LTC13-P26
25 April 2013
Teaching Centre
Response to Student Feedback from Central Services:
Academic Year 2011-12
The processing of Student Module Feedback forms for the academic year 2011-12
was undertaken by the Print Unit, utilising Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to
scan completed module feedback forms. It had been agreed that OCR technology
allows for greater flexibility, increased efficiency of processing and improved
tolerance during scanning compared to the Optical Mark Reader.
The revised Module feedback form was used and Schools/Departments downloaded
a template, added their selected questions and printed forms off independently,
rather than utilising the two-colour pre-printed form and having to copy questions
onto it.
Following scanning of the forms by the Print Unit, data was uploaded onto LUSI,
usually with 5 working days for Schools/Departments to obtain data. Schools/
Departments were able to view both quantitative and qualitative data as written
comments were also scanned.
Forms for a total of 857 modules were processed for Semester One and 630 for
Semester Two, totalling 1,487 modules for the academic year 2011-12 compared to
a total of 1,166 modules in 2010-11 and 1,187 in 2009-10.
Questions relating to Central Services remained the same, following their revision for
feedback collected in 2008-09, namely Q10: ‘The library resources and services are
good enough for my needs’, Q11: ‘I have been able to access general IT resources
when I needed to’, Q12: ‘The teaching rooms for this module were fit for purpose’.
No Project, Placements and Dissertation (PPD) forms were processed and I
understand following the LTC meeting in December 2012, it was agreed these
should be discontinued.
Reports are appended for the following three service providers:
1. University Library (Ruth Jenkins)
2. Facilities Management (Caroline Pepper)
3. IT Services (Clive Woodhouse)
Support Services noted above were alerted to outcomes of student feedback where
mean scores were <3 and asked to provide a written response. The reports
appended herein address concerns raised via student feedback and provide an
account of action taken by the respective service providers.
The majority of issues raised were relatively straight-forward and have been
addressed by the relevant Service provider.
It may be beneficial to provide feedback to Central Service providers twice yearly
and I will be happy to implement this if LTC feel this would be constructive.
Jo Wilkins
Teaching Centre Administrator
April 2013
University Library
Library-related module feedback from students, 2011-2012
The main module feedback question relating to the Library was Q10: ‘The library
resources and services are good enough for my needs’.
The number of modules attracting a mean score of less than 3.00 for questions was
28, which was similar to 2010-2011.
As in previous years, the reasons for modules receiving the low scores were
investigated in detail by the staff of the Academic Services Team. This is seen as
part of their continuous liaison between academic Schools and the Library.
Library staff:
 ascertained whether there was an online reading list for the module
 studied the module reading list (if there is one) and checked the availability and
demand of the library material listed
 checked whether the students received guidance on how to find, evaluate and
use good quality information
 contacted the academic staff teaching the module to discuss the feedback
There is a time delay between Schools collecting the module feedback and the
Library receiving details of the modules that scored below 3.00. This can cause
difficulties in ascertaining why there are problems. Schools should be encouraged to
flag any issues as soon as possible with the Library so that more timely action can
be taken.
In some cases, Academic Librarians ascertained that low scores were due to small
sample sizes (where as few as 2 students had responded to the question on library
resources and services). Sometimes this was associated with a module that was no
longer running and/or about to be suspended.
One of courses that received a low score for Library resources and services was a
WEDC module, delivered by distance learning. In this case it turned out that the
reading list consisted of one printed book which dates from 1998 and the Library only
has two copies in stock. The Academic Librarian has been liaising with WEDC on the
provision of electronic resources to support this module.
The question on ‘Library resources and services’ does not just cover book and
information resource provision, but also other services delivered by the Library such
as PCs, study spaces and information skills training. In the case of one course on 3D
CAD Modelling (CVC022), one student suggested that their reason was giving a low
score for question 10 was that they wanted better CAD provision on the Library PCs.
The module leader has now been informed that AutoCAD is installed on 12 PCs in
Training Room 2 so that this information can be communicated to students.
As in previous years, there were a few low-scoring modules for which Library support
is considered neither necessary nor appropriate, for example lab programmes with
no reading list. In such cases students should be instructed to tick the ‘does not
apply to me’ box. (It may be that they were so instructed but still answered the
questions.)
Dissertation / project modules continue to receive low scores, as reading lists are
generally not provided. When this is raised with the internal examiners they indicate
to us that they wish students to explore the subject and find information relevant to
their own topic. Information literacy refresher workshops are often not scheduled
into the teaching timetable, as the lecturers believe the students should already have
the skills to find and manage information. For these types of modules, consideration
should be given to providing reading lists relating to research methods and
information literacy lectures/clinics delivered to help those students who are
struggling to find good quality information on their topics. Students should also be
encouraged to attend ‘Get the Know-How’ sessions within the Library or make an
appointment with their Academic Librarian if they require further advice on finding,
using or citing information resources.
The issues raised more than once are summarised below:
 general dissatisfaction with a module that impacts on the Library score
 reading lists that only contain a few titles and therefore do not provide students
with a choice of material to read
 dissertation/project modules not providing any reading list
 unrealistic expectations that students will explore the subject and find information
relevant to their own topic without receiving any guidance on how to do this
 provision of reading lists on Learn, PowerPoint slides, or hand-outs, rather than
through the University’s online reading list system, such that the Library was
unaware of what resources were being recommended
 provision of material on Learn that may infringe the Copyright act
 insufficient copies or inappropriate loan statuses of books due to increased
student numbers on modules leading to students competing to borrow items
 broken links on the online reading list system or Learn
Where problems were identified, steps have been taken to improve matters. These
include:
 encouraging lecturers to add new material to reading lists
 encouraging lecturers to add reading lists to the online reading list system
 purchasing additional copies of books
 purchase of electronic copies of texts where available
 moving copies of texts from long to high demand and vice versa
 correcting broken links on modules
 suggesting the arrangement of information literacy courses.
General points are:
 close liaison between teaching staff and Library staff is crucial





