OF INFORMATION SERVICES AND SYSTEMS

UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

 

Library-related student module feedback, 2003-2004

 

1.      Overview

Question 8:    The Library has the books and resources I need for this module.

Question 9:    I was able to get help in the Library when I needed it.

 

It was very pleasing to see the number of modules attracting a mean score of less than 3.00 against one or both of these questions drop by nearly half (45%) in comparison with the previous year (82 as opposed to 149).

 

The reasons why modules attracted low scores were investigated in detail by the staff of the Faculty Teams - such investigation is part of the continuous liaison between academic departments and the Library.  I am satisfied that in every case of a score of less than 3.00, Library staff have studied the module reading list (if there is one); checked the provision of multiple copies of recommended texts (where appropriate); and contacted the academic staff teaching the module.

 

Where genuine problems were identified - and where academic staff responded to the invitation to discuss them - steps have been taken to improve matters.  Such steps include encouraging lecturers to add new material to reading lists; encouraging lecturers to add their reading lists to the online reading list system; purchasing additional copies of books; moving some copies of texts from long to short loan and vice versa; and arranging additional information skills training sessions.

 

As ever, general points are:

·        close liaison between teaching staff and Library staff is crucial: the Library will never have the ‘books and resources I need for this module’ unless it is told what they are

·        student expectations of Library support are often unrealistic, but growth in class sizes, without a corresponding increase in the Library’s financial resources, means that current demand for multiple copies cannot be met

·        students are often expected to buy key texts: failure to do so makes low scores for Q8 inevitable – especially for modules with large numbers of students

·        for some modules Library support is neither necessary nor appropriate

·        information skills training by Library staff can be very beneficial, and is an opportunity that should be more widely taken up by departments

·        low scores for Q9 can be related to perceptions about information resources, with insufficient copies of books interpreted by students as the Library being ‘unhelpful’.

 

2.      Summary of Faculty Team investigations

 

Engineering

 

21 modules in the Engineering Faculty had a score lower than 3.0 for either Q8 or Q9, the lowest being a score of 2.0.  This is an improvement on last year when 34 modules had a score of less than 3.0, and the lowest score was 1.0.  This year only 3 modules had a score of less than 2.5.  Due to time constraints, these were the modules we focused on.  In all 3 cases there were specific circumstances explaining the low scores.

AAE C007

Received a score of 2.29 on Q8.  Last year the score was 2.13 so some improvement has been made.  This is a project module with a general reading list consisting of one item: notes from the lecturer.  This year a group of AAE project finalists approached the Library directly to ask for training in library databases.  This was given and students were so pleased they said they’d go back to their Undergraduate Programme Director and ask for information skills training (IST) to be incorporated into the curriculum.  He has been contacted to re-iterate the need for IST.

 

Electronic and Electrical Engineering D013

Received a score of 2.0 on Q8.  This module is not running this year and there is no online reading list.   I contacted the LLO to see if he can shed any further light on this.  He said that “there were only two forms returned and one of those disagreed that the Library had enough books.  This is not statistically important.”

 

Chemical Engineering C047

Has a reading list containing one item, of which we have 7 copies, 3 LL, 2 OWL and 2 SL.  There are only 15 students registered on this module this year, so that gives a ratio of one book per two students.  The LLO has said he expects the course will change a lot in the future, so it may not be worth throwing more resources at the problem at this stage.

 

Science

 

21 modules had scores below the mean this year compared with 32 last year and 45 in 2001/02 representing continued improvement.

 

The Science Team analysed reading lists, multiple copy provision, loan histories for each reading list item as well as numbers of students enrolled on modules to identify probable causes for low scores to Q8.  Module leaders were contacted to determine whether they were aware of any reasons underlying the feedback scores.  In response to Q9, module leaders were asked to comment on the suggestion that students may require further tuition or assistance within the department or some other form of library instruction.  Supporting material on Learn was also promoted.

 

Human Sciences and Information Science

None of the low scoring modules was a repeat from the previous year.  Reading lists were re-checked and copy numbers increased where necessary.  E-mails were sent to the module owners relating to 4 low scores seeking further comments.  Earlier discussions on reading lists with 2 module leaders have already rectified problems and one (ISC060) is no longer running so no further action has been initiated for this module.

 

Mathematical Sciences

Reading list provision was checked for modules which fell below the mean on Q8 and, relative to the number of loans found to be satisfactory, with the exception of one out of print title.  A copy has been ordered via the out of print service and the existing copy moved to short loan.  Where use merits it a number of copies have been moved to One Week Loan status to increase access.  Loans of other reading list texts are very low.  Five responses to email requests were received.  One of these responses reflects the practice, common in the Department, of providing lecture notes and workbooks which often means students use of the Library as a resource is secondary.  Two confirm that the Library has sufficient materials, one will be recommending more books on stochastic analysis and one which has no reading list promises to create one shortly.

