UNIT EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT – SEMESTER 2, 2010
Table 1 below shows the average medians for the overall satisfaction question, by faculty and by campus. It is pleasing to note the 3,080 units offered on a campus are
regarded as meeting aspirations.
Table 1: Average UE median & number of units evaluated by faculty and campus – “overall satisfaction” question semester 2 2010
Faculty/Campus
Art Des
Arts
Bus Eco
Edu
Eng
Info Tech
Law
MNHS
Pharm
Sci
Avg. location median
Total No. of units
Note:
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
No. of units
Berwick
4.00
1
3.81
33
3.91
42
Caulfield
3.88
143
4.02
254
4.04
212
3.61
11
4.01
79
3.96
60
Clayton
4.54
1
4.20
650
4.00
82
3.96
129
3.93
127
3.80
43
4.11
41
3.96
147
Gippsland
3.83
17
3.95
136
3.95
73
3.87
41
3.88
13
3.86
28
Parkville
Peninsula
South Africa
Sunway
3.92
2
4.00
22
3.70
52
4.10
69
4.07
35
3.64
33
4.03
53
3.69
14
3.72
35
3.69
82
3.76
5
3.74
158
4.03
123
3.90
35
3.84
87
3.99
748
4.00
94
4.08
1,314
3.89
41
3.90
384
3.90
35
3.88
64
3.81
22
4.33
6
3.66
16
3.93
8
3.81
29
3.86
231
Average
3.88
162
4.10
1177
4.01
519
3.88
222
3.91
204
3.88
197
4.14
47
3.85
345
3.90
43
3.94
164
3.99
3,080
Throughout this report the number of units includes all modes for units with multiple modes available at a single campus/location and each individual unit as
well as the combined multi-level unit where multi-level units are available at a single campus/location.
1
Office of Planning and Quality – Monash Quality Unit
For locations other than the 8 campuses mentioned above, the average median for the overall satisfaction questions are shown in Table 2 below. The average medians
for the majority of the units in this type are rated as meeting aspirations, whereas the units offered by the Arts and MNHS in Singapore are regarded as needing
improvement; and the only unit offered by Art Design in Prato and MNHS in Malaysia as needing critical attention.
Table 2: Avg. UE medians & no. of units evaluated for other locations by faculty – “overall satisfaction” question semester 2 2010
Faculty/Campus
Avg. median
Art Des
No. of units
Avg. median
Arts
No. of units
Avg. median
Bus Eco
No. of units
Avg. median
Edu
No. of units
Avg. median
Eng
No. of units
Info Tech Avg. median
No. of units
Avg. median
Law
No. of units
Avg. median
MNHS
No. of units
Average median
Total Number of units
City
MMSAlfred
3.96
15
Other
Aus
4.44
4
3.79
1
Prato
2.25
1
4.63
17
Hong
Kong
Malaysia
Singapore
USA
Other OS
3.20
5
4.00
3
4.07
10
3.44
3
4.55
16
4.10
5
2.00
1
4.27
36
4.18
51
3.83
4
4.28
6
3.92
37
3.92
37
4.31
5
4.44
24
3.88
2
3.35
6
3.00
1
3.00
1
3.47
11
3.70
33
4.10
5
Note: Units offered at Hong Kong, Sunway, USA, other Australian locations and Other overseas locations are off-campus.
2
4.55
16
Average
2.25
1
4.29
57
3.95
4
3.93
13
4.10
5
3.47
5
4.27
42
3.80
51
4.07
178
Table 3 below shows the average medians for the “overall satisfaction” question, by faculty, by campus and by mode (ie on-campus, off-campus and composite). All
on-campus units are rated as meeting aspirations and in general composite and off-campus units have less favourable results. More attention may be needed for the
composite units in Arts at Caulfield, Education at Clayton and MMHS at Gippsland as these units are rated as needing critical attention.
