student evaluation questionnaires · complete coursework. the coursework was reasonable in terms of...

Student Evaluation Questionnaires:

This Information Pack provides an introduction to the Student Paper Based

Evaluation Questionnaire scheme.

The Information Pack includes information on the scheme, guidance for

academic and clerical staff and Student Evaluation Questionnaire examples of

forms and reports.

Should you have any queries please contact us at the address below:

Natasha Nakariakova

Service Owner for eAssessment

IT Services, Cedar Building

Westwood Campus

The University of Warwick

CV4 7AL

T: extension 22337

E: [email protected]

Information on the Paper Based Evaluation Questionnaire Scheme.

This service offers scanning and analysis of Student Module Evaluation Forms using Optical Mark Reader technology. The service is free for all academic departments and widely used at Warwick for data collection and standardised reporting.

The benefits include:

allowing departments to significantly reduce the time taken for data collection and analysis of module evaluation forms;

guaranteeing high response rates; providing departments with individually designed reports where data can be

presented in an easily accessible format; breakdown of results according to departmental needs and requirements; user friendly for students - simply marking a box with a pen.

1. Prepare your template

Most departments already have evaluation forms in hand. We will need a set of

questions and the scoring system for them, along with any other additional

information that ought to be placed on the form. Examples of the different types of

questionnaire that are used by University of Warwick Departments are presented at

the end of this booklet.

2. Send us your template

Once the template is ready, email it to us at [email protected].

3. We create a draft Master Copy based on your template

This is usually a multistep process with changes and corrections from both sides,

until the final version is approved. The final Master Copy, can then be used for

printing.

4. Print the forms, distribute and collect

It is highly advisable to refer to the Guidance for Printing that is included in the

Information Pack.

5. Send the forms to us

Please use the address below:

eAssessment Team

IT Services, Cedar Building

Westwood Campus

Internal Mail is the most common way of delivering the documents to us. For bulky

or important packages ordering a Porter Service or using Warwick Print would be a

safer alternative, however it is chargeable service.

6. We process the forms

We scan forms, verify them and produce reports that were designed according to

departmental requirements. Results are then returned to the sender: an electronic

report via email and the original evaluation forms to the department via Internal

mail or using Porter Service.

Guidance for Printing Standards for Paper Based Exam and Evaluation Forms.

The following guidelines are intended to assist in preparing exam sheets and evaluation

questionnaires for printing. Following these tips will minimise risk of common problems

which occur when printing large amounts of forms:

Use the PDF Master Copy that we provide you with.

It is particularly important to avoid applying changes to PDF Master Copies that may

cause distortions or misplacements of sensitive fields (answer boxes).

Please ensure that black corners and form’s ID Number are not cut off.

The software that we use to read the forms can only identify it from its ID number.

Black corners are essential in positioning the sensitive fields.

Use white or light colour paper.

It is always preferable to stick to standard of high contrast between background

colour and printed text. The more the contrast is, the less chance for scanner to

misread a poorly contrasted object.

Print from the PDF Master Copy.

It is highly advisable to set forms to print from PDF file. It ensures that all objects are

properly embedded and printed correctly. If photocopying, please use the Master

Copy that was printed from our PDF, every time. Copying from a photocopy may

result in quantities of forms with reduced contrast or changed dimensions.

Software and equipment were available when needed.

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCEMODULE QUESTIONNAIRE

Module Code: C S

Please use a blue or black pen and mark each answer with a clear cross in the relevant box.

SA = Strongly agree A = Agree N = Neutral D = Disagree SD = Strongly disagree

2016-2017

PTO

Module Organiser:

Module Title:

Your Course (e.g. CS, DM):

About the material covered:

The aims of the module were clear.

The module deepened my understanding of the subject matter.

The module is at the right level for my current knowledge and experience.

The module content is interesting and intellectually challenging.

The module content is relevant to me and to my academic goals.

Please list topics or aspects you found particularly difficult, and if possible explain why:

SA A N D SD

About the teaching material and environment:

The module handouts and notes were useful and adequate.

The slides and demos used in lectures were insightful and clear.

The module webpage was useful and consistent.

If textbooks were recommended, they were useful and relevant.

n/a

The module achieved its learning outcomes.

Lecture rooms, labs and learning spaces were suitable.

Please summarise what you liked and didn't like in the module:

SA A N D SD

9907365144

Assessment and Feedback:

The module assessment and feedback mechanisms are clearly explained.

The coursework was reasonable in terms of effort and time required.

The feedback provided so far has been timely and useful.

I have been given adequate help and advice to complete coursework.

About the module delivery.

Lecturer 1:

The lecturer's delivery is clear and easy to understand.

The lecturer explains the subject matter at appropriate level and pace.

The lecturer is helpful and responsive to students' needs.

Lecturer 2:

The lecturer's delivery is clear and easy to understand.



About the seminar/lab tutor.

Name of tutor(s):

Supplementary sessions were helpful.

The tutor's delivery is clear and easy to understand.

The tutor explains the subject matter at approriate level and pace.

Please add any other comments, and suggestions for how the module can be improved:

Roughly how many lectures did you attend?

less than 10% 10%-40% 40%-60% 60%-80% 80% to almost all All of them

The tutor is helpful and responsive to students' needs.

n/a

If applicable, roughly how many seminar/lab sessions did you attend?

less than 10% 10%-40% 40%-60% 60%-80% 80% to almost all All of them

Overall this was a very good module.

