STUDENT SURVEY REPORT
For the 1st semester, 2012-13
I. SURVEY DESCRIPTION
I.1 Survey goals
The purpose of the EHU Student Survey is to provide academic community and university
administrators with insight regarding issues that affect teaching and learning.
I.2 Surveyed population and sample size
Surveyed population: All students of EHU: 1,771
Sample size: 434 students representative of total University enrollment
I.3 Method of interview
Questionnaires were filled by students in university auditoriums. Respondents were recruited
using nonprobability sampling.
I.4 Intrerview Date
February 2013
I.5 Explanations
Statistically significant higher values are marked with purple circles.
Statistically significant lower values are marked with blue circles.
Means are compared with inside the group.
All percentages and totals are calculated from all respondents (N=434); means are calculated from
respondents who provided answers.
2
Illustration 1. Characteristics of the respondents
Lectures / seminars attendance
76-100 percent
51-75 percent
0-25 percent
No answer
Moodle usage
Uses all the time
No answer
Course
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
First MA
Second MA
Program
Theory of Visual Culture
Introduction to Cultural and Visual Studies
Cultural Heritage
Media and Communication
Media and Visual Design
International Law
Preservation and Interpretation of Cultural
Political Science and European Studies
Theory and Practice of Contemporary Art
Residence
High residence
Low residence
N=434
382
18
23
11
4
5
3
423
11
3
155
104
78
59
19
8
10
64
13
119
65
53
73
5
18
24
175
259
88
97
36
24
18
14
4
2
2
15
3
27
15
12
17
1
4
6
40
60
3
II. DATA ANALYSIS
II.1. General evaluation of University teachers
During the European Humanities University (EHU) Student Survey, students evaluated
their teachers on a scale from 1 to 4 according to 17 statements. During the analysis of data,
the general evaluation of teachers was calculated as 3,54 on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1
mean “No, I disagree” and 4 means “Yes, I agree.” This indicator shows that overall
satisfaction with a teacher‘s work among the students is high.
Comparing the overall satisfaction rate of lecturers with criteria for student evaluation
of teachers, we can state that students are most satisfied with the speed of uploading
materials into the Model: the average evaluation of this statement is 3,73. Other statements
more highly evaluated by students (statistically significantly higher from the general
evaluation of teachers) are performance of a schedule in classes and in the Moodle (mean:
3,65), availability of materials (3,65), representation of material in clear and consistent
manner (3,58), availability of teacher to provide advice after classes (3,57), and clear
communication with students (3,57).
Criteria that were evaluated less positively (statistically significantly lower from general
evaluation of teachers) are: overall satisfaction with the quality of the content of studied
discipline (3,49), efforts of teacher to help overcome difficulties students face during studies
(3,49), feedback of completed assignments in a timely manner (3,47), encouragement of
students to perform independent work on a subject (3,46), reasonable study load (3,45), ability
to attract student interest in the subject and profession (3,43), and introduction of scientific
debate and research on the topic of the course (3,40).
General evaluation of EHU teachers differs in all groups of students; those attending
more than half of lectures or seminars evaluated the work with a statistically significantly
higher rank; students of first, second, third, and fifth courses more frequently estimated
teachers better than students from the fourth course and second master course. Students
attending ‘Introduction to Cultural and Visual Studies’ and ‘Preservation and Interpretation of
Cultural Heritage’ programs estimated teachers less positively. Students who choose high
residence studies evaluate teachers less positively than students attending low residence
studies.
Examining the general evaluation of teachers in a split of main students characteristics,
many differences between student groups in evaluating of criteria appears. The first
observation is that students who attend 51–75% of all lectures and seminars evaluate some of
criteria with a statistically significant higher rate than students who attend 0-25% of lectures
and seminars.