electronic resources are not always recognised as Library resources, so that
where modules rely heavily on e-journals, for example, students may not realise
they are using a resource provided by the Library unless this is explained to them
student expectations of Library support can be unrealistic, particularly in the light
of the new tuition fee regime for undergraduates
there is often an expectation from teaching staff that students will buy their own
copies of key texts: failure to do so makes low scores for Q10 inevitable –
especially for modules with large numbers of students
lecturers teaching dissertation/project modules often provide no reading list –
which inevitably can cause student frustration
information literacy teaching by Library staff can be very beneficial, and is an
opportunity that should be more widely taken up by departments
A detailed report of the Academic Services Team investigations can be obtained
directly from the University Librarian.
Recommendations
1. Schools should be encouraged to contact the Library as soon as it becomes
apparent that there has been an issue with a module, so that appropriate and
timely action can be taken.
2. Schools should be encouraged to invite their Academic Librarian to attend Staff
Student Consultative Committees and other appropriate School meetings on a
regular basis.
3. All modules, including project modules, should provide a reading list through the
University’s online reading list system.
4. Academic staff should be careful to avoid infringement of copyright when
providing access to electronic full-text resources on Learn.
5. All students should be taught how to find, evaluate and use information
resources.
Ruth Jenkins
University Librarian, University Library
31st January 2013
Subject:
Origin:
Student Feedback Relating to Teaching Rooms
Caroline Pepper, Facilities Management
Learning Space and Administration Manager
The number of responses below a score of 3 for 2011/12 relating to fit for purpose
teaching rooms were as follows:
Number of
responses
allocated to pool
teaching space
Allocated pool rooms
Semester 1
Number of
responses
for
all teaching
space
22
18
Semester 2
10
7
A range of pool and
departmental rooms have
been listed. Rooms listed
more than once include:
JB021, XX019, RT033 and
S177
U020, X401, TW112
(school)
Total
32
25
Student feedback mean scores <3 relating to teaching rooms has increased from the
2010/11 academic year. The rooms which have been listed against module codes
with a low feedback score will be further evaluated as part of the Teaching Space
Strategy Development Plan.
Pool Space

Module code PHD401 which received the lowest mean score of 1.44 was
allocated to a small internal lecture theatre within the library. This room had
no natural light and has subsequently been removed from pool teaching and
learning space as part of the library redevelopment.

Module code ELP067 received a mean score of 1.95. The module was
delivered in a School research lab with specialist IT equipment and
software. Discussions have taken place to consider how future module
delivery can be accommodated to address student dissatisfaction.

Pool room S177 was listed against module codes CVP077 and CVP093 with
a score of 2.70 and 2.00 respectively. This area will be considered in the
emerging West Park strategy.