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

SA A N D SD

7992365146

Department of Computer Science

Module code:

Module Questionnaire

2015-2016

No. of forms returned: 138

Module title:

Module Oraganiser:

About the module delivery:

01071 460

0

17

13

2

11

126159The content is interesting and intellectually challenging.

2

1

0

0

8

1

5

7

3

23

3

59

56

60

41

47

1656

2430

1460

2540

976

105469

458

SA

About the material covered:

SDDNA

The module achieved its learning outcomes.

The slides and demos used in lectures were insightful and clear.

The module handouts and notes were useful and adequate

The module is at the right level for my current knowledge and experience.

The module content is relevant to me and to my academic goals.

The module deepened my understanding of the subject matter.

The aims of the module were clear.

SA=Strongly Agree A=Agree N=Neutral D=Disagree SD=Strongly Disagree

73

About the teaching material and environment:

SA SDDNA n/a

The module webpage was useful and consistent.

If textbooks were recommended, they were useful and relevant.

330237 4418

10149 383Software and equipment were available when needed.

Lecture rooms, labs and learning spaces were suitable. 01053 281

The lecture's delivery is clear and easy to understand.


A N D SDSA


41

1154 4 0

71

2047 23 4

1150 3 0

66

Lecturer 1

Page 1

cuskac

Text Box

2016-2017

About the seminar/lab tutor:

Assessment and Feedback:

The module assessment and feedback mechanisms are clearly explained.

I have been given adequate help and advice to complete coursework.

The coursework was reasonable in terms of effort and time required.

The feedback provided so far has been timely and useful.

00267 656

10558 2839

091054 2038

131359 2134

Overall this was a very good module. 1468 1350

Roughly how many lectures did you attend?

If applicable, roughly how many seminar/lab sessions did you attend?

675671 30

1121721 00

SA SDDNA n/a

SA SDDNA

less than

10%

80% to

almost all

60%-80%40%-60%10%-40% All of

them

Supplementary sessions were helpful.

The tutor's delivery is clear and easy to understand.

A N D SDSA

The tutor explains the subject matter at appropriate level and pace.

The tutor is helpful and responsive to students' needs.

40

1947 9 3

44

2057 9 0

57

1955 6 1

49

1346 9 1

Name of Tutor(s):

Page 2

University of WarwickSchool of Law

LECTURER EVALUATION

PART B

How clearly did L indicate the objectives of the module?

How good was L at presenting ideas and concepts?

How interesting was L's presentation of material?

How intellectually stimulating was L?

How enthusiastic was L?

How well did L encourage critical thinking?

How accessible for consultation was L?

How would you rate this lecturer overall?

Module Code: Date: / /

Module Name:

Your Comments:

Please use a blue or black pen and mark one answer for each question, by placing a cross inthe relevant box:

Lecturer (name)

Poor Adequate Average Good V Good

NOTE: Please supplement your answers by commenting in the box above.

3565088016

School of Law

Part BLecturer Evaluation

No. of students on course:

15 July 2016

No. of forms returned: 37

Module code:

Lecturer:

Module name:

8. How would you rate this lecturer overall?

915823 3.68

Poor

1. How clearly did L indicate the objectives of the module?

Lecturer's comments:

2. How good was L at presenting ideas and concepts?

3. How interesting was L's presentation of material?

4. How intellectually stimulating was L?

5. How enthusiastic was L?

6. How well did L encourage critical thinking?

7. How accessible for consultation was L?

Adequate Average Good V.Good

8121232 3.57

10101043 3.54

1015723 3.73

914833 3.62

418824 3.44

8121142 3.54

615844 3.41

24%

22%

16%

27%

27%

24%

11%

22%

41%

32%

41%

27%

41%

38%

49%

32%

22%

32%

22%

27%

19%

22%

22%

30%

5%

8%

11%

11%

5%

8%

5%

11%

8%

5%

11%

8%

8%

8%

11%

5%

Mean

cuskac

Text Box

XXX

cuskac

Text Box

XXX

cuskac

Text Box

XXX

cuskac

Text Box

School of Life ScienceStudent Feedback on Laboratory Classes

Staff Supervisor:

Laboratory Code: Date: / /

Group: A B C

Was there sufficient time to carry out the work required?

Did the manual give adequate information to allow you to performthe experiments?

Please mark the appropriate box.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Were the briefings by the staff supervisor(s) to the whole classclear and adequate?

Were the staff supervisor(s) helpful in answering questions?

Were the necessary reagents and equipment readily available toyou?

Was the equipment supplied in good order?

Was the help which you received from postgraduate demonstratorsadequate?

Comments on demonstrators will be conveyed back to them privately by the Lab supervisor. Pleaseindicate below if any individual was, in your opinion, particularly worthy of commendation, oralternatively, did not fulfil their duties as a demonstrator adequately, giving your reasons.

Did you find the classes interesting?

Did you get experiments to work?

Please give below any suggestions you have for improving the class next year (continue over page ifnecessary).

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Always Most Rarely

Laboratory Title:

2805605523

Laboratory Classes Evaluation Report

Warwick University

School of Life Sciences

Title: Forms: 145

Supervisor:

32

37

27

128

3

2

95

36

2

116

20

1

114

12

11

118

0

17

119

0

17

112

15

10

93

31

6

Group no.

22.1%

25.5%

18.6%

88.3%

2.1%

1.4%

65.5%

24.8%

1.4%

80.0%

13.8%

0.7%

78.6%

8.3%

7.6%

81.4%

0.0%

11.7%

82.1%

0.0%

11.7%

77.2%

10.3%

6.9%

64.1%

21.4%

4.1%

Option Qty Perc. Option Qty Perc.




Option Qty Perc.