All differences in teacher evaluations by criteria among the courses students attend
(also among the studied program) can be seen in illustrations 4–7. Overall remarks for these
data is that students of the first, second, and fifth courses evaluate teacher performance
statistically significantly better than students of the fourth courses. Students of second
master degree courses tend to evaluate teachers’ work less positively when comparing them
with other courses.
Another observation in this study is that high residence students estimate that some
criteria work less positively than students of low residence studies.
4
Illustration 2. Evaluation of EHU teachers (Means calculated using a scale from 1 to 4,
where 1 mean “No, I disagree” and 4 means “Yes, I agree”)
Values in orange bars are statistically significantly higher then average evaluation of teachers
Values in yellow bars do not statistically significantly differ from the average evaluation of teachers
Values in blue bars are statistically significantly lower then average evaluation of teachers
Mean
General evaluation of teachers
3,54
The teacher promptly uploads the materials necessary for the
subject studies into the Moodle
3,73
The teacher performs the schedule of classes both in the
classroom and in the Moodle
3,65
The materials required for the studies are available in the
library or placed in the Moodle environment
The teacher represents course material in a clear and
consistent manner, both in the classroom and in the Moodle
in accordance with the program
The teacher is available to provide advices after lectures are
over
3,65
3,59
3,57
The teacher interacts with students in a professional and
correct manner
3,57
The teacher evaluates the completed tasks objectively and
impartially
3,55
For the teacher it is important to check not only memorizing
the material but its digestion and comprehension
3,55
The criteria for giving grades are clear, understandable and
known in advance
3,53
On the whole, I am satisfied with quality of the teaching of
studied discipline
3,52
The teacher strives to help overcome the difficulties that
students are facing during studies
3,49
On the whole, I am satisfied with quality of the content of
studied discipline
3,49
The teacher evaluates the completed assignments and
provides feedback in a timely manner
The teacher encourages students to express their opinions, to
conduct independent research and analysis of the various
problems
The study load is distributed reasonably
The teacher is able to attract one's interest in the subject and
profession
The teacher introduces the scientific debates and researches
on the topic of the course
3,47
3,47
3,46
3,44
3,40
5
Illustration 3. Evaluation of EHU teachers. Split by students characteristics
General
Lectures / seminars attendance
76-100 percent
51-75 percent
0-25 percent
Course
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
First MA
Second MA
Program
Theory of Visual Culture
Introduction to Cultural and Visual Studies
Cultural Heritage
Media and Communication
Media and Visual Design
International Law
N
434
Mean
The teachers
3,5
3,3
382
18
23
3,5
3,6
3,4
3,4
2,7
2,8
155
104
78
59
19
8
10
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,3
3,9
3,7
3,2
3,3
3,4
3,0
3,6
3,5
3,4
3,3
64
13
119
65
53
73
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,2
3,7
3,6
3,5
3,3
3,2
3,4
3,5
3,2
3,7
3,4
3,7
3,5
3,6
3,2
3,4
Preservation and Interpretation of Cultural Heritage
Political Science and European Studies
Theory and Practice of Contemporary Art
Residence
High residence
5
18
24
183
Low residence
251
Illustration 4. Evaluation of EHU teachers by criteria. Split by students characteristics I
(Means)
General
Lectures / seminars attendance
76-100 percent
51-75 percent
0-25 percent
Course
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
First MA
Second MA
Program