 

Chemistry and Computer Science

Three Chemistry and two Computer Science modules scored below average in the student feedback exercise.  None of these was a repeat offender.  As a department, Computer Science performed better this year than in previous years.  Apart from  COF180, which is a bought-in module taught by a lecturer in Physics, all the lecturers responded promptly when contacted, and reading lists have been checked with new titles being added to some lists and extra copies ordered where appropriate in each case to deal with the issues raised.  The lecturer currently in charge of CMP031 suggested that the students needed to make more use of online resources and plans to look into adding these to the online reading list before the module next runs.  In response to a low score for Q9 this lecturer will make Academic Librarians’ contact details more widely available to the students, inviting them to contact us at any time if  they have any queries or problems relating to the Library.

 

SS&H

 

From discussions it has become apparent that the Library received low scores due to very similar reasons as previous years.  These are

·        students had little need of library resources because of the way the module was constructed either because they were very practical based or project modules

·        the Library did not have enough multiple copies of texts

·        reluctance of students to purchase recommended reading

·        lack of one text book to support a specific module.

 

Business School

During 2003/2004 only 2 Business School modules received scores under 3.0 for Q8, compared to 14 last year.  This is an improvement and most probably due to the considerable amount of time spent identifying heavily used material, purchase of extra copies and changing of loan statuses.

 

BSB045 (Human resource management in service industries) has a comprehensive and up to date online reading list and the LLO is unsure why it received poor feedback.

 

BSP056 (Current issues in finance) had no online reading list and therefore we have not been informed of the students’ needs.  The lecturer involved has been contacted.

 

Economics

There were two modules that scored below three for Q8.  ECP223 (Comparative banking) has a comprehensive online reading list.  The lecturer believes the Library received a low score because of “limited availability of material at peak pressure points - i.e. pre-exam revision time and just before coursework submission.  I don't think many of the students phase this work over the semester.  Apart from this, nothing has come to my attention.”  The lecturer has suggested texts for multiple copy purchase.

 

ECP228 (Financial econometrics) has a brief but up to date online reading list.  Unfortunately the Internal examiner for this module is in Greece on National Service and I have not been able to contact him for feedback.

 

Geography

All first year Geography modules scored over 3.00 for both questions.  There were two second year and postgraduate modules which scored slightly lower.  03GYB328 (Physical geography field course) scored 2.85 for Q9. The nature of the module may be the reason: this is a practical module which chiefly concentrates on developing  field and laboratory-based research techniques in physical geography, with a week-long residential field course, and laboratory classes after the field course.

 

03GYB200 (Research methods: regression analysis, remote sensing & GIS)  scored 1.81 for Q8.  The module concentrates on geographical information systems with remote sensing and the global positioning system, and development of quantitative and IT skills, using of SPSS and ArcView.  There are now extra copies of books on GIS, but these were not there when the module feedback forms were filled in.  More texts on GPS, as well as more books on how to acquire, store, analyse and present findings from primary and secondary data in geography, will be bought.

 

03GYP001 (Practising human geography): score of 2.50 for Q9.  Teaching for this module was only 4 hours per week, and the module concentrated on training in geographical research methods, ways of writing up quantitative and qualitative data; plus research methodologies in the social sciences, which might indicate a degree of self sufficiency in their studying.

 

03GYP006 (Globalization, difference and diversity).  This  second semester postgraduate module scored over 3.00 for Q8, but only 2.67 for Q9.  Formal teaching time given to this module is only two hours per week, which might indicate student centred learning.

 

School of Art & Design

All first year modules scored over 3.00 for both questions.  There were several second year modules which scored over 3.00 for Q9 but slightly under 3.00 for Q8.  Each is studio based, developing working procedures and presentations.

 

04SAB509 (Design and material culture in the Twentieth Century): this first semester, second year module has been rewritten and restructured since 2002-2003, with a revised reading list, and the feedback scores have improved to over 3.00 for Q9 and nearly 3.00 (2.96) for Q8.

 

There are four modules which scored highly for Q9, but just scraped under 3.00 (2.88.to 2.93) for Q8.  04SAC217 (Textiles dissertation), 04SAA594 (Themes and issues in textile design), 04SAB522 (Fine art theories and histories).  Some of these modules did not have reading lists, and consisted of long term independent study, with work on studio based drawing and design projects

PIRES

7 PIRES modules received a score below 3.0, which is double the number in 2002-2003.  EUL105, 309, 311 and 312 are all modules on the University-wide language programme.  The module tutors say that the students are not set texts and have no reason to use the Library: the learning resources centre in the Department is their main resource.  Tutors ask students to use the n/a column on the feedback form, but cannot ensure that they do so.