1. Sufficient time

2. Did manual give adequate information? 3. Briefings by staff adequate?

4. Staff helpful in answering questions? 5. Reagents and equipment readily available?

6. Equipment in good order? 7. Sufficient help from postgraduate demonstrator(s)

8. Did you find classes interesting?

104

21

5

71.7%

14.5%

3.4%

Option Qty Perc.

9. Did you get experiments to work?

0 50 100 150

0 50 100 0 50 100 150

0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150

0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150

0 50 100 0 50 100 150

0 10 20 30 40

Yes

No

N/A

Yes

No

N/A

Yes

No

N/A

Yes

No

N/A

Yes

No

N/A

Yes

No

N/A

Yes

No

N/A

A

B

C

Yes

No

N/A

Always

Most

Rarely

Page 1 of 1

University of Warwick Mathematics DepartmentFinal Module Evaluation Form

LecturerModule

Please use a blue or black pen and cross one answer for each questionFor each question please put a tick in the box that you think is most relevant. There is room for comments on the reverse.

Please give further comments overleaf….

Just right Too little Too muchThe quantity of material was

I found the example sheets

I found the pace of delivery

Just right Too easy Too hard

Just right Too slow Too fast

I attended most of the lectures

I found the lectures beneficial

I attended none of the lectures

The lectures were a waste oftime

6 5 4 3 2 1

The links with other modules wereclear

The Course Handbook entry was afair reflection of the module

The links with other modules wereunclear

The Course Handbook entry bore noresemblance to the module

No unreasonable assumption ofbackground knowledge

By the end the direction andpurpose of the module were clear

Unreasonable assumptions made

By the end the direction and purposewere unclear

I would like a module taking thissubject further

I had adequate access to therecommended texts

I would not like a module taking thissubject further

I could not find a copy of the textsanywhere

The lecturer was well organised andprepared

The lecturer's timing was good (i.e. notlate, didn't overrun)

The lecturer was not at all organisedand prepared

The lecturer's timing was poor

The style of delivery was stimulating

The lecturer was receptive toquestions

Style of delivery was dull

The lecturer was unreceptive toquestions

Explanations were clear

I have a good set of notes to revisefrom

Explanations were unclear

I have a poor set of notes to revisefrom

The lecturer was easy to hear

The lecturer's handwriting was legible

Diagrams were easy to read

It was difficult to hear the lecturer

The lecturer's handwriting wasunreadable

Diagrams were difficult to read

I attended most of the support classes

I found support classes useful

I attended none of the support classes

Support classes were no help

The support class TA was preparedThe support class TA wasdisorganised

If there were support classes provided:

6 5 4 3 2 1

6 5 4 3 2 1

6 5 4 3 2 1

Home Department Maths Other

5077021888

The links with other modules were clear

6

The Course Handbook entry was fair reflection of the module

No unreasonable assumption of background knowledge

By the end the direction and purpose of the module were clear

I would like a module taking this subject further

Organiser:

5 4 3 2

Total number of forms:

strongly agree

strongly disagree1

The quantity of material was

I found the example sheets

I found the pace of delivery

2

37 0 59

59 9 29

too little

I had adequate access to the recommended texts

just right too easy too hard

just right too slow too fast

47 50

I attended most of the lectures

6

61

I found the lectures beneficial

5 4 3 2

17 3 2

strongly agree

strongly disagree1

015

9 27 24 18 120

28 24 11 3 033

33 16 7 1 040

26 18 8 5 142

24 28 12 6 129

13 16 22 15 2410

25 28 13 2 024

Module

123

Maths: 107 Other: 8Home Department (number of forms):

just right too much

Where percentages do not summate to 100%, a proportion of students did not mark an answer for that question.

University of Warwick

Module Questionnaire Results

Mathematics Department

2016-2017 Term 1

% of answers 6 and 5

76

29


61

73

68

53

23

49

Module:

Page 1 of 2

cuskac

Text Box

000

cuskac

Text Box

000

The lecturer was well organised and prepared

6

The lecturer's timing was good

The style of the delivery was stimulating

The lecturer was receptive to questions

Explanations were clear

5 4 3 2strongly

agreestrongly disagree1

I have a good set of notes

24 31 8 4 133

23 24 15 8 328

5 23 22 23 1414

36 23 8 0 033

8 30 25 12 1114

16 27 17 8 525

The lecturer was easy to hear

The lecturers handwriting was legible

Diagrams were easy to read

43 17 6 2 230

42 14 7 3 232

28 19 18 7 326

I attended most of the support classes

6

I found support classes useful

The support class TA was prepared

5 4 3 2strongly

agreestrongly disagree1

9 10 9 22 462

7 12 10 9 87

9 15 6 3 612

If there were support classes provided

Lecturer

57

51

19

69

22

41

73

74

54



11

14

21

Page 2 of 2

1.

2.

3.

PX

Lecturer

UNIVERSITY OF WARWICKDEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS

<50% 50-80% >80%

About right Too great Too little

In lectures After more work poorly

I attended (..?..) of the lectures

I understood the following main topics:

Title

By the end of the module, its purpose anddirection of the course were

Clear Hazy Unclear

The quantity of material was

(a)


4.

(b)





(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Explanation of new terms and concepts was good Adequate poor5.

6. I have a (..?..) set of notes good Adequate poor

7. I attempted (..?..) of examples sheet questions <40% 40-80% >80%

8. The example sheet question were too easy about right too hard

PROMPTNESS of feedback on submittedcoursework was

good Adequate poor9.