Table 3: Avg. UE median & (No. of units evaluated) by faculty and mode – “overall satisfaction” question semester 2 2010
Berwick
Faculty
ArtDes
Arts
BusEco
Edu
Eng
InfoTech
Law
MNHS
Pharm
Sci
Grand Total
Mode
Off
On
Composite
Off
On
Off
On
Composite
Off
On
Off
On
Off
On
On
Composite
Off
On
Off
On
Off
On
Mean
Count
4.00
1
3.81
3.50
3.92
33
1
41
3.61
11
Caulfield
Mean
Count
3.86
3.88
2.17
3.37
4.11
3.72
4.07
4
139
3
24
227
17
195
3.69
4.04
7
72
3.91
4.03
33
27
Clayton
Mean
Count
4.54
3.12
4.31
4.20
3.63
4.01
2.40
3.89
4.11
3.91
3.93
1
5
35
610
2
80
5
47
77
10
117
3.80
4.11
3.87
4.04
3.92
43
41
4
50
93
Gippsland
Mean
Count
3.22
4.16
6
11
3.86
4.08
3.68
4.44
80
56
47
26
3.93
3.80
3.96
3.79
3.74
4.05
2.74
3.82
3.87
Parkville
Mean
3.84
87
3.99
748
4.00
94
4.08
1,314
3.90
Peninsula
Mean
Count
South Africa
Mean
Count
Sunway
Mean
Count
22
6
3.76
5
3.66
16
3.93
8
3.81
29
3.86
231
3.99
3.64
33
4.00
22
4.07
35
4.03
53
22
19
7
6
17
11
3.09
3.76
5
47
3.88
64
4
11
20
3.80
3.56
3.71
3.90
1
34
35
3.74
3
158
3,080
3.81
4.33
69
384
10
152
8
139
1,030
67
452
5
74
143
17
187
24
173
47
15
111
219
1
42
18
146
14
4.10
18
23
Count
3.69
2
7
17
58
Average
Mean
3.48
3.91
2.76
3.89
4.14
3.68
4.06
2.40
3.85
3.95
3.93
3.91
3.72
3.90
4.14
3.53
3.91
3.85
3.60
3.91
3.60
3.98
3.92
3.60
3.90
3.60
4.11
Count
4.03
123
The average medians for the “overall satisfaction” question, by faculty and unit level is shown in Table 4 below. Units at all levels are evaluated as meeting
aspirations in the second semester of 2010, with the exception of: Level 4 in Science and level 6 in Bus Eco as outstanding; and Level 5 in Science and Level M in
Arts as needing critical attention.
Table 4: Avg. UE median & (no. of units evaluated) by faculty and unit level – “overall satisfaction” question semester 2 2010
Faculty/ Level
Avg. Median
Art Des
No. of units
Avg. Median
Arts
No. of units
Avg. Median
Bus Eco
No. of units
Avg. Median
Edu
No. of units
Avg. Median
Eng
No. of units
Info Tech Avg. Median
No. of units
Avg. Median
Law
No. of units
Avg. Median
MNHS
No. of units
Avg. Median
Pharm
No. of units
Avg. Median
Sci
No. of units
Total Average median
Total Number of units
1
4.02
47
4.04
159
3.91
70
3.99
15
3.75
23
3.75
35
3.77
2
3.85
38
3.86
12
3.89
36
3.94
437
2
3.99
47
4.07
294
3.98
131
3.70
15
3.78
46
3.86
48
4.16
2
3.70
59
3.96
14
3.95
55
3.97
711
3
3.68
35
4.11
292
4.00
150
3.88
12
3.87
51
3.74
58
4.25
11
3.81
62
3.88
13
4.01
69
3.99
753
4
3.73
22
4.25
163
4.21
7
3.84
114
4.06
67
3.94
13
4.16
34
3.91
131
3.98
3
4.75
1
4.03
555
5
3.49
8
3.98
75
4.09
84
3.96
72
4.03
22
4.06
35
4.25
38
3.82
82
3.60
1
1.25
2
3.98
419
6
9
4.10
1
5.00
1
4.02
72
4.24
5
3.70
2
4.15
13
4.04
2
3.78
1
4.09
6
4.06
17
4.11
18
Note: Unit Level L designates a unit level at later year in an undergraduate program and M a combined unit
4
4.04
94
L
3.99
8
M
3.87
3
4.14
251
4.30
8
4.47
1
4.14
263
Average
3.87
163
4.11
1,234
4.01
523
3.89
235
3.92
209
3.87
202
4.20
89
3.85
396
3.90
43
3.94
164
4.00
3,258
Table 5 below provides a time series comparison of the average medians for the 2,337 units with two previous evaluations in addition to the current evaluation for
Semester 1, 2010. In general the perception of units does not show much change over time, with the great majority of units showing stability in being regarded as
meeting aspirations. Some exceptions are: the only Art Design unit in Prato, which is rated as needing critical attention; and the Arts and MNHS units in Sunway,
which have dropped from meeting aspirations to needing improvement. The faculties may need to keep a watching brief on units that have improved out of the red or
orange zone to ensure they don’t slide back.
