“By creating we think, by living we learn” Patrick Geddes
Comments from Deans on the 2011 results are now available.
Please use the links in the Archives box on the left side to see previous year's results
The School prides itself on its openness to the students and is delighted that the students also appreciate this. Both Divisions of the School received a ‘highly satisfied’ for staff teaching expertise (Q1) and staff availability (Q11) for example, Accounting & Finance had 7 specific positive comments relating to staff availability and helpfulness. Students were also very satisfied with the communication they received about course management (Q14) and about the general running of the modules (Q15) sharing the good communication channels between staff and students in the School.
The NSS result for Accounting & Finance were discussed at the Undergraduate Committee of the Division on 9 November 2011. The response rate of 62% was noted and the high level of satisfaction expressed for 9 of the questions was also commented upon. Indeed the scores for Accounting & Finance students in 2011 were higher than their counterparts in 2010 for 12 of the questions asked.
Unfortunately, feedback to students within the allotted time seemed to be an issue needing further attention since it was highlighted as a ‘major concern’. ‘Some concern’ was also expressed about the timetable problems that students experienced in 2010/11 with the introduction of the new University system.
Some of the concerns about feedback may have been due to the departure of a staff member in December 2010 (on voluntary severance) leaving students without a lecturer to contact about this individual’s half of an honours module. While extra revision sessions were laid on by other staff towards the end of Semester 2 in March 2011, some of the 2011 graduates indicated that this solution was less than ideal. It is not expected that this problem will arise for the 2012 graduate cohort who are currently filling in their survey forms. Following the meeting of the Undergraduate Committee, staff within the division were reminded about the policy of giving prompt feedback to students. It was also noted that students do not always perceive that feedback is often given informally, for example, within a tutorial setting. A decision was taken at the Undergraduate Committee to remind students about the different types of feedback that they get during their studies.
The NSS results for 2011 were also discussed at the Accounting & Finance Undergraduate School Forum on 5 October 2011 where student insights on the findings were ascertained. The minutes of both these meetings were considered by the Division Board of Accounting and Finance on 14 December 2011 and reported to School Board on 18 January 2012
Economic Studies was happy with the results from the NSS. In all but two questions (Q16 and Q17) there was an improvement in scores and even for these two questions the scores only went down to 91 and 80 respectively. As a result of this there were no questions for which there was major concern and only three questions for which there was some concern (Q7 “Feedback on work has been prompt”,Q8 “I have received detailed comments on my work”, Q9 “Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand”). As in Accounting and Finance, there is a divisional policy within Economic Studies of providing feedback to students within two weeks and the issue of feedback is one which is treated seriously within Economic Studies. When compared to other institutions Dundee seems to do particularly well across the board, even for the three questions of some concern.
Overall, Accounting & Finance students were satisfied with their course and Economic Studies students were highly satisfied with their course.
Action PointThe Learning & Teaching Committee of the school will investigate ways to help students understand that the feedback they receive is more timely and useful than they appreciate.
The School of Computing is pleased that the National Student Survey results demonstrate once again the high level of support that staff provide for students and is a recognition of the excellent environment and facilities we offer in our award-winning Queen Mother Building. We score higher than or equivalent to the sector average in ALL categories of the survey. We are particularly pleased to have achieved a 96% for students overall satisfaction with the quality of the course.
For several years we have held fortnightly staff-student meetings during the academic year. These allow students and staff to share ideas and consequently we are able to respond very promptly to suggestions to improve the student experience. This year we have also formed a working party of staff and students to look at how we can provide feedback in the most timely and efficient manner.
The 2011 National Student Survey results for Architecture show that graduating students were extremely positive about course teaching, assessment and feedback, academic support, learning resources and personal development. In responses to 11 out of the 22 main NSS questions, our scores are markedly higher than the sector average, including the intellectual stimulation that the course provides, the advice and support provided, the level of access to IT facilities and the confidence and level of communication skills that the course instils in students. Areas of criticism regarding course organisation and management are being addressed. Architecture plans to make full use of the student record system, and will follow the School policy of ensuring students have access to grades of individual assessments for each module via evision throughout the semester; this is in addition to the current policy of discussing grades individually with students. Weekly timetables for all modules are displayed on television monitors throughout the Architecture area so that students can be reminded of times and venues of classes, and be alerted to any changes. Discussions with the central timetabling system indicate that classes can be scheduled more accurately in future, reducing the need for short notice changes. Overall 88% of graduating students stated that they are satisfied with the overall quality of the course, which is 10% above the sector average.