Theory of Visual Culture
Introduction to Cultural and Visual Studies
Cultural Heritage
Media and Communication
Media and Visual Design
International Law
Preservation and Interpretation of Cultural Heritage
Political Science and European Studies
Theory and Practice of Contemporary Art
Residance
High residence
Low residence
The criteria for
giving grades are
clear,
understandable The study load is
and known in
distributed
reasonably
N advance
434
3,5
3,5
The materials
required for the
studies are available
in the library or
placed in the Moodle
environment
The teacher
introduces the
scientific debates and
researches on the
topic of the course
The teacher encourages
students to express their
opinions, to conduct
independent research
and analysis of the
various problems
3,6
3,4
3,5
382
18
23
3,5
3,7
3,4
3,5
3,6
3,3
3,6
3,8
3,5
3,4
3,3
3,3
3,5
3,5
3,3
155
104
78
3,6
3,5
3,5
3,4
4,0
3,2
3,2
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,4
3,7
3,5
3,1
3,7
3,8
3,4
3,5
4,0
4,0
3,5
3,5
3,3
3,4
3,3
4,0
3,7
2,7
3,5
3,5
3,4
3,2
3,8
3,3
3,4
3,4
3,1
3,5
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,4
3,7
3,6
3,3
3,2
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,4
3,4
3,7
3,4
3,5
3,9
3,7
3,8
3,5
3,5
3,4
3,8
3,9
3,3
3,3
3,3
3,6
3,1
3,5
2,8
3,8
3,7
3,3
3,5
3,6
3,6
3,4
3,3
3,2
3,8
3,5
3,5
3,6
3,5
3,4
3,5
3,7
3,4
3,4
3,4
3,5
59
19
8
10
64
13
119
65
53
73
5
18
24
183
251
6
Illustration 5. Evaluation of EHU teachers by criteria. Split by students characteristics
II (Means)
General
Lectures / seminars attendance
76-100 percent
51-75 percent
0-25 percent
Course
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
First MA
Second MA
Program
Theory of Visual Culture
Introduction to Cultural and Visual Studies
Cultural Heritage
Media and Communication
Media and Visual Design
International Law
The teacher
interacts with
students in a
professional and
N correct manner
434
3,6
The teacher promptly
uploads the
materials necessary
for the subject
studies into the
Moodle
The teacher represents
course material in a clear
and consistent manner, both
in the classroom and in the
Moodle in accordance with
the program
The teacher is able
to attract one‘s
interest in the
subject and
profession
3,7
3,6
3,4
382
18
23
3,6
3,5
3,4
3,7
3,7
3,6
3,6
3,7
3,4
3,5
3,5
3,2
155
3,6
3,7
3,5
3,4
4,0
4,0
3,1
3,8
3,8
3,5
3,7
4,0
4,0
3,4
3,7
3,6
3,4
3,5
3,8
4,0
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,3
3,1
3,9
4,0
3,3
3,6
3,7
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,0
3,5
3,7
3,8
3,7
3,7
3,8
3,7
3,7
3,4
3,7
3,9
3,6
3,8
3,5
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,4
3,7
3,6
3,4
3,8
3,5
3,5
3,3
3,3
3,0
3,5
3,6
3,5
3,6
3,7
3,8
3,5
3,6
3,3
3,5
104
78
59
19
8
10
64
13
119
65
53
73
Preservation and Interpretation of Cultural Heritage
Political Science and European Studies
Theory and Practice of Contemporary Art
Residance
High residence
5
18
24
183
Low residence
251
Illustration 6. Evaluation of EHU teachers by criteria. Split by students characteristics
III (Means)
General
Lectures / seminars attendance
76-100 percent
51-75 percent
0-25 percent
Course
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
First MA
Second MA
Program
Theory of Visual Culture
Introduction to Cultural and Visual Studies
Cultural Heritage
Media and Communication
Media and Visual Design
International Law
The teacher
performs the
schedule of classes
both in the
classroom and in
N the Moodle
434
3,7
The teacher strives
The teacher is
to help overcome
available to provide the difficulties that
advices after lectures students are facing
are over
during studies
For the teacher it is
important to check
not only memorizing
the material but its
digestion and
comprehension
3,6
3,5
3,6
382
18
23
3,7
3,7
3,5
3,6
3,7
3,4
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,6
3,6
155
104
78
59
19
8
10
3,8
3,7
3,6
3,3
4,0
3,8
3,0