JB021 in John Beckwith Building was listed as a teaching module with a mean
score of below 3. This room has been prioritised for removal from the pool
when quality replacement space has been created.
Central timetabling has enabled a better understanding of teaching requirements.
CMIS allows for global analysis of all teaching space (both pool and school).
Student Feedback Scores – IT Resources – Semester 1, 2011-12
Modules where “IT resources” scored less than 3 out of 5.
Department
CG
Module
C028
CV
P251
EL
P066
BS
A052
MM
C401
No of forms Score for “IT Resources” Notes
No computer labs are used for this module and there is plenty of
material on Learn, so the question is not really relevant to the
module.
We run our DL modules largely in a paper-based mode. This is
mainly because there are a large proportion of students who are
based overseas in low- and middle-income countries, sometimes in
locations that do not have reliable Internet access and we do not
want to exclude such people from study opportunities. For most DL
modules only a very limited amount of module information is posted
on Learn. For some DL modules, like CVP251, we have an optional
discussion forum, but it is not very active. Most DL students make at
least some use of the university webmail service but some opt for
messages to automatically be forwarded to their preferred email
address. Many have little obvious contact with the university’s’ IT
Resources unless they choose to use the electronic resources
available through the Library. In the last two year’s we have
provided new students with a CD, that the Library produced for us,
to give distance learners more information about using the Library’s
electronic resources remotely.
The issues relating to ELP066 are due to a problem with the
teaching room being used for the module. This module is taught in
a very small room in SEIC and historically this was not a problem
but last year we took a large number of students onto this course
from externals. Retrospectively, we now know that the teaching
room (and the number of PCs - currently there are only 10 working
units) is not big enough to meet reasonable demands. Our long
term solution to the problem centres around relocating the teaching
to a larger room in the W building. This year the examiner will teach
the module twice to different groups to mitigate the problem if
required.
Low score not understood, as HRM module with no special IT
requirements
3 reasons were identified:
1) Unavailability of computer labs during the day due to them
being booked for teaching.
2) A few negative comments about the version of CAD software
used.
3) A couple of comments requesting updated printing facilities.
These have now been updated.
The module is no longer running due to staff sabbaticals and lack of
interest in the module. No comments were made by the students
on the module at the staff student committee and there appear to be
no student comments in relation to these questions.
PH
D175
Student Feedback Scores – IT Resources – Semester 2, 2011-12, Modules where “IT Resources” scored less than 3 out of 5.
Department
EL
Module
B044
EL
B045
EL
D002
No of forms Score for “IT resources”
Notes
Whilst the teaching for this module is of a high quality, lecture notes
have not been put onto Learn. This had already been picked up and
a colleague who is versed in Learn will do the web resources for the
module
Whilst the teaching for this module is of a high quality, lecture notes
have not been put onto Learn. This had already been picked up and
a colleague who is versed in Learn will do the web resources for the
module
ELD002 feedback relates to a specific problem with software
packages to support a group project. This group project saw a
significant change in the material and software demand from
previous years and some of the issues were not foreseen. It's an
open-ended project and consequently the requirements may also
have shifted from that intended. We anticipate an improvement
when the module is run this time round, but APC is monitoring the
situation.
Design
School
DSC026
Dr Richard Bibb comments - However, this issue was nothing to do
with the module specifically and was a general issue across all
design programmes and years. It has also been reported at every
Staff Student Liaison Committee meeting since we moved into the
new building.
The crux of the issue is that LDS003 is dominated out of hours by
students from other schools (probably because its new and
nice). This presents a problem for design students as CAD
software is not installed in other open access IT labs. As LDS003 is
under the responsibility of IT Services it is beyond the School’s
control to impose any sort of preference for design students out of
hours.
Computer
Science
COC257
Teaching rooms (COC251,COC253,COC257,COC259)
-----------------------------------------------------------The project modules have two formal lectures (at the start of the
project, and just before submission) and the lecture rooms are
excellent and no comments were made about these. It is likely that
students interpreted `teaching rooms' for this modules to be the
labs where they spend most of their time doing project work, and
used this question to voice their dissatisfaction on the availability of
labs. Module COC257 was also low on the `IT resources' question
which was probably a complaint about the same problem. In fact,
MSc labs had to be made available to undergraduate final year
project students last year as a temporary measure.
The action plan is for the department to review its allocation of lab
resources.