PROGRAMACIÓ DIDÀCTICA DE LLATÍ I ÍNDEX

At a more immediate level for students and academics, course evaluation

questionnaires were used widely in departments at both of the universities in the study. Questionnaires were completed at the end of a module, either on paper or online, and evaluated module content and lecturer performance. The questionnaires tended to include questions in a similar Likert format as used in the NSS, but the questions related to module rather than overall experience. One Students’ Union Officer felt that module evaluations provided significant insight into the day-to-day experience of students:

“I think the most important ones …happen at a module level where individual modules in faculties are …asking students what they think and how they think they should be working.”

One student at the Post-92 institution had noticed a link between the format of module evaluations and the NSS, and suspected that this form of evaluation acted as an early warning system for academics:

“The module evaluation is to feed the NSS or feed the institutional awareness of what is going to happen on the NSS … And then they will probably try to solve those issues because …if it does indicate that there is a problem with assessment and feedback, which is most likely, then they have to obviously think of solutions, but at least they have an early indication of it before it goes on to a national scale.”

Final year student, Business (Post-92)

Most questionnaires focused on the provision for students, content and the

performance of the academic, however in the English department (Russell Group) students were also asked to evaluate their contribution to the module:

“they’re also asked …to evaluate how much preparation they personally have done for the seminar so they are not just passive vessels; they are …invited to be honest and to say how much prep they’ve done, have they done the reading and so on. And they are very honest. Sometimes they say ‘I haven’t’ or they say that it was too much or not enough or whatever.”

Academic 1, English (Russell Group)

Some of these perceptions of the purpose of evaluations were echoed in the audio- recorded pilot work undertaken at an additional Russell Group institution. Students’ responses to a question about the purpose of course evaluation reflected a level of confusion about the purpose, which was not explicitly stated on the form. Their responses suggested a range of perspectives about the motivations for course evaluation that included for enhancement, publicity and reputation, and as an administrative process:

“I just think it's done”

Education student (Russell Group institution 2)

“In the course before this one, they told us that they do listen and have made changes on last year, but I imagine it has to be the majority of people that say something for it to make a difference.”

Education student (Russell Group institution 2)

“I don’t know what it’s for. Do they actually take something from it or is it just for their little books about how good the course is?”

Education student (Russell Group institution 2)

“I think improvement is part of it but I think it's political in that it is for the University to see how the course is doing, even more so now that people will be paying more for the course than before.”

English student (Russell Group institution 2)

There was a perception held by one student at the Russell Group institution that most students did not participate in module evaluation because they did not understand the purpose of evaluations or the systems for using them:

“You can express your concerns and opinions there quite easily but … many students choose not to complete them ...because they aren’t aware …of [how they will receive] feedback ... If you don’t know what effect a certain stimulus has and how a certain system responds…you don’t know anything about the system.”

Year 1 student, Engineering (Russell Group)

For academics without management responsibility, course evaluation was seen as one of the main ways through which they could understand student perspectives on their teaching. They combined the feedback gained in these evaluations with other

informal feedback provided by students, though emails, discussion and levels of participation in lectures etc. Course evaluations were seen to provide useful information but it was not always a comfortable process. One academic spoke about feeling exposed in the evaluation process:

“I take [course evaluations] very seriously both personally and as someone who designs or tries to improve modules. …I …wish I took the student evaluations less seriously because it’s very nerve wracking getting them but nevertheless …I would say I do take them seriously. I think that’s probably true of most people.”

Academic 1, English (Russell Group)

At both institutions academics were aware that results contributed to annual documentation about the course and were reviewed by senior managers. Course evaluation was used alongside other information such as assessment outcomes and external examiner reports to monitor the quality of teaching:

“They …go onto annual course reports and all the official mechanisms for reporting what’s going on in a course. They go on up to [PVC]. She looks at them. I know she reads them because I’ve seen her act on something I’ve put in one of my reports before, so I’m really happy that the process works in terms of reporting it.”

Academic with teaching management responsibility, Engineering 2 (Post-92) Course evaluations were felt to be less high-stakes than the NSS due to the fact that the results were considered by an internal audience. Their primary audience was seen for the academics teaching on modules and for senior managers as a monitoring tool. Students were aware of, and often participated in, course

tangible outcomes from feedback This was attributed primarily to the timing of evaluations at the end of a module.