The 2011 National Student Survey results for Geography demonstrate graduating students were overwhelmingly positive about course content, course delivery, facilities on offer and access to staff. In several areas our scores are markedly higher than the sector average and significantly stronger than in other Scottish Institutions delivering Geography courses. The clarity of criteria used in marking, the arrangement, fairness and marking of assessments, and the level of academic support all received scores above average for the Scottish sector. One area that has been shown to be improving and receiving constant attention is the prompt return of student work. The quality of our provision has remained excellent with 94% (second best in Scotland; sector average 87%) of Human and Social Geography students and 95% (first equal in Scotland; sector average 89%) of Physical Geography and Environmental Science students stating that they are satisfied with the overall quality of the course.
The School of Dentistry was pleased to receive the detailed breakdown and analysis of the National Student Survey results provided by the University. Overall the findings are positive for the School and supportive of the direction of travel being undertaken. However it does highlight some areas where further work is required and these are addressed below in more detail.
The response rate in 2011 was 69% which while good and allows valid conclusions to be drawn was not at the same level as achieved in 2010. Final year students are provided with the University’s NSS Guidance booklet and also encouraged through emails and announcements on MyDundee to complete the NSS survey.
We are pleased to note that NSS 2011 revealed no areas of major concern (with less than 50% satisfaction) for the School. This is a marked improvement and we were particularly pleased to see the large increase in approval in the questions related to assessment which is an area where the School has put in particular efforts to improve its performance over the last two years. However there is still work to be done in the ‘some concern’ areas related to feedback and to course organisation.
The issue of feedback is being addressed through clearer guidance on written work on feedback to staff involved in this within the School and it is also being addressed through the introduction of a new electronic clinical assessment grading system.
The School through it’s advisors of studies group is also seeking ways to make the personal tutor system more responsive and helpful to students by employing methods which give students one to one and group feedback on a regular basis through the academic year.
Issues related to timetabling are most likely to be a function of the complex individualised timetable the students have during 5th year which needs to be constantly revised and updated throughout the year and at times this does lead to some confusion. Currently MyDundee is used to communicate and update changes to this timetable, but in the light of continued indications of concern in NSS further options will need to be explored.
The results achieved in relation to the sector comparators are on the whole positive with the School performing near or above the sector average for all areas with exception of those highlighted above.
The qualitative student comments provide detailed and interesting further information. Analysis of these indicate that positive comments are most commonly related to staff (x11) the general overall course structure (x8) and Outreach teaching and Course organisation (x1 each). Negative aspects of the course most commonly relate to assessment (x9) and this if followed by negative comments related to staff (x6) and organisation of the course (x5). A number of comments (x3) indicate the students would prefer introduction of earlier clinical experience in the curriculum and there is one comment indicating a need for better feedback. This latter is interesting given the low overall scores for feedback but only one specific comment is made.
Over the National Student Survey has shown increasing student satisfaction with the BDS programme in the School of Dentistry. It is particularly pleasing to note the large increases in satisfaction in the area of assessment where the School has made considerable efforts over the last 2 years. There is still work to be done in the areas of feedback and organisation and these will be priorities for the School over the next 2 years as it goes through a curriculum redesign and implementation process. An additional priority in the curriculum redesign will be the introduction of early clinical experience as highlighted in the comments section of the NSS survey.
The School welcomes this opportunity to receive and respond to the National Student Survey.
DJCAD continues to welcome the constructive feedback given by the NSS. The published results relevant to DJCAD are based on the Design Studies and Others in Creative Arts sections as there were insufficient respondents this year from Fine Art.
During the academic session DJCAD undertook a review of its undergraduate provision and as a result implemented major changes to the structure of modules, courses and programmes. Although every effort was made to communicate changes to students and to include students in the review discussions and panels, perhaps this could have been done to a greater extent which would have perhaps given a more positive response to question 14. We would again hope that the relatively poor result for question 15 is a result of the changes that were being implemented and we will certainly be keen to review feedback in these areas in this year’s survey.
Although we achieved the highest rating across the comparable sector, Assessment and Feedback is an area that DJCAD has invested a great deal of time over the last few months, initiating a series of staff development events to enhance our approach to this important aspect of the learning experience.