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,4
3,7
3,8
3,1
3,6
3,5
3,6
3,1
3,8
3,8
3,0
3,6
3,5
3,6
3,3
3,8
4,0
3,1
64
13
119
65
53
73
3,7
3,4
3,7
3,5
3,6
3,7
3,4
3,8
3,8
3,7
3,4
3,5
3,6
3,5
3,6
3,4
3,8
3,3
3,3
3,5
3,5
3,6
3,7
3,5
3,0
3,6
3,6
3,4
3,7
3,6
3,6
3,8
3,6
2,8
3,6
3,3
3,6
3,7
3,5
3,6
3,4
3,5
3,5
3,6
Preservation and Interpretation of Cultural Heritage
Political Science and European Studies
Theory and Practice of Contemporary Art
Residance
High residence
5
18
24
183
Low residence
251
7
Illustration 7. Evaluation of EHU teachers by criteria. Split by students characteristics
IV (Means)
General
Lectures / seminars attendance
76-100 percent
51-75 percent
0-25 percent
Course
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
First MA
Second MA
Program
Theory of Visual Culture
Introduction to Cultural and Visual Studies
Cultural Heritage
Media and Communication
Media and Visual Design
International Law
The teacher
evaluates the
completed
assignments and
provides feedback
N in a timely manner
434
3,5
The teacher
evaluates the
completed tasks
objectively and
impartially
On the whole, I
am satisfied with
quality of the
content of
studied discipline
On the whole, I
am satisfied with
quality of the
teaching of
studied discipline
3,6
3,5
3,5
382
18
23
3,5
3,5
3,4
3,5
3,7
3,6
3,5
3,6
3,4
3,5
3,6
3,4
155
104
3,5
3,6
3,5
3,2
3,9
3,3
3,2
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,4
3,9
3,0
3,1
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,0
3,9
3,2
3,3
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,2
3,9
3,8
3,1
3,4
3,3
3,5
3,4
3,7
3,5
3,0
3,5
3,3
3,4
3,0
3,6
3,4
3,8
3,6
3,2
3,5
3,7
3,5
3,3
3,5
3,4
3,6
3,4
3,0
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,6
3,5
3,4
3,6
3,6
3,0
3,7
3,6
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,6
3,4
3,6
3,5
3,5
78
59
19
8
10
64
13
119
65
53
73
Preservation and Interpretation of Cultural Heritage
Political Science and European Studies
Theory and Practice of Contemporary Art
Residance
High residence
183
Low residence
251
5
18
24
8
II.2. Evaluation of EHU Administration
In a survey of students who were asked to evaluate different departments of university
administration, two main statements were used for evaluation: a general evaluation of a
department, and the ability to solve problems. For an evaluation of supervisors, criteria of
communication was used, and for the Administration of Academic department, a statement
providing information in a timely manner was applied.
The results of the survey reveal that the most favorable student views are of the work of
the Finance Department (mean on a scale of 1 to 4: 3,7), and the Mobility and Operations unit
(mean 3,7). Slightly lower estimations by students were given for a supervisor (mean 3,5) and
the Administration of Academic Departments (mean 3,1).
On the subject of solving problems, the Finance Department (3,7) and Student‘s
Services Unit (3,6) received higher estimations. The Administration of Academic Departments
received the lowest estimation and significantly differs from other evaluations: mean 3,0 (19%
of students are unhappy or not satisfied with how the Administration of Academic
Departments solves their problems).
Analyzing overall satisfaction with the work of administration departments, we can see
that the combined average value is the highest for the Finance Department (average mean of
assessments: 3,7) and Student‘s Services Unit (3,6). The lowest evaluations rate supervisors
(3,3) and Administration of Academic Departments (3,0).
Analyzing data by student‘s characteristics reveals that a supervisor is better evaluated
by students who attend 76–100% of classes and seminars, as well as by fourth course and low
residence students. The Student‘s Services Unit is better assessed by respondents who attend
classes and seminars often (76–100%) and by those who attend lectures rarely (0–25%).