10. Would you like a course taking this subjectfurther?

Yes neutral no

11.Recommended textbook:

purchased consulted did not use

12. I found it to be very helpful helpful unhelpful

13.

Please give further comments overleaf ...

Academic Year /1 6 1 7

Please use a blue or black pen and mark one answer for each question thus

3730622126

cuskac

Text Box

aaa

cuskac

Text Box

bbb

cuskac

Text Box

ccc

cuskac

Text Box

ddd

cuskac

Text Box

I attended (..?..) of the lectures.1. <50% 50-80% >80%

50

By the end of the module, its purpose and direction were

2. Clear UnclearHazy

149 4 0

The quantity of the material was3. About right Too littleToo great

143 6 1

a In lectures After more work Poorly

108

b

c

d

e

43 2

In lectures After more work Poorly




39 62

PX

68 84 1

94 57 2

81 68 3

85 63 4

Microstates and Macrostates

Partition functions and the Boltzmann distribution

Relation between entropy and disorder

Connection between statistical mechanics and thermodynamics

Distinguishability and density of states

4. I understood the following main topics:

Number of forms returned: 154

f In lectures

58

After more work

89

Poorly

5

Academic Year 2015/16

Term 2

Distribution functions for fermions and bosons

UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS

Physics Course Questionnaire Results

Lecturer:

Module: Title:

Page 1 of 2

cuskac

Text Box

2016/17

cuskac

Text Box

XXX

cuskac

Text Box

XXX

cuskac

Text Box

aaa

cuskac

Text Box

bbb

cuskac

Text Box

ccc

cuskac

Text Box

ddd

cuskac

Text Box

cuskac

Text Box

cuskac

Text Box

cuskac

Text Box

Explanation of new terms and concepts was

5. Good PoorAdequate

I attempted (..?..) of examples sheet questions

7. <40% >80%40-80%

The example sheet questions were

8.

Would you like a course taking this subject further?

10.

Too easy Too hardAbout right

Yes NoNeutral

Recommended textbook: 11. Purchased Did not useConsulted

I found it to be 12. Very helpful UnhelpfulHelpful

219132

306855

61371

149103

119199

6186

I have a (..?..) set of notes.6. Good PoorAdequate

622125

9.24068

Good Poor AdequatePROMPTNESS of feedback on submitted coursework was

One of them was

Page 2 of 2

cuskac

Text Box

xxx

Politics and International StudiesUndergraduate Teaching Evaluation Survey for 30 CAT Modules

7.

The Module

Your Participation (or Learning)

10 or more 5-9 Less than 5How many hours each week did you devote to this module(including lectures and seminars)?

1 2 3 4 58. Rate your own performance on the module

Module Code

Module Lecturer 1

Module Seminar Tutor 1

For statements 1 to 25 (except 6 and 7) please use the following scale:1 - very poor 2 - poor 3 - adequate 4 - good 5 - very good

Module Lecturer 2

Module Seminar Tutor 2

1 2 3 4 51.Essays/other assignments promoted learning/improvedyour understanding of the subject matter

2. How useful was the module website? 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

3.How would you rate the availability, print or electronic, ofmodule materials through the Library?

a) books

1 2 3 4 5b) journal articles

4. Did this module achieve its aims and objectives?

1 2 3 4 55. How would you rate the module overall?

6.(a) Proportion of Lectures attended? 100% 80-99% 50-79% Below 50%

1 2 3 4 59. Rate your contribution to seminar discussions

1 2 3 4 5

100% 80-99% 50-79% Below 50%(b) Proportion of Seminars attended?

Lecturer

Lecturer 1 Lecturer 2

Academic Support

10. Communicates goals and requirements of themodule clearly and explicitly 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

11. Ability to present ideas and concepts clearly1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

2016-2017

12.Ability to present material in an interestingway

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

6801147591

Seminar Tutor

13.Effectiveness in stimulating you intellectually

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

14.Enthusiasm for the subject matter

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

15.Encouragement of critical thinking andanalysis

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

17.Rate this lecturer overall

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

16.Accessibility for consultation (appointments,advice and feedback hours)

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

18. Ability to organise the seminar effectively1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Tutor 1 Tutor 2

22. Accessibility for consultation (appointments,advice and feedback hours)

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

20.. Encouragement of critical thinking andanalysis

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

23. Effectiveness in stimulating you intellectually1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

24. Ability to facilitate class discussion1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

19. Ability to deal effectively with questions andcomments from the class

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

25. Contribution of seminars in helping theachievement of module aims and objectives

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

21. How would you rate the feedback youreceived?

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

General

For statements 26 and 27 below, please use the following 5-point scale1 - low 2 - below average 3 - average 4 - above average 5 - high

26. Compared to other modules at the same level theworkload is: 1 2 3 4 5

27. Compared to other modules at the same level, thelevel of intellectual challenge is: 1 2 3 4 5

Please use the space below, or ask for a separate piece of paper, if you wish to provide supplementarycomments on the lecturers/ tutors for this Module. If there is more than one principal lecturer/tutor, pleasedistinguish them as lecturer/tutor 1 and/or lecturer/ tutor 2 (as advised by the seminar tutor). Your thoughtfulresponse will be important in assisting teachers in future module preparation. The information you provide hereis confidential and will be forwarded to your lecturers and seminar tutor only after final grades have beenagreed.