Table 5: Time series data for Avg. UE median by faculty and location – “overall satisfaction” question semester 2 2010
Faculty/Campus
UW5-1
UW5-2
Art Des
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
Arts
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
Bus Eco
UW5-3
Berwick
4.00
4.00
4.10
3.90
3.74
4.03
3.96
3.98
3.91
Caulfield
3.91
3.93
3.91
4.11
4.03
4.01
4.03
4.04
4.03
UW5-1
UW5-2
Edu
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
Eng
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
InfoTech
UW5-3
3.87
3.67
3.72
4.00
4.04
4.01
UW5-1
UW5-2
Law
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
MNHS
UW5-3
4.00
3.93
3.75
Clayton
4.54
4.08
4.64
4.19
4.06
4.09
3.95
3.93
3.90
4.05
3.95
3.87
3.93
3.80
3.82
3.80
3.70
3.67
4.12
4.07
4.14
3.92
4.00
4.02
Gippsland
3.83
3.95
4.34
3.94
4.01
4.08
3.91
3.67
3.70
3.84
3.69
3.85
3.79
3.49
3.88
3.86
3.59
3.76
3.78
3.89
3.69
Parkville
Peninsula
3.75
3.67
3.83
4.03
3.91
3.86
3.71
3.75
3.84
South
Africa
Sunway
City
4.07
3.86
3.91
4.03
4.05
3.89
3.45
3.81
3.75
4.00
4.03
3.89
3.96
3.78
4.00
3.66
3.84
3.81
3.76
3.72
3.89
3.76
3.30
3.78
3.86
3.78
3.91
3.97
3.57
3.77
4.50
4.31
4.18
3.39
3.85
3.82
MMS
Alfred
Other
Aust
Prato
2.25
4.75
4.75
Hong
Kong
Singapore
3.44
3.92
3.92
3.20
3.00
3.43
4.00
4.00
3.46
4.28
4.03
4.40
4.25
4.17
5.00
3.83
4.00
3.86
4.24
4.13
4.26
4.19
4.35
4.23
3.96
3.99
3.54
4.00
3.00
3.83
3.53
3.00
3.81
Other
OS
3.61
4.65
3.75
Average
3.90
3.94
3.96
4.10
4.02
4.06
3.99
3.96
3.91
3.95
3.88
3.88
3.90
3.78
3.85
3.89
3.81
3.83
4.18
4.11
4.19
3.87
3.87
3.85
Note: UW5-1 represents data for Semester 1 2010; UW5-2 depicts medians for the previous evaluation; and UW5-3 values are for the evaluation prior to UW5-2.