EUC301 is the politics dissertation.   The LLO feels that the problem here is that the reading list is used to identify specialist books on subjects likely to be of interest to students but which are not relevant for other modules - in other words, there's no guarantee that students will find the list useful because they might not read up on the areas of anticipated interest.  Students work with supervisors and are instructed to ensure that materials are available in the Library before the dissertation title is approved.

 

EUC324: the tutor is still trying to find a good set text for this module and thinks that the poor response reflects the fact that there is no one text which covers the module.

 

EUC801: the tutor does not really understand the response but has agreed to look again at ordering additional and alternative material.

 

SSES

Two modules received a score below 3.  One of these modules is no longer running and no comment was received from SSES regarding the other.

Student Feedback re IT Facilities 2003-4

 

General Comments

 

It is suspected that the calculation of the scores is flawed, in that if there is no use made of IT facilities on a particular module or programme, then the “not applicable” score drags down the score.   In some cases IT facilities are provided by and within departments and not centrally, and again the inapplicability of the question is felt to be skewing the scores.

 

In the case of one type of form, question 12 refers to the library and not the IT facilities, so the results are misleading.  [1]

 

As several people need to be involved in the process of collating the response, it would be helpful if the feedback reports could:

(a)     include the name of the module or programme and

(b)     be sent electronically

 

Individual replies received are included below.

 

Semester 1 - Module Breakdown Sheet – “Computing Facilities”

 

Module

Dept

Score

Forms

 

C670

BS

2.96

40

Module is taught in Singapore and the students use facilities at PSB.  No central IT facilities used as part of this module.  We have been assured that the IT facilities the students use and adequate for their needs.  The Director of IT for the Faculty will hopefully visit the IT facilities during summer 2005 and will check the level of provision.

C007

DT

1.7

11

Low score because D&T use their own IT facilities and there was a technical problem with IT lab in D&T.  No central computing used on this module.  The problem was caused by fault with one piece of equipment.  The equipment has now been repaired.

C054

EL

2.18

25

Academic didn't get licensing issues resolved in time for the start of the semester, now fully resolved.

D001

TT

2.25

10

Q12 relates to library not computing.

 

Semester 2 - Module Breakdown Sheet – “Computing Facilities”

 

Module

Dept

Score

Forms

 

B067

BS

2.8

34

There is no IT content on this module.

B024

BS

2.5

10

The scores for this module were corrupted by a communications failure meaning that the module went seriously wrong.  This situation has now been rectified.

C002

TT

2.83

21

Shortage of software licenses, now resolved.

P065

CV

2.0

10

Computers are only used for word processing, there is no associated software.

B290

CO

2.11

69

Note that the majority of students answering the survey are using facilities based in Computer Science, not the central facilities. It is actually the normal reaction to the last minute hand in rush when they are all trying to get reports, programs and presentations/demonstrations ready for the Monday of week 11 of semester 2.  This module is designed to be extremely life-like and students are put under the sort of pressure that real-life practitioners face.  It is strongly pointed out to the students that the failure of computer systems at the last minute is likely (and has even been engineered in the past as part of this learning process) so that complaints about it will not be regarded as an acceptable excuse viz. assessment.  Should it happen that machines throw a wobbly over the weekend (or even just appear to do so), we risk poor feedback.  We collect the feedback during the demonstrations of that week so the problem is uppermost in their minds. 

F001

CG

2.33

7

No requirement for computers

C504

MM

2.0

11

No such module

C501

MM

2.67

3

Q12 relates to library not computing.

C007

TT

1.75

7

Q12 relates to library not computing.

 

Semester 2 – Degree Breakdown Sheet

 

Degree

Dept

Item

Score

Forms

 

4409

SA

Facilities – CC*

2.7

16

“I think the problem is a case of students assuming that all the computers they use are supported by Computer services. i.e. the computers that they use in the studios are poor and have sometimes affected their marks therefore they think it is the fault of Computing Services.”

 

The HoD of department is aware of the problems associated with the computing facilities.  The academic member staff responsible for the degree has written to HoD with an overview detailing what IT equipment needs to be replaced to improve the situation.

Help – CC

2.88

Networked software – CC

2.5

3215

EU

Help – CC

2.83

8

“I'm not sure that I can offer much help on this unless the students have written on the backs of the forms to explain the response - I'm happy to look through the forms to check if that's helpful.  If you've got them, or know who has, perhaps you'll let me know?

 

As programme leader, I've not had any informal feedback from students and have no reason to think that there is widespread dissatisfaction with central IT.  It seems rather odd.

4403

SA

Help – CC

2.8

8

Low score because LUSAD use their own IT Facilities and the students have no need to use Computing Services facilities.  Awaiting feedback from academic member of staff.