We would hope that in the future the three separate categories of Design Studies, Fine Art and Others in Creative Arts could be combined and given the heading Art and Design as the current categories do not reflect our teaching provision and may lead to confusion amongst students and external stakeholders.
We are extremely pleased to receive comments which support the interdisciplinary nature of working in DJCAD and to see that year on year the feedback on our staff is very positive:
“The staff were experienced in their subject and on hand to offer constructive criticisms that were helpful and stimulating. They were never pushy and helped us develop our own ideas.”
Over the last three years we have invested heavily to continually improve our technical and digital facilities and this is clearly perceived very favourably by students and is reflected in the satisfaction and high satisfaction results to questions 16, 17 and 18. We welcome this positive feedback.
Many students commented on the lack of printing facilities, in particular colour printing. We believe this was largely due to the closure of the University managed Print Unit. We are pleased to say that DJCAD have now re-opened this facility to provide large format colour printing facilities to students and we have liaised with ICS to have a colour (A4 & A3) printer in the Library, which, judging by initial feedback gained through Staff/Student Liaison committees appears to be well received by students. Our excellent dedicated art and design library, judged to be one of the best in the UK, received very favourable comments from students. We again welcome the feedback as it allows us to make immediate changes to improve the facilities and provision available to students.
The School notes with pleasure its good results in the National Student Survey of 2011. As in previous years, the vast majority of responses for the School’s four main subject areas (English, History, Philosophy and Politics) indicated ‘satisfaction’ or ‘high satisfaction’. Both History and Politics achieved outstanding results for overall satisfaction with their courses (100%); in both cases this was the highest overall score among all comparator institutions, none of which matched these results. In the vast majority of the other 21 categories, both History and Politics scored well above the sector average. English and Philosophy are also ranked above the sector average in a majority of categories. It is worth emphasising that these results reflect an exemplary commitment to the learning experience in the School of Humanities, and they are testimony to the energy and dedication of all staff, who strive consistently to nurture and challenge students in an intellectually stimulating environment. Both the individual Programmes and the School take this feedback very seriously and as an indicator of areas in which we should endeavour to improve. The NSS responses are therefore discussed at individual Programme level as well as at School Board in order that they can help to inform our current practice and future planning. The good overall results indicate that we currently get most things right. Nevertheless, the survey indicates areas for improvement.
A small number of responses registered areas of ‘some concern’. The highest number was for Philosophy (six categories out of 22 flagged as areas of ‘some concern’, although these were largely short-term practical issues caused by the unexpected departure of two staff members); the lowest number was for History (three categories). While most areas of ‘some concern’ will be addressed by individual Programmes, it is worth noting here that three categories were common to most Programmes:
1. ‘Criteria used in marking have been clear in advance’ (category 5).
2. ‘Feedback on my work has been prompt’ (category 7).
3. ‘Good advice available to make study choices’ (category 12).
The School will continue to work on improving student experience in these areas, in consultation with its Student-Staff Committees. In the meantime, the following should be noted with regard to points 2 and 3 above. Our policy remains that assessed work should normally be marked and returned to students within two weeks of submission. With regard to advice on module choices, the School is actively seeking ways to ensure that all students have access to the appropriate advisers at all times of the year.
As always, the School will keep these matters under regular review with the aim of eliminating all ‘matters of concern’ from its NSS results. Given the very positive nature of the 2011 results, this is within our grasp.
The Law School welcomes the results of the 2011 NSS Report. The School places considerable value on the feedback provided by students on modules and programmes via feedback questionnaires and staff/student committee discussions. The NSS Survey is of particular significance as it provides final year students with an opportunity to reflect on and comment on their entire university experience. The excellent results for 2011 suggest that lines of communication between staff and students are working well, that student needs and expectations are being clearly communicated to staff and being reflected in the teaching and learning experience facilitated by staff.
a) Statistical performance
The Law School’s performance in the survey was extremely good and was statistically the best in the University and of any law school in Scotland. Noteworthy points arising from the statistical analysis of the 22 questions are as follows:
• The student return level for 2001 was 60 %. This was a small increase from the previous year when 58% of students responded.
• Of the 22 questions posed the law school achieved the highest results of any returning Scottish law school in a total of 18.
• The Law School’s performance was better than the University of Dundee average for all 22 questions.