5
Table 5: Time series data for Avg. UE median by faculty and location – “overall satisfaction” question semester 2 2010 (Continued)
Faculty/Campus
Berwick
Caulfield
Clayton
Gippsland
4.01
4.00
3.97
3.97
3.99
3.90
4.07
3.99
3.99
3.94
3.69
3.89
3.90
3.81
3.90
UW5-1
UW5-2
Pharm
UW5-3
UW5-1
UW5-2
Sci
UW5-3
Average of UW5-1
Average of UW5-2
Average of UW5-3
3.93
3.86
3.92
Parkville
3.89
3.64
3.62
3.89
3.64
3.62
Peninsula
3.80
3.77
3.87
South
Africa
Sunway
City
MMS
Alfred
Other
Aust
Prato
Hong
Kong
Singapore
Other
OS
3.97
3.88
3.88
3.78
3.66
3.82
3.83
3.82
3.86
4.15
4.01
4.17
3.96
3.99
3.54
4.25
4.17
5.00
3.70
4.45
4.36
3.58
3.69
3.90
3.72
3.49
3.82
3.61
4.65
3.75
Average
3.89
3.64
3.62
3.93
3.87
3.89
3.99
3.94
3.95
Note: UW5-1 represents data for Semester 1 2010; UW5-2 depicts medians for the previous evaluation; and UW5-3 values are for the evaluation prior to UW5-2.
6
UNIT EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT – SEMESTER 2, 2010
Tables 6, 7 and 8 below show the distribution of medians for the “overall satisfaction” question for each faculty.
Units that would have previously been omitted as “exceptions” have been flagged and their results included in the
pivot tables, the distributions are presented separately for:
•
•
•
all units, including those which would have been omitted as “exceptions” in previous evaluations, ie with
fewer than five responses, or more than 100% response rate (Table 6);
the subset of units which have not been flagged as exceptions (75% of all units) - it is only this latter
group that can be strictly compared with previous evaluation results (Table 7);
the units that would have been previously omitted as “exceptions” (Table 8).
There are substantial differences in the median distributions for these different types of unit. Results in Table 6
are based on all units with non-zero responses, even when there may have been only one student in the unit
responding. The overall percentage of units classified as needing improvement and outstanding are roughly
comparable to last semester results, while the proportion rated as meeting aspirations is higher in this semester
but lower in needing critical attention.
However, when the units flagged as “exceptions” (Table 8) and “non-exceptions” (Table 7) are separated out,
there are striking differences. The “non-exceptions”, which contribute to about 75% of all the units evaluated in
the semester, behave roughly similarly to the median distributional patterns as observed in the overall distribution
of all units (Table 6) and the ‘non-exceptions’ in previous semester. The “exceptions” units (Table 8) are far more
likely to be given ratings at either extreme (very dissatisfied or very satisfied) with about half of them seen as
meeting aspirations.
Table 6: Percentage of all units falling into each “traffic light” category semester 2 2010
Faculty/Category
No. of units
Percentage of units
Art Des
No. of units
Percentage of units
Arts
No. of units
Percentage of units
Bus Eco
No. of units
Percentage of units
Edu
No. of units
Percentage of units
Eng
No. of units