Lecturer 1 Lecturer 2

1125147595

Question

Number

No/% of

students

very poor

No/% of

students

poor

No/% of

students

adequate

No/% of

students

good

No/% of

students

very good

1 7 39 89 36

1 7 38 90 36

0 19 58 69 27

4 15 54 78 22

The Module

(Where answers do not summate to the full 100% a proportion of students did not mark an answer for that question)

No/% of

100%

No/% of

80-99%

No/% of

50-79%

No/%

Below 50%

25 60 46 41

Your Participation (or Learning)

13 85 71

10 or more 5-9 Less than 5

5 8 88 65 68.Rate your own

performance on the

module

9.Rate your own

contribution to

seminar discussions

Politics and International Studies

UG Teaching Evaluation Survey 2016 - 2017

No/% of

students

very poor

No/% of

students

poor

No/% of

students

adequate

No/% of

students

good

No/% of

students

very good

50 101 19 2

1. Essays promoted

learning

2. Rate module

website

3a. Availability in

Library: Books

3b. Availability in

Library: journal

articles4. Aims and

objectives achived?

5. Rate module

overall

% of

students

<

adequate

% of

students

> =

adequate

% of

students

good and

very good

5 95 73

5 95 73

11 89 55

11 89 58

6a. Proportion of

lectures attended

6b. Proportion of

seminars attended

7. Hours devoted to the module

% of

students

<

adequate

% of

students

> =

adequate

% of

students

good and

very good

8 92 41

Module Name:

Lecturer 2:

Number of module responses: 173

Lecturer 1:

1721

1 172

173

173

0

2

4

4

11

9

23

22

34

31

52

52

40

45

21

21

16

13

No of

responses

172

169

172

15

29

35

59

27

11

24

1

8 50 42

1723 5 51 38 3

1 12 39 76 42 8 92 69 1701 7 23 45 25

2 9 36 101

24 6 94 73 1721 5 21 59 14

5 23 68 58 18 16 84 44 1723 13 40 34 10

Module Code:

Page 1 of 5

Question

Number

No / % of

students

very poor

No / % of

students

poor

No / % of

studentsa

dequate

No / % of

students

good

No / % of

students

very good

Lecturer 1

6 10 34 37 13

10.Communic

ate goals

11.Present

ideas clearly

12.Present mat.

interesting

13.Stimulate

intellectually

14.Enthusiasm

15.Encourage

critical thinking

16.Accessibility

17.Rate lecturer

overall

Question

Number

% of

students

very poor

% of

students

poor

% of

students

adequate

% of

students

good

% of

students

very good

Lecturer 2

% of

students

< =

adequate

% of

students

> =

adequate

% of

students

good and

very good

16 84 50

% of

students

<

adequate

% of

students

> =

adequate

% of

students

good and

very good

10.Communic

ate goals

11.Present

ideas clearly

12.Present mat.