Illustration 8. Evaluation of supervisor
Please assess the work of supervisors (coursework, undergraduate, semester, master's works)
1- No
I take a favourable view of
2% 6%
quality of a supervisor
I take a favourable view of
communication with a
supervisor
7% 3%
2 - Rather no
16%
3 - Rather yes
4 - Yes
41%
25%
No answer
Mean
3,5
34%
3,2
32%
33%
Illustration 9. Evaluation of the Administration of Academic Departments
Please assess the work of the Administration of Academic Departments (program curators,
managers, and supervisors of Academic departments)
1- No
2 - Rather no
I take a favourable view of the work of the
Administration of Academic departments
9% 11%
The Administration of Academic departments resolves
arising issues / problems in a timely manner
8% 11%
The Administration of Academic departments provides
information about studies in a timely manner
10% 8%
3 - Rather yes
4 - Yes
27%
38%
32%
30%
30%
35%
No answer
15%
Mean
3,1
18%
3,0
17%
3,1
9
Illustration 10. Evaluation of the Academic Secretariat
Please assess the work of the Academic Secretariat
1- No
I take a favourable view of
the work of the Academic 3%
Secretariat
2 - Rather no
3 - Rather yes
16%
The Academic Secretariat
resolves arising issues /
3%
problems in a timely
manner
4 - Yes
No answer
56%
30%
Mean
3,6
24%
3,5
28%
37%
Illustration 11. Evaluation of the Finance Department
Please assess the work of the Finance Department
1- No
2 - Rather no
3 - Rather yes
4 - Yes
No answer
Mean
I take a favourable view of
the work of the Finance
Department
17%
39%
43%
3,7
The Finance Department
resolves arising issues /
problems in a timely
manner
17%
40%
42%
3,7
Illustration12. Evaluation of the Mobility and Operations Unit
Please assess the work of the Mobility and Operations Unit
1- No
2 - Rather no
I take a favourable view of
the work of the Mobility and 3% 10%
Operations Unit
The Mobility and Operations
Unit resolves arising issues
3%
/ problems in a timely
manner
3 - Rather yes
4 - Yes
37%
17%
Mean
No answer
50%
3,7
3,5
50%
30%
Illustration13. Evaluation of the Student’s Services Unit
Please assess the work of the Student’s Services Unit
1- No
I take a favourable view of
the work of the Student’s 3%
Services Unit
The Student’s Services Unit
resolves arising issues /
problems in a timely
manner
23%
27%
2 - Rather no
3 - Rather yes
4 - Yes
No answer
50%
23%
50%
23%
Mean
3,6
3,6
10
Illustration 14. Evaluation of the IT Unit
Please assess the work of the Information Technologies Unit
1- No
I take a favourable view of
3%
the work of the IT Unit
The IT Unit resolves arising
issues / problems in a
timely manner
7%
2 - Rather no
3 - Rather yes
24%
4 - Yes
46%
24%
Mean
No answer
26%
3,6
3,5
26%
43%
Illustration 15. Comparison of evaluation of Administration Departments
Evaluate each department or unit separately
1- No
2 - Rather no
3 - Rather yes
Evaluation of the work of the Finance Department 1% 17%
39%
Evaluation of the work of the Mobility and Operations
3%10%
Unit
No answer
23%
Evaluationof the work of the IT Unit 3%
24%
3,6
3,6
26%
41%
27%
3,6
23%
46%
9% 11%
3,7
24%
50%
Evaluation of a supervisor 2% 6% 16%
3,7
50%
56%
Evaluation of the work of the Student’s Services Unit 3%
Mean
43%
37%
Evaluation of the work of the Academic Secretariat 3% 16%
Evaluation of the work of the Administration of Academic
departments
4 - Yes
3,5
34%
38%
3,1
15%
Illustration 16. Comparison of ability to solve arising issues or problems in a timely
manner
1- No
2 - Rather no