• The School’s performance improved from the 2010 survey in 20 of the 22 questions and in relation to 10 of the questions the performance improvement was by more than 10 percentage points. In the remaining 2 questions the performance was unchanged in 1 (question 14) and dropped by 5% in the other (question 13). Question 14 (unchanged performance) was still the highest performing score of any Scottish law school (93%) and related to effective communication of teaching changes. Question 13 related to effective timetabling. It can be no coincidence that this response coincided with the introduction of the new timetabling system at Dundee. The Law School’s response to this question was still 16 percentage points higher than the University average for that question.
• For analytical purposes the numerical response levels are qualitatively grouped as follows:
Questions where the rated response is less than 49 % are considered to demonstrate cause for Major Concern
Questions where the rated response is between 50 % and 74% are considered to demonstrate cause for Some Concern
Questions where the rated response is between 75% and 90% are considered to demonstrate Satisfaction
Questions where the rated response is more than 90 % are considered to demonstrate High Satisfaction
The Law School had no response levels to any of the questions which fell within the first two qualitative categories. 9 questions generated responses which fell within the Satisfaction category and the remaining 13 were in the High Satisfaction category.
b) Narrative Responses
The narrative responses are a more powerful tool when it comes to identification of specific issues of both a positive and negative nature. There was a very strong positive message about the nature and quality of teaching within the Law School. Comments included:
“Great school, great course, great teachers.”
“I cannot speak highly enough about the staff at Dundee and the support they provide. The time they give to listen to any queries or problems is incredible and I have never felt that there is no one available to talk to.”
“Just good teaching at Dundee Law School.”
“Dundee University has been a brilliant place to learn in.”
There was very clear theme in the responses that students recognised and appreciated the commitment and contribution of law school staff and the overall approachability of all staff (academic and support) within the school.
Negative comments barely touched on teaching quality but did touch on organisational, structural and resource issues in the main. Comments included:
“At times organisation was lacking. Teaching was interrupted due to lecturers leaving.”
“Just doing one module, which is 2 hours a week. It's not enough time with lecturers or interaction. Feel it wasn't enough as it was not the lecturers' area of expertise. I do law and they are not allowed to talk to you about dissertations. They are quite restricted in the support they can give."
“First year modules are run poorly in comparison with later modules.”
“Timetables and exam timetables don't come out quickly enough.”
“Occasionally there have been problems with IT where we have been left unable to access online resources or access emails, which introduces a level of stress.”
“The library resources tend to have a lot of copies of older texts, but are very sparse in the current editions (and therefore most useful) of textbooks.”
Steps have already been taken to address a number of these issues. Many of these steps have or will come into effect this year. The structure of level 1 has been changed and recognises the crucial foundation role of first year. Students in their final year will receive more contact hours than has hitherto been the case. Discussions have been ongoing with the University to seek to find a way to improve library facilities and the school’s concerns over timetabling issues have been reported at College and Senate committee levels. In other areas where issues have been raised which can be addressed within the school these will be considered by the School’s Learning and Teaching Committee which will make recommendations to the School Board for change and improvement wherever possible.
The School of Life Sciences Learning and Teaching welcomes the extensive and very useful information given by the NSS – we continue to score very highly in General Satisfaction, and it is pleasing to see that our efforts in clarifying the criteria used for marking have improved significantly across many of our courses. Our strongest area, and still improving, continues to be the interaction with our amazing staff, where students express great satisfaction both in the metrics (contact with, and advice and support from), and in the comments they make about their experiences:
“There have been loads of staff who are brilliant and reply really quickly and are very supportive and always there when you have questions.”
Of course there are areas which need more work: in assessment and feedback, and in some areas where learners do not feel challenged enough: we are addressing these through the new curriculum which was developed in the School, and is being rolled out to our new students – strongly focussed on laboratory and other skills and core principals.
The Medical School is pleased to have been given the opportunity to comment on the 2011 NSS results. The School values highly the views of students as part of our quality assurance programme and is considering equally the findings of this survey with those of other external reviews e.g. GMC and the impact of the latest edition of Tomorrows Doctors (TD 2009) to shaping ongoing changes to the curriculum and its delivery.
The Medical School was pleased to see that students continue to express high overall satisfaction with the course and the quality of teaching delivered by teaching staff. It was encouraging to see high levels of satisfaction in the domains of course organisation and management, the provision of learning resources and teaching on personal development.
The Medical School notes however and takes seriously concerns in areas relating to assessment and feedback and academic support where satisfaction levels continue to be lower than for the other domains. We are encouraged however that while there is still some way to go in these areas, there is a suggestion of an upward trend in satisfaction over the past 5 years in these areas.