interesting

13.Stimulate

intellectually

14.Enthusiasm

15. Encourage

critical thinking

16.Accessibility

17.Rate lecturer

overall

167

167

167

168

167

162

168

145

143

144

142

139

142

143

10 17 56 62 22

15 23 35 19 8 38 62 2725 39 58 32 13

7 21 28 33 11 28 72 4412 35 47 55 18

5 11 32 39 13 16 84 528 19 53 66 22

6 7 38 36 14 13 87 5010 11 63 60 23

3 3 35 44 15 6 94 595 5 56 71 25

4 14 35 36 11 18 82 476 24 59 61 18

12 26 46 14 15 85 5918 37 66 20

9 35 35 13 17 83 4813 50 50 18

10 30 43 11 16 84 5415 43 62 16

3 15 46 35 4 96 815 21 66 50

5 32 44 15 8 92 597 46 63 21

4 36 44 14 6 94 585 50 61 20

10 25 51 10 14 86 6114 35 73 14

34

812

68

11

45

23

46

Academic Suppoprt

4 11 33 41 12 14 86 53 1666 18 54 68 20

1417 33 47 11 9 91 5810 46 66 1623

Andrew Reeve

Helen McCabe

Page 2 of 5

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

Question

Numbervery poor

N/ %

poor

N/%

adequate

N/%

good

N/%

very good

N/%

Seminar Tutor

19 Deal with

questions

20 Encourage

critical thinking

21 Feedback

22 Accessibility

23 Intellectually

stimulating

24 Facilitate

discussion

25 Seminars help

to achieve

module aims

% of

students

<

adequate

% of

students

= >

adequate

% of

students

good and

very good

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

7 3 34 52 10 90 862 1 10 15

3 10 45 34 10 90 791 3 13 10

7 14 55 24 7 93 792 4 16 7

0 14 59 28 0 100 860 4 17 8

10 14 41 31 14 86 723 4 12 9

3 24 41 28 7 93 691 7 12 8

14 10 34 38 17 83 724 3 10 11

31

72

00

00

31

31

31

18 Organise

seminar

290 14 48 38 0 100 860 4 14 1100

Number of responses: 30Andrew Reeve

Question

Numbervery poor

N/ %

poor

N/%

adequate

N/%

good

N/%

very good

N/%

Seminar Tutor

19 Deal with

questions

20 Encourage

critical thinking

21 Feedback

22 Accessibility

23 Intellectually

stimulating

24 Facilitate

discussion

25 Seminars help

to achieve

module aims

% of

students

<

adequate

% of

students

= >

adequate

% of

students

good and

very good

47

47

46

47

47

47

47

9 23 45 17 15 85 624 11 21 8

2 21 55 15 9 91 701 10 26 7

2 13 48 28 11 89 761 6 22 13

4 28 51 13 9 91 642 13 24 6

9 32 53 4 11 89 574 15 25 2

13 40 32 2 26 74 346 19 15 1

9 32 49 6 13 87 554 15 23 3

63

63

94

42

21

136

42

18 Organise

seminar

486 33 44 13 10 90 563 16 21 642

Number of responses: 49Helen McCabe

Page 3 of 5

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

Question

Numbervery poor

N/ %

poor

N/%

adequate

N/%

good

N/%

very good

N/%

Seminar Tutor

19 Deal with

questions

20 Encourage

critical thinking

21 Feedback

22 Accessibility

23 Intellectually

stimulating

24 Facilitate

discussion

25 Seminars help

to achieve

module aims

% of

students

<

adequate

% of

students

= >

adequate

% of

students

good and

very good

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

0 14 18 68 0 100 860 3 4 15

0 14 14 73 0 100 860 3 3 16

0 9 27 64 0 100 910 2 6 14

5 5 45 45 5 95 911 1 10 10

0 14 32 55 0 100 860 3 7 12

0 9 14 77 0 100 910 2 3 17

0 9 27 64 0 100 910 2 6 14

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

18 Organise

seminar

220 9 32 59 0 100 910 2 7 1300

Number of responses: 22Rebecca Reilly Cooper

Question

Numbervery poor

N/ %

poor

N/%

adequate

N/%

good

N/%

very good

N/%

Seminar Tutor

19 Deal with

questions

20 Encourage

critical thinking

21 Feedback

22 Accessibility

23 Intellectually

stimulating

24 Facilitate

discussion

25 Seminars help

to achieve

module aims

% of

students

<

adequate

% of

students

= >

adequate

% of

students

good and

very good

50

50

49

49

50

50

50

0 10 44 46 0 100 900 5 22 23

0 8 46 46 0 100 920 4 23 23

2 14 51 33 2 98 841 7 25 16

0 8 65 27 0 100 920 4 32 13

2 12 56 30 2 98 861 6 28 15

6 14 38 42 6 94 803 7 19 21

2 6 52 40 2 98 921 3 26 20

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

18 Organise

seminar

502 12 50 36 2 98 861 6 25 1800

Number of responses: 50Alexander Barker

Page 4 of 5

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

Low Below

average

Average Above

average

HighGeneral

2 3 50 68 49

2 5 41 60 64

26 Compared to other

workloads

27 Intellectual

challenge

172

172

1

1

2

3

29

24

40

35

28

37

Question

Numbervery poor

N/ %

poor

N/%

adequate

N/%

good

N/%

very good

N/%

Seminar Tutor

19 Deal with

questions

20 Encourage

critical thinking

21 Feedback

22 Accessibility

23 Intellectually

stimulating

24 Facilitate

discussion

25 Seminars help

to achieve

module aims

% of

students

<

adequate

% of

students

= >

adequate

% of

students

good and

very good

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

0 0 14 86 0 100 1000 0 3 19

0 0 14 86 0 100 1000 0 3 19

5 0 14 82 5 95 951 0 3 18

5 5 23 68 5 95 911 1 5 15

0 0 18 82 0 100 1000 0 4 18

0 0 9 91 0 100 1000 0 2 20

0 5 14 82 0 100 950 1 3 18

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

18 Organise

seminar

220 0 14 86 0 100 1000 0 3 1900

Number of responses: 22Hwa Young Kim

Page 5 of 5

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

T hem oduleprovidedastim ulatinglearningexperience

T hew ay them odulew asdeliveredencouragedm etoparticipate

T hem odulew orkloadw asappropriatetothem oduleobjectives

T heteachingstaff:

Ability topresentideasandconcepts

1 [ ]

S peedandpaceofthesessions

Know ledgeofthesubjectm atter

Ability todealw ithquestions

1N otatall

2 3 4 5

P leaseturnover

T hem aterialcoveredw aspitchedatasuitablelevel

W arw ickBusinessS chool

M astersP rogram m esM oduleFeedback

A boutthem odule

T hem oduleaim sw ereclear

T hem odulesucceededinitsobjectives(asdefinedintheintroductionsectionofthem odule)

P leaseuseablueorblackpenandm arkoneansw erforeachquestion,by placing acrossintherelevantbox:

Academ icYear /2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7M odulecode: /

T helecturenotes/coursem aterials/hand-outs/casestudies/onlineresourceshelpedw ithunderstanding

O verallIw ouldratethism odulehighly

Enthusiasm forthesubject

Ability toencouragecriticalthinking

How w ouldyou ratethislecturer,overall?

DegreeCourse:

M oduletitle:

T hereisspaceforcom m entsonthelastpageoftheform

6T otally

O verall,thism odulem etm y expectations

1 2 3 4 5 6T otally unclear T otally clear

T otallyappropriate

Inappropriate

ExcellentVery poor

T otallyeffective

T otallyineffective

Veryenthusiastic

Veryunenthusiastic

Veryencouraging

N otencouraging

ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average A boveaverage Good

S tronglyagree

S tronglydisagree

Disagree S om ew hatdisagree

S om ew hatagree

Agree

M oduleappraisalenablesstudentstoform ally expresstheiropinionoftheirlearning experienceatm odulelevel. Itseekstoinform staffaboutstudents'view s,sothatm odulequality m ay beenhanced. M odulequestionnairescom plem entbothform al(e.g.S S L Cs,S tudentR epresentatives)andinform alfeedbackm echanism susedatW BS . M oreinform ationonhow yourfeedbackisusedcanbefoundinyouronlinestudentHandbook.S tudentsareencouragedtobefrankandconstructivew ithrespecttotheircom m ents.