Student Feedback: response from Media Services

There are two questions which relate to Media Services:

 

 

Responses below 3 came from 17 departments relating to 41 different modules. The modules may use more than one room and thus it is not clear which rooms are being referred to, however Media Services have established which pool rooms are being used for the modules concerned. The full list is shown on the next page.

 

There seems to be a problem when departmental rooms are used. 16 of the 42 responses resulting in a negative response were modules where no pool rooms had been allocated.

 

There are some rooms which do appear a number of times and it seems reasonable to assume that the problems are likely to be with these rooms.

 

XX019 and A203 appear a number of times, however these have been improved (A203 at the end of semester 1 in 2003/4 and XX019 in summer 2004). B009 also appears a number of times and we would accept that this room is not ideal. It is only temporarily in the pool and will come out at Easter 2005. Rooms in Manzoni (K rooms), Sir Frank Gibb (RT rooms), James France D wing rooms and G Block rooms appear a number of times and these are rooms which need refurbishing. X401 is a regular on these lists. This room is in the Library and is not ideal in its configuration or location. It is not liked by departments other than Information Science (who are located on the same floor). Media Services have tried to allocate this only to groups below 30 (the capacity is 60 but it is not ideal for that large a number).

 

There are so many rooms that do need refurbishing on campus but the list has to be prioritised to work within a relatively modest budget. We hope to undertake some work in the Sir Frank Gibb building in summer 2005.

 

 

Dr Anne Mumford, 23rd December 2004.

 

Rooms Used by Modules with Scores on Questions Less Than 3

 

Semester

Dept

Module

Question

Forms
Read

Mean

Rooms

1

CG

C052

10

9

2.88

none

 

 

 

1

CG

B011

10

21

1.00

S174

X401

D002

K105

1

CM

C802

10

56

2.21

none

 

 

 

1

CM

C002

10

56

2.22

B111

B009

GGB01

 

1

CV

C075

10

42

2.72

A203

 

 

 

1

CV

B056

10

32

2.79

G007

 

 

 

1

CV

C075

11

42

2.67

A203

 

 

 

1

EA

B605

10

2

1.00

none

 

 

 

1

EL

D014

10

14

2.00

none

 

 

 

1

EL

D014

11

14

2.33

none

 

 

 

1

IS

P304

10

22

2.52

none

 

 

 

1

IS

P503

10

31

2.68

X401

 

 

 

1

MA

P111

11

12

2.55

none

 

 

 

1

MM

P207

10

33

2.81

none

 

 

 

1

MP

P111

10

12

2.50

X401

CC109

 

 

1

PE

P401

10

6

2.83

K103

 

 

 

1

PE

C029

10

8

2.50

JJ017

 

 

 

1

PE

B029

10

22

2.60

K105

 

 

 

1

PH

C130

10

25

2.52

W143

W005B

W005C

 

1

PH

B110

10

32

2.16

X401

U011

 

 

1

SS

P407

10

13

2.92

none

 

 

 

1

TT

C052

10

50

1.94

W004

RT011

 

 

1

TT

P506

11

18

2.93

none

 

 

 

2

BS

C052

10

61

2.47

XX019

 

 

 

2

BS

C042

10

20

2.18

none

 

 

 

2

BS

C027

10

29

2.48

GGB01

 

 

 

2

BS

C010

10

64

2.67

XX019

 

 

 

2

BS

C005

10

69

2.58

XX019

 

 

 

2

BS

B045

10

43

2.43

JJ004

 

 

 

2

BS

P120

10

30

2.89

none

 

 

 

2

BS

P121

11

10

2.90

none

 

 

 

2

CO

B181

10

29

2.70

G007

 

 

 

2

CV

D011

10

22

2.55

RT129

 

 

 

2

CV

C040

10

17

2.24

RT023

S173

 

 

2

CV

B032

11

14

2.77

RT129

 

 

 

2

EU

C502

11

3

2.00

none

 

 

 

2

HU

C204

10

38

2.91

B009

 

 

 

2

HU

A314

10

26

2.91

B009

 

 

 

2

IS

C061

11

4

2.67

none

 

 

 

2

MM

B202

10

28

2.77

X401

S173

 

 

2

TT

A301

10

14

2.50

G007

X401

 

 

2

TT

C007

11

7

2.67

none

 

 

 

 

[1] There is a form entitled 'Feedback for projects, placements, dissertations, etc', which has:
Q11 'I was able to FIND INFORMATION I needed from the Library'
Q12 'I was given TRAINING in how to find relevant information in the Library'

This compares to:
Q11 'Projectors, boards and screens were adequate for this module'
Q12 'The computing facilities I needed for this module were satisfactory'