We are in the process of introducing a new curriculum which will include more formative assessment and feedback opportunities. We have also in this academic year introduced a new student support scheme to enhance both academic and pastoral support. We have also listened to specific concerns about assessment e.g. the ward simulation exercise (WSE) and made changes to its role and format in this academic session.
The published NSS results relevant to the School of Engineering Physics and Mathematics are based on students studying degrees related to Civil Engineering. There were insufficient respondents this year for publication of results for the Mathematics and Statistics subject area, but we shall refer to some unpublished data below.
The School welcomes the fact that for both subject areas the results relating to ‘overall satisfaction with the course’ are (a) above the average for the University and (b) equivalent to those of the top quartile of the UK HE sector across all subjects. In addition, the University of Dundee compares responses for each subject area against those for a basket of selected institutions: for Civil Engineering, we outperformed all of these comparators in 9 out of 22 questions and in Mathematics and Statistics in 10 out of 22.
In common with all institutions and many other subject areas, the results for assessment and feedback are disappointing. Here, they were not unexpected in view of recent staffing changes within the School. In mitigation, we feel that School staff are exceptionally good at answering informal student questions and many of them have an open door policy in this respect. Thus, 89% of students in Civil Engineering agreed with the statement ‘I have receive sufficient advice and support with my studies’ and 93% with ‘Staff are good at explaining things’.
Our score for ‘the timetable works efficiently’ is a relatively weak area in common with the institution in general: this possibly reflects recent changes in the way the timetable is organised. We shall be working hard with Registry to ameliorate the interacting effects of staff and room availability over the next academic year.
Our best NSS scores occur in the area of learning resources and especially for ‘I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to’ (100% student satisfaction in Civil Engineering). This is an area where the School recognises that good specialist facilities are essential and appears to manage these well.
The NSS also provides Universities with the free text comments from students and the School Board and its Staff-Student Liaison Committee will be discussing these alongside the quantitative data. The many positive comments received this year include: ‘very friendly and approachable lecturers’; ‘overall it’s a very good course’; ‘excellent, broad and varied modules mean I feel very prepared for a number of jobs’; and ‘the workshops and lectures make it a more interactive and enjoyable experience’.
The School of Nursing and Midwifery is pleased to again get a good response from students for this survey, and notes the large number of students who have also provided qualitative feedback to raise specific issues of concern. The School has performed well compared to other Scottish institutions, particularly our major competitors, where we are ranked top in seven areas. Overall we have improved in 11 questions out of 22.
We are disappointed that we have not made significant improvements in the areas of Assessment and Feedback, and in Organisation and Management. Although our external examiners comment on the quality of our feedback, we will strive in 2012 to improve its usefulness to our students. Our new nursing programme has a different assessment strategy, and we envisage that these results will therefore improve over time.
Timetable information is a cause for concern, and we have recognised that our timetables have not provided all the relevant information for students. For this year we will have more information on timetables, so that they produce a more complete picture of student activities requiring attendance, at an earlier stage.
We are pleased that we have again been rated by our students as one of the top Schools for Psychology in Scotland in a year when more of our students than ever before (72%) participated in the NSS. Although respondents rated us at the top end of the scale on most questions and were particularly positive about the quality and intellectually stimulating nature of our teaching, we are disappointed that they have perceived our performance to be less good in a couple of areas. We will look carefully at specific comments on these areas and, in consultation with our current students, we will seek to address the issues raised. The following points deserve additional comment:
Q5 The criteria used in marking have been clear in advance
Responses to this question were rather disappointing. Following the 2010 NSS, the School made changes in the way it communicates marking criteria to its students, but these mostly impinge on earlier years, and it seems possible that the changes had not yet impacted on the Level 4 students who responded to the NSS. We will therefore keep this issue under review and continue to strive to improve the content and manner of imparting this information, using the various forms of media currently available.
Q7 Feedback on my work has been prompt
The School strives to maintain a two-week turnaround for feedback on work, but sometimes matters outwith our control prevent this. The School will continue to work towards achieving a consistent two-week turnaround and will improve communication with students in circumstances where this is not achievable.