The Finance Department 1% 17%
The Student’s Services Unit 0%
The Mobility and Operations Unit 3%
The IT Unit
7%
The Academic Secretariat 3%
The Administration of Academic departments
8%
3 - Rather yes
4 - Yes
40%
27%
17%
3,7
23%
50%
3,6
50%
24%
43%
30%
37%
32%
Mean
42%
30%
11%
No answer
3,5
3,5
26%
3,5
28%
30%
18%
3,0
11
Illustration 17. Comparison of overall evaluation of Administration Departments
Illustration 18. General evaluation of academic departments divided by student
characteristics (Means)
General
Lectures / seminars attendance
76-100 percent
51-75 percent
0-25 percent
Course
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
First MA
Second MA
Program
Theory of Visual Culture
Introduction to Cultural and Visual Studies
Cultural Heritage
Media and Communication
Media and Visual Design
International Law
N The supervisor
434
3,3
The
Administration of
Academic
The Academic
departments
Secretariat
The Finance
Department
3,0
3,5
3,7
382
18
23
3,4
2,7
2,8
3,1
2,7
2,7
3,6
3,4
3,5
3,7
3,5
3,8
155
104
78
59
19
8
10
3,3
3,4
3,0
3,6
3,5
3,4
3,3
2,9
3,1
3,2
2,9
3,3
3,5
2,6
3,5
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,8
3,6
3,3
3,6
3,7
3,7
3,5
3,8
3,8
3,8
64
13
119
65
53
73
3,5
3,3
3,2
3,4
3,5
3,2
3,7
3,4
3,7
3,1
2,9
3,0
3,1
2,8
3,0
3,3
3,2
3,3
3,6
3,5
3,6
3,6
3,4
3,6
3,4
3,5
3,8
3,6
3,8
3,7
3,6
3,7
3,7
3,9
3,7
3,6
3,2
3,4
3,0
3,1
3,5
3,6
3,7
3,6
Preservation and Interpretation of Cultural Heritage
Political Science and European Studies
Theory and Practice of Contemporary Art
Residance
High residence
5
18
24
183
Low residence
251
12
Illustration 19. General evaluation of Academic Departments divided by student
characteristics I (Means)
The Mobility and
Operations Unit
General
Lectures / seminars attendance
76-100 percent
51-75 percent
0-25 percent
Course
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
First MA
Second MA
Program
Theory of Visual Culture
Introduction to Cultural and Visual Studies
Cultural Heritage
Media and Communication
Media and Visual Design
International Law
The Student’s
Services Unit
The IT Unit
N
434
3,6
3,6
3,5
382
18
23
3,6
3,8
3,7
3,6
3,0
3,8
3,5
3,6
3,6
155
104
78
59
19
8
10
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,6
3,8
3,6
3,8
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,6
3,7
3,5
3,6
3,5
3,5
3,7
3,4
3,6
64
13
119
65
53
73
3,5
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,6
4,0
3,9
3,7
3,7
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,7
3,8
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,2
3,4
3,6
3,5
3,6
4,0
3,5
3,4
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,5
Preservation and Interpretation of Cultural Heritage
Political Science and European Studies
Theory and Practice of Contemporary Art
Residance
High residence
5
18
24
183
Low residence
251
13
II.3. Evaluation of the social environment of study
Results of the EHU survey show that the social environment is evaluated well: average
evaluation is 3,2 on a scale of ‘1 = No’ through ‘4 = Yes.’ The highest ranked students provided
a variety of extra-academic activities: 73% of respondents agreed with this statement (ranked
“Yes” or “Rather yes”).
Respondents who attend classes and seminars at the University often evaluated more
the variety of extra-academic activities and statistically significantly more often claimed they
felt comfortable at the University.
Illustration 20. Evaluation of the social environment
How would you rate the social environment of study?