Percentage of units
Info Tech
No. of units
Percentage of units
Law
No. of units
Percentage of units
MNHS
No. of units
Percentage of units
Pharm
No. of units
Percentage of units
Sci
No. of units
Percentage of units
Semester 1 comparison
≤3.00
21
12.9%
116
9.4%
22
4.2%
32
13.6%
12
5.7%
19
9.4%
1
1.1%
49
12.4%
2
4.7%
9
5.5%
283
8.7%
7.5%
3.01-3.59
18
11.0%
76
6.2%
54
10.3%
23
9.8%
31
14.8%
29
14.4%
2
2.2%
39
9.8%
4
9.3%
19
11.6%
295
9.1%
10.9%
3.60-4.69
110
67.5%
804
65.2%
407
77.8%
147
62.6%
157
75.1%
141
69.8%
72
80.9%
274
69.2%
34
79.1%
125
76.2%
2,271
69.7%
71.0%
≥4.70
14
8.6%
238
19.3%
40
7.6%
33
14.0%
9
4.3%
13
6.4%
14
15.7%
34
8.6%
3
7.0%
11
6.7%
409
12.6%
10.5%
Total
163
100.0%
1234
100.0%
523
100.0%
235
100.0%
209
100.0%
202
100.0%
89
100.0%
396
100.0%
43
100.0%
164
100.0%
3,258
100.0%
100.0%
7
Office of Planning and Quality – Monash Quality Unit
Table 7: Percentage falling into each category excluding previous “exceptions” semester 2 2010
Faculty/Category
No. of units
Percentage of units
Art Des
No. of units
Percentage of units
Arts
No. of units
Percentage of units
Bus Eco
No. of units
Percentage of units
Edu
No. of units
Percentage of units
Eng
No. of units
Percentage of units
Info Tech
No. of units
Percentage of units
Law
No. of units
Percentage of units
MNHS
No. of units
Percentage of units
Pharm
No. of units
Percentage of units
Sci
No. of units
Percentage of units
Semester 1 comparison
≤3.00
9
6.9%
45
5.8%
14
3.0%
23
11.6%
10
5.3%
9
6.2%
1
1.2%
23
8.8%
2
4.9%
5
3.8%
141
5.8%
4.7%
3.01-3.59
15
11.5%
42
5.4%
49
10.4%
18
9.1%
30
15.9%
22
15.2%
2
2.4%
24
9.2%
4
9.8%
16
12.0%
222
9.1%
11.8%
3.60-4.69
98
74.8%
609
78.1%
376
79.7%
131
66.2%
143
75.7%
108
74.5%
69
83.1%
205
78.8%
32
78.0%
105
78.9%
1,876
77.1%
77.6%
≥4.70
9
6.9%
84
10.8%
33
7.0%
26
13.1%
6
3.2%
6
4.1%
11
13.3%
8
3.1%
3
7.3%
7
5.3%
193
7.9%
5.8%
Total
131
100.0%
780
100.0%
472
100.0%
198
100.0%
189
100.0%
145
100.0%
83
100.0%
260
100.0%
41
100.0%
133
100.0%
2,432
100.0%
100.0%
Table 8: Percentage of previous “exceptions” units falling into each category for semester 2 2010
Faculty/Category
No. of units
Percentage of units
Art Des
No. of units
Percentage of units
Arts
No. of units
Percentage of units
Bus Eco
No. of units
Percentage of units
Edu
No. of units
Percentage of units
Eng
No. of units
Percentage of units
Info Tech
No. of units
Percentage of units
Law
No. of units
Percentage of units
MNHS
No. of units
Percentage of units
Pharm
No. of units
Percentage of units
Sci
No. of units
Percentage of units
Semester 1 comparison
≤3.00
12
37.5%
71
15.6%
8
15.7%
9
24.3%
2
10.0%
10
17.5%
3.01-3.59
3
9.4%
34
7.5%
5
9.8%
5
13.5%
1
5.0%
7
12.3%
0.0%
26
19.1%
0.0%
15
11.0%
0.0%
4
12.9%
142
17.2%
15.9%
0.0%
3
9.7%
73
8.8%
8.1%
3.60-4.69
12
37.5%
195
43.0%
31
60.8%
16
43.2%
14
70.0%
33
57.9%
3
50.0%
69
50.7%
2
100.0%
20
64.5%
395
47.8%
51.4%
≥4.70
5
15.6%
154
33.9%
7
13.7%
7
18.9%
3
15.0%
7
12.3%
3
50.0%
26
19.1%
0.0%
4
12.9%
216
26.2%
24.6%
Total
32
100.0%
454
100.0%
51
100.0%
37
100.0%
20
100.0%
57
100.0%
6
100.0%
136
100.0%
2
100.0%
31
100.0%
826
100.0%
100.0%
8