Q8 I have received detailed comments on my work
The School is disappointed with its score on this question. We are currently consulting with students regarding the level of detail that they expect, and implementing procedures that will enable us to have a more standardised approach.. Our impression is that there is a disparity between student expectations and what is feasible within staff time and workload constraints and that students sometimes fail to appreciate how to make effective use of the feedback that is provided . The School will produce additional guidelines on the provision of feedback for staff to ensure that there is consistency across all modules at all levels and will draw up guidelines for students explaining how best to make effective use of feedback.
We note with satisfaction that issues raised last year regarding Level 4 module allocation appear to have been completely resolved, and that many students commented favourably on the enthusiasm, friendliness and helpfulness of School staff. The School will continue to work with its students to respond swiftly and effectively to student concerns and to maintain this enthusiastic and supportive ethos.
Once again the results from the National Student Survey Questionnaire in relation to initialteacher education make interesting and pleasant reading for those involved in the initial teacher education programme of the B. Ed.
Dundee were above the national average in fifteen of the twenty two categories. As in previous years the quality and enthusiasm of staff was very favourably commented upon. A total of 94% of Dundee University’s teacher education students claimed that staff were ‘enthusiastic about what they were teaching’ and 96% felt that staff were ‘good at explaining things’. This is very rewarding for staff and reflects other internal evaluations students complete in relation to the B. Ed programme.
Staff recognise that assessment is an area of great importance to students and they continue to work hard to ensure that where possible student concerns have been addressed. It is very disappointing that only 48% of students in the NSS survey felt that ‘assessment arrangements and marking have been fair’. This appears to run counter to the 72% in the programme evaluation who felt that assessment arrangements and marking had been fair. Perhaps this might be an issue of communication and the Programme Team will continue to work with students’ representatives to develop and improve this aspect of the student experience.
The organisation and management of a large complex programme is the responsibility of a number of areas of the University and bringing these altogether seamlessly can be a challenge. Accurate timetabling and room bookings all play a part in ensuring a positive student experience. At times last session the reality fell short of the aspiration. Everyone must play a part to ensure that these issues do not become a problem year on year.
On the whole this survey paints a positive picture of teacher education at Dundee, with 92% of students saying that they were ‘satisfied with the quality’ of the programme. The Senior Management Committee and the Management Team of the programme continue to strive to make the student experience a positive and productive one and are committed to working with students to ensure that this is this case.
The National Student Survey (NSS) is a key source of information about the experience of being a student throughout the life of a degree programme. 60% of final year students on the BA Social Work programme responded to the survey which reflects reasonable engagement with the NSS process.
The results show that we are above the national average for the sector in all areas connected with library, IT and other facilities. This might well reflect the increased inputs centring on structured literature searches and increased emphasis on accessing and using academic journals. Credit must also go to our school librarian, Iain Gillespie, who is consistently accessible and who provides a robust link between the students and the Library and Learning Centre. Equally, the structural improvements to the Library and Learning Centre, including automated library processes and longer, student-friendly opening hours might well have impacted positively on the student experience.
We are also above the national average when it comes to the accessibility of staff, and have improved upon last year’s results with regard to students obtaining good advice from staff. This reflects the real endeavour staff make to be available as markers of assignments, tutors and module leaders. Another positive is that we have made quite a marked improvement on last year in terms of assessment arrangements and marking being rated as fair.
The most significant losses compared to last year’s results, centred on questions 2, 14 and 19 i.e. staff making the subject interesting; changes to the programme being communicated effectively; and the course helping students present themselves with confidence. To view these results in context, it is important to know that there is a particular profile to this cohort of students. Academically, they did less well than other year groups, a trend that persisted throughout their four years of the programme. This resulted in poorer grades, more fails, more students withdrawing or having their studies terminated and a poorer spread of degree classifications. It is of note that the NSS was completed after the students’ first attempt at their BA4 practice placement and attendant written work. A high percentage of students failed this module at first attempt (in comparison to previous years), a fact which is both indicative of the performance profile of this cohort and potentially explanatory of their negative feelings towards elements of the programme at that time. It might also illuminate why students felt a marked lack of confidence at that particular point in the programme.
Students’ view that lecturers did not make the subject interesting is at odds with the same cohort’s module evaluations of the taught modules in year 4 , where 100% and 62% of students rated the two taught BA4 modules respectively as stimulating and interesting. It is also at odds with the overall BA evaluations, where 79% of respondents rated the programme modules as stimulating and interesting. Again, the negative view expressed in the NSS might have been stimulated by the academic struggles the students were experiencing at the time of completion of the survey.