1- No
2 - Rather no
The University provides a variety of extra-academic
activities
13%
I feel comfortable, I do not feel stressful at the
7%
University
Cooperative relationship between students and teachers
3 - Rather yes
13%
16%
13%
Relationships between students are very friendly and
3% 13%
encourage their cooperation
4 - Yes
No answer
60%
26%
43%
3,5
13%
44%
54%
Mean
27%
34%
7%
3,2
7%
3,1
7%
3,1
Illustration 21. Evaluation of social environment divided by student‘s characteristics
(Means)
General
Lectures / seminars attendance
76-100 percent
51-75 percent
0-25 percent
Course
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
First MA
Second MA
Program
Theory of Visual Culture
Introduction to Cultural and Visual Studies
Cultural Heritage
Media and Communication
Media and Visual Design
International Law
Relationships
between students
are very friendly
and encourage
N their cooperation
434
3,1
Cooperative
relationship between
students and
teachers
The University
provides a variety
of extraacademic
activities
I feel
comfortable, I do
not feel stressful
at the University
3,1
3,5
3,2
382
18
23
3,2
3,1
3,1
3,2
3,1
3,1
3,6
3,1
3,3
3,2
3,1
2,4
155
104
78
59
19
8
10
3,1
3,2
3,1
3,1
3,1
3,2
3,0
3,2
3,6
3,5
3,4
3,6
3,2
3,2
3,0
3,2
3,2
3,4
3,2
3,4
3,6
3,7
3,2
3,4
64
13
119
65
53
73
3,1
3,2
3,2
3,2
3,2
3,1
3,0
3,1
3,1
3,0
3,3
3,2
3,2
3,2
3,1
3,0
3,4
3,1
3,5
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,7
3,5
4,0
3,7
3,3
3,1
3,3
3,2
3,1
3,2
3,1
3,5
3,4
3,0
3,1
3,2
3,1
3,1
3,6
3,5
3,2
3,1
Preservation and Interpretation of Cultural Heritage
Political Science and European Studies
Theory and Practice of Contemporary Art
Residance
High residence
5
18
24
183
Low residence
251
14
Illustration 22. General evaluation of social environment divided by student‘s
characteristics I (Means)
Social
enviroment
N
General 434
Lectures / seminars attendance
76-100 percent 382
51-75 percent 18
0-25 percent 23
Course
First 155
Second 104
Third 78
Fourth 59
Fifth 19
8
First MA
Second MA 10
Program
Theory of Visual Culture 64
Introduction to Cultural and Visual Studies 13
Cultural Heritage 119
Media and Communication 65
Media and Visual Design 53
International Law 73
Preservation and Interpretation of Cultural Heritage
Political Science and European Studies
Theory and Practice of Contemporary Art
Residance
High residence
5
18
24
183
Low residence
251
3,2
3,3
3,1
3,0
3,2
3,3
3,2
3,3
3,3
3,5
3,2
3,2
3,3
3,3
3,2
3,3
3,2
3,4
3,4
3,1
3,3
3,2
15
II.4. Evaluation of satisfaction with studies at the University
Results of this study show that 62% of respondents are completely satisfied or rather
satisfied with their studies at the University. Sixteen percent are completely satisfied with
EHU studies; 46% are rather satisfied; 14% are not satisfied, of whom 12% are rather not
satisfied; and 2% are not at all satisfied. Nineteen percent are neither satisfied or not satisfied
with their studies at the University. The overall satisfaction score on a scale of “1 = Not at all
satisfied” to “5 = completely satisfied” is 3,6. Students, who attend 76–100% of lectures are
statistically significantly more satisfied with the studies at EHU.
The score of general evaluation of EHU was calculated from the evaluations of all
criteria in the study: teachers’ work, administration work, and social environment. The overall
score on a scale from 1 to 4 is 3,5 (see illustration 25). Students evaluated as “very good” the
work of the Finance Department (mean 3,7), and rated the Student‘s Service Unit (3,6) and
Mobility and Operations Unit (3,6). Slightly lower assessments include Supervisor (3,3), Social
Environment (3,2), and Administration of Academic Departments (3,0).