1272373713

cuskac

Text Box

xxx

cuskac

Text Box

xxx

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx


4 [ ]








T otallyappropriate

Inappropriate

ExcellentVery poor

T otallyeffective

T otallyineffective

Veryenthusiastic

Veryunenthusiastic

Veryencouraging

N otencouraging

ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average Aboveaverage Good


2 [ ]








T otallyappropriate

Inappropriate

ExcellentVery poor

T otallyeffective

T otallyineffective

Veryenthusiastic

Veryunenthusiastic

Veryencouraging

N otencouraging



3 [ ]








T otallyappropriate

Inappropriate

ExcellentVery poor

T otallyeffective

T otallyineffective

Veryenthusiastic

Veryunenthusiastic

Veryencouraging

N otencouraging


2810373712

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx


5[ ]








T otallyappropriate

Inappropriate

ExcellentVery poor

T otallyeffective

T otallyineffective

Veryenthusiastic

Veryunenthusiastic

Veryencouraging

N otencouraging



6[ ]








T otallyappropriate

Inappropriate

ExcellentVery poor

T otallyeffective

T otallyineffective

Veryenthusiastic

Veryunenthusiastic

Veryencouraging

N otencouraging



7[ ]








T otallyappropriate

Inappropriate

ExcellentVery poor

T otallyeffective

T otallyineffective

Veryenthusiastic

Veryunenthusiastic

Veryencouraging

N otencouraging


0735373716

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx


8[ ]








T otallyappropriate

Inappropriate

ExcellentVery poor

T otallyeffective

T otallyineffective

Veryenthusiastic

Veryunenthusiastic

Veryencouraging

N otencouraging

ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average Aboveaverage Good


9 [ ]








T otallyappropriate

Inappropriate

ExcellentVery poor

T otallyeffective

T otallyineffective

Veryenthusiastic

Veryunenthusiastic

Veryencouraging

N otencouraging



10 [ ]








T otallyappropriate

Inappropriate

ExcellentVery poor

T otallyeffective

T otallyineffective

Veryenthusiastic

Veryunenthusiastic

Veryencouraging

N otencouraging


0242373719

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

cuskac

Text Box

Xxxxx

Warwick Business School

Module code: Year: 2015 / 2016

Masters Programmes Module Feedback

No. of forms returned: 19Degree course:

Module title:

Strongly disagree

Disagree Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree

Totally

Strongly agree

Overall I would rate this module highly 7 5.28920 00

7

6

8

12

12

7

6

5.26

5.166

9

75

10

64

5.11000The course materials and resources helped with understanding

3

5.00

5.21

5.47

5.58

5.16

7

8

4

6

9

6

2

3

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

00

10

00

00

10

000

00

1

Not at all

Module Mean5432

The way the module was delivered encouraged me to participate

The module workload was appropriate to the module objectives

The material covered was pitched at a suitable level

The module provided a stimulating learning experience

Overall, this module met my expectations

The module succeeded in its objectives

The module aims were clear 0

Ability to present ideas and concept

Speed and pace of the sessions

2 3 4 5 Mean1

Knowledge of the subject matter

Ability to deal with questions

0

00 2 4 5.58

0

10 1 6 5.42

0

00 2 5 5.53

0

00 1 4 5.68

(1) = Totally unclear . . . . (6) = Totally clear

Enthusiasm for the subject

Ability to encourage critical thinking

Rate the lecturer overall

0 00 0 4 5.79

0 00 2 4 5.58

0 00 0 5 5.74

13

11

12

14

15

13

14

Lecturer 1

6

(1) = Inappropriate . . . . (6) = Totally appropriate

(1) = Very poor . . . . (6) = Excellent

(1) = Totally ineffective . . . . (6) = Totally effective

(1) = Very unenthusiastic . . . (6) = Very enthusiastic

(1) = Not encouraging . . . . (6) = Very encouraging

Poor Below average

Above average

GoodVery poor Excellent

Page 1

cuskac

Text Box

2016-2017



2 3 4 5 Mean1



0

00 1 9 5.39

0

10 1 9 5.22

0

00 2 6 5.44

0

10 2 5 5.33





0 00 2 5 5.50

0 00 3 6 5.33

0 00 2 5 5.50

8

7

10

10

11

9

11

Lecturer 2

6






Poor Below average

Above average




2 3 4 5 Mean1



0

00 1 5 5.61

0

00 2 4 5.56

0

00 0 6 5.67

0

00 0 6 5.67





0 00 0 5 5.72

0 00 1 7 5.50

0 00 0 7 5.61

12

12

12

12

13

10

11

Lecturer 3

6






Poor Below average

Above average


Page 2

S ession ratings: P leas e markwitha c ros s within appropriate box to ind ic ate you ropinion ofeac hs es s ion:

M od u le C od e: D ate ofM od u le:

M asters and C P DW arwic kM ed ic alS c hool

M od u le S tu d entEvalu ation Q u estionnaire

Nam e ofM od u le:

W e are interes ted in you rviews ofthis mod u le and wou ld be gratefu lifyou wou ld c omplete eac hs ec tion ofthis s hortqu es tionnaire.

1 .

2 .

3.

4.

5.

6.

7 .

8 .

9.

10 .

11 .

12 .

13.

14.

15.

16.

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

Title of SessionExcellent Good Satisfactory P oor Excellent Good Satisfactory P oor

M O D UL E C O NTENT TEA C H ING Q UA L ITY

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

1 7 .

1 8 .

19.

20 .

21 .

P TO

8242246198

24.

25.

26.

2 7 .

2 8 .

29.

30 .

31 .

32 .

33.

34.

35.