Respondents’ feelings that changes to the programme were not communicated effectively perhaps fairly reflects that significant changes did take place during the cohort’s journey through the programme. This is also reflected in respondents’ concern that the programme did not run smoothly. For example, over the four years, the year group were under the management of several different Programme Directors, saw significant changes in staffing, felt the effects of tutor changes and staff sickness and also experienced the difficult introduction of centralised timetabling. The staff group is currently much more stable and the Programme Director is in post for the forthcoming 3 years. Also, improvements have been made in our engagement with the centralised timetabling system.
Respondents still had concerns about obtaining prompt feedback on assignments, although we had improved upon this compared to last year. However, it remains an area of major concern and is something the staff team continue to work hard on to remedy. Last year saw a major improvement across the board in our marking turnaround time, with the vast majority of results going out to students within the stated timescale. It is recognised that this particular BA4 year group did not have the opportunity to benefit significantly from these improvements.
In conclusion, whilst the programme team are pleased with the positives as outlined above, we will continue to work hard on the areas for improvement and will strive to continually improve and enhance the student journey through the programme.
The National Student Survey (NSS) provides the university and the BACLD programme with the views and experiences students have on the programme.
The views of 78% (39/50) of third and fourth year students are represented in the survey. Two thirds of the responses showed overall satisfaction with the programme. Students highlighted concerns mainly in the areas of organisation and management. We have identified three contributory factors which might have affected their experience. Firstly, this was the introduction of the new programme in years 3 and 4. Secondly problems arose from the long-term absence of a key member of staff, which placed pressure on the remaining members of what is effectively a small team with limited resources. Thirdly, communication problems were exacerbated because the students were on practice at the time the absence occurred.
As a result of the survey and an evaluation of the programme carried out by the team, we have implemented the following changes. Modules are no longer the sole responsibility of one member of staff; we have introduced additional support for students via Module Support Tutors and we have increased the number of Professional Development Tutors from two to five for years 2 and 3 to ensure minimal disruption arising from any staff absence. We have also increased the ratio of year co-ordinators so that there is one co-ordinator per year group rather than one cover two years.
Despite the challenges faced during this academic year, the team, with support from senior management worked hard and pulled together to deliver a positive experience for the students borne out by their responses. The majority of respondents were satisfied with the programme, with 61% showing overall satisfaction. The programme is above the national average in the areas of assessment and feedback, the provision of learning resources, and promoting confidence in personal development.
The team is confident that the introduction of the changes previously outlined will enhance the students’ journey through the programme and will continue to work hard to ensure this is the case.
| Question | 2011 | 2010 | 2011 +/- | 2009 | 2008 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 89 | 92 | -3 | 91 | 88 |
| 2 | 85 | 85 | 0 | 85 | 80 |
| 3 | 86 | 89 | -3 | 87 | 86 |
| 4 | 84 | 87 | -3 | 88 | 86 |
| 5 | 70 | 72 | -2 | 69 | 67 |
| 6 | 72 | 75 | +3 | 76 | 69 |
| 7 | 59 | 64 | -5 | 62 | 62 |
| 8 | 64 | 64 | 0 | 67 | 62 |
| 9 | 61 | 63 | -2 | 63 | 60 |
| 10 | 80 | 78 | +2 | 75 | 74 |
| 11 | 87 | 86 | +1 | 85 | 83 |
| 12 | 74 | 76 | -2 | 73 | 69 |
| 13 | 73 | 80 | -7 | 80 | 78 |
| 14 | 69 | 70 | -1 | 71 | 71 |
| 15 | 71 | 72 | -1 | 74 | 84 |
| 16 | 91 | 90 | +1 | 87 | 71 |
| 17 | 92 | 90 | +2 | 91 | 90 |
| 18 | 83 | 83 | 0 | 84 | 80 |
| 19 | 83 | 85 | +3 | 82 | 81 |
| 20 | 86 | 86 | 0 | 88 | 86 |
| 21 | 82 | 85 | -3 | 85 | 81 |
| 22 | 86 | 87 | -1 | 88 | 84 |
Note: Question 22 indicates the student's overall satisfaction with the quality of the course
If you have any comments or enquiries regarding this webpage, please contact Mrs Lorraine Martin, Principal's Office (l.h.martin@dundee.ac.uk)
del.icio.us
digg
reddit
facebook
stumbleupon