Table 1 shows the correlation between overall satisfaction with studies and p-value.
Correlation indicates if there is dependence between the factors, if there is a dependence upon
or a probability that when one factor grows, the other will grow, is high. The correlation level is
0,05: if the value is lower than this number, there is a dependence between the groups. The
higher the value of correlation, the stronger the dependence of factors. P-value indicates the
probability that a hypothesis will be proved. During the study, data was analyzed with a
probability of 95%, so the p-value must be lower than 0,05 for proving the hypothesis. Our
hypothesis is that overall satisfaction with studies is dependent on other factors, such as the
evaluation of teachers and evaluation of Administration Departments, among others.
In analyzing correlations between overall satisfaction with studies, we can see that
there are no strong correlations between overall satisfaction and other sections of studies.
There is a correlation (although not very strong) between overall satisfaction and the
evaluation of the social environment: the better a student feels at the University, the better the
social connections and communication, and a higher satisfaction with the studies.
Illustration 23. General satisfaction with studies at the University
How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your studies at the University?
Rather
satisfied
46%
Completely
satisfied
16%
No answer
5%
Neither yes
nor no
19%
Not at all
satisfied
2%
Rather
dissatisfied
12%
16
Illustration 24. Overall satisfaction with studies divided by student characteristics
(Means)
17
Illustration 25. General evaluation of the University (average evaluation of statements)
Table 1. Relation of overall satisfaction with studies and particular sections of studies
General satisfacion with studies
General evaluation of teachers
Evaluation of supervisor
Evaluation of Administration of Academic departments
Evaluation of Academic Secretariat
Evaluation of Finance Department
Evaluation of Mobility and Operations Unit
Evaluation of Student's Services Unit
Evaluation of IT Unit
Evaluation of social environment
Pearson correlation
0,03
0,06
0,00
-0,02
0,09
0,05
0,06
0,02
0,26
p-value (Significance)
0,55
0,29
0,94
0,73
0,11
0,45
0,30
0,73
0,00
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
18
II.5. Comments and suggestions made by students
Thirty percent of all respondents made at least one comment or suggestion on teachers
or administration work on social environment. Students of the second course wrote comments
at a statistically significantly higher rate.
Most comments—10%—were made on improving the quality of teaching; 7% of
respondents remarked that they wanted reasonable feedback from teachers on time; and 4%
asked to revise or eliminate the course. A similar percentage—4%—asked to improve Moodle
assistance and balance the workload; 3% asked to revise the curriculum or add more specific
subjects; 2% of comments were on a collegial and respectful relationship between teachers
and students. A full 72% of students made no comments on teachers’ work.
Students made fewer remarks on the work of Administration, for example, on a timely
response to students' questions, and improvement of feedback from the administrative staff
towards students and others.
Only few suggestions were made for improving the social environment of studying.
Suggestions include holding more events intended for the consolidation and communication of
students, more joint tasks in Moodle, or to increase the number of events for the integration of
students of various courses.
Illustration 26. The percentage of students who made comments or suggestions
Student had
some
comments,
suggestions
30%
Students did
not have any
comments,
suggestions
70%
19
Illustration 27. The percentage of students who made some comments or suggestions
by demographic characteristics
Illustration 27. The percentage of students who made comments or suggestions by
separate criteria
Improving the quality of teaching (or teaching
methods)
10,4%
Providing feedback for students reasonably and on
time
6,9%
Revising or eliminating the course
4,1%
Improving Moodle assistance
3,9%
Balancing the workload
3,7%
Revision of curriculum/more subject specific courses
Collegial and respectful relationship with students
2,8%
2,3%
Other (administrative issues)
1,8%
Request of higher skilled teacher
1,6%
Being flexible in deadlines
Satisfied
More practical approach to teaching
No answer
1,2%
0,7%
0,7%
71,7%
20