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

Title of SessionExcellent Good Satisfactory P oor Excellent Good Satisfactory P oor

M O D UL E C O NTENT TEA C H ING Q UA L ITY

P leas e markone ans werforeac hq u es tion,by plac inga c ros s in the relevantbox:

M od u le Virtu alL earning Environm ent(VL E):

Very eas y Eas y S atis fac tory D iffic u lt Very D iffic u ltH ow eas y was itto find VL E information on the web?

H ow wou ld you rate the overallqu ality ofmaterialavailable via the VL E pages ?

Exc ellent Good S atis fac tory P oor Very P oor

D o you thinkthatthe learningres ou rc es available onthe VL E pages enhanc ed you rlearningon thismod u le?

D efinitely P robably N ots u re M aybe N o

O verallopinions:

H ow wou ld you rate the overallqu ality ofteac hingand learningd u ringthis mod u le?

D o you thinkyou rprac tic e willc hange as a res u ltofthis mod u le?

Exc ellent Good S atis fac tory P oor Very P oor

D o you thinkthatthe mod u le learningobjec tives areappropriate?

D efinitely P robably N ots u re Unlikely N o

W ou ld you rec ommend this mod u le? Yes N o

Very appropriate A ppropriate N ots u re Slightlyinappropriate

Inappropriate

Yes N oD o you thinkthatthe mod u le learningobjec tiveswere met?

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 123.

22 . 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1

7493246195

Master and CPDWarwick Medical School

Module Evaluation Questionnaire Results

Number of Forms Returned: 18

Number of students on course:

Name of Module

Module Code Date of Module:

Module Content

Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Mean NRespSession Name

4 12 1 0 3.18 17IntroductiontotheM oduleandtheAssignm ent

6 11 1 0 3.28 18IntroductiontoKey ConceptsinAssessm ent1


12 5 1 0 3.61 18Validity

9 8 0 0 3.53 17Blueprinting

5 10 2 0 3.18 17R eliability

11 7 0 0 3.61 18S tandardS etting

12 6 0 0 3.67 18S tandardS ettingW orkshop

8 9 1 0 3.39 18ApproachestoO bservedClinicalP ractice

11 6 0 0 3.65 17DesigningItem sforO bservedClinicalP ractice

6 10 1 1 3.17 18ApproachestoW orkplaceBasedAssessm ent

4 6 3 5 2.50 18Academ icw riting

5 7 6 0 2.94 18Assessm entthroughP ortfolio

5 9 4 0 3.06 18Assessm entforS election

12 6 0 0 3.67 18DesigningW rittenT estItem s

9 8 0 0 3.53 17ApproachestoW rittenAssessm ent

P age1 of4

cuskac

Text Box

xxx

cuskac

Text Box

xxx

cuskac

Text Box

xxx

Module Teaching

Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Mean NRespSession Name

6 11 1 0 3.28 18IntroductiontotheM oduleandtheAssignm ent



13 4 1 0 3.67 18Validity

8 10 0 0 3.44 18Blueprinting

6 11 1 0 3.28 18R eliability

11 7 0 0 3.61 18S tandardS etting

14 4 0 0 3.78 18S tandardS ettingW orkshop

9 8 0 1 3.39 18ApproachestoO bservedClinicalP ractice

12 5 0 0 3.71 17DesigningItem sforO bservedClinicalP ractice

7 9 2 0 3.28 18ApproachestoW orkplaceBasedAssessm ent

1 1 8 8 1.72 18Academ icw riting

6 8 4 0 3.11 18Assessm entthroughP ortfolio

7 9 2 0 3.28 18Assessm entforS election

13 5 0 0 3.72 18DesigningW rittenT estItem s

9 8 0 0 3.53 17ApproachestoW rittenAssessm ent

1 4 5 3 2.23 13Assignm entP reparation

7 5 4 0 3.19 16Assignm entW orkshop

3 4 1 0 3.25 8FinalIssues

1 3 7 3 2.14 14Assignm entP reparation

7 3 6 0 3.06 16Assignm entW orkshop

3 5 1 0 3.22 9FinalIssues

P age2 of4

0

34

5

Module Virtual Learning Environment (VLE):

0

34

5

How easy was it to find VLE information on the web?

0

3

4

5

How would you rate the overall quality of materialavailable via the VLE pages?

Do you think that the learning resources available onthe VLE pages enhanced your learning on this module?

0

Yes

Would you recommend this module?

0

3

4

5

How would you rate the overall quality of teaching andlearning?

(5) Very easy 2

(4) Easy 8

(3) Satisfactory 5

(2) Difficult 0

(1) Very Difficult 0

(0) Did not answer 3

(5) Excellent 1

(4) Good 10

(3) Satisfactory 4

(2) Poor 0

(1) Very Poor 0


(5) Definitely 1

(4) Probably 9

(3) Not sure 5

(2) Maybe 0

(1) No 0


Yes 16

No 0


(5) Excellent 3

(4) Good 12

(3) Satisfactory 1

(2) Poor 0

(1) Very Poor 0


Overall opinions:

P age3 of4

0

4

5

0

4

5

Do you think that the module learning objectives areappropriate?

0

Yes

Do you think that the module learning objectives weremet?

(5) Definitely 7

(4) Probably 9

(3) Not sure 0

(2) Unlikely 0

(1) No 0


Yes 15

No 0


Do you think your practice will change as a result of thismodule?

(5) Definitely 5

(4) Probably 11

(3) Not sure 0

(2) Unlikely 0

(1) No 0


P age4 of4

student evaluation questionnaires · complete coursework. the coursework was reasonable in terms of...

Documents