Guide to policy and procedures for

teaching and learning

Section 4: Student representation,
evaluation and complaints

Requirements for Student Evaluation of Teaching

and Learning

[Approved by the University Board for Teaching and Learning on 9 July 2013 for implementation from October
2013]

[For the purposes of the processes described in this document, in Henley Business School the Programme Area
Director will be fulfilling the functions of the School Director of Teaching and Learning in respect of programme
evaluation and the Director of Studies will be fulfilling the functions of the School Director of Teaching and Learning
in respect of module evaluation.]

Introduction and definitions

1

These Requirements for Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning were informed by the
recommendations contained within the Final Report of the Working Group on Programme
and Module Evaluation, which was approved by the University Board for Teaching and
Learning on 5 November 2012.

The University seeks and obtains feedback from its students in a range of ways and at a
number of levels. This includes module questionnaires, Student/Staff Liaison Committees,
programme evaluations, discussion and feedback sessions and informal dialogue.

In seeking student opinion, the University aims to provide useful information to relevant
staff members, including module convenors, School Directors of Teaching and Learning and
Associate Deans (Teaching and Learning). This information is essential in terms of both
quality assurance and the enhancement of the student experience of teaching and learning.

In establishing the requirements for student evaluation set out below, the University aims to
harmonise practices across Schools and Faculties in order to promote transparency, support
quality assurance principles and enable comparison across the Faculties.

This document is primarily concerned with student evaluation at module and programme
level. For further information on the operation of Student/Staff Liaison Committees (SSLCs),
please refer to the policy on Student representation at the University of Reading.

This policy applies to undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes. It also applies to
taught modules offered within professional doctorate programmes, but does not apply to
sessions offered in the Researcher Development Programme nor to the evaluation of doctoral
programmes, which is fulfilled through processes developed by the Graduate School.

Module evaluation
7

Whilst supporting the appropriate use of a range of formal and informal feedback
mechanisms by Schools, the Universitys policy is that formal end-of-module evaluation in the

form of module questionnaires is an essential component of the student feedback process.

Each module should normally be evaluated on a bi-ennial cycle.
Method of evaluation
8

The University has established a standard Module Evaluation Template for use in formal endof-module evaluations (please see Appendix 1). The use of this form is not mandatory for the
Session 2013/4, but will be for the Session 2014/5 by which time the University hopes to have
in place a University-wide electronic system with additional centralised support for Schools.
Section 1 of the Template comprises a series of questions grouped into four sub-sections
(Content and Structure, Assessment and Feedback, Quality of Teaching and Learning and
Learning and Teaching Resources), which must be included in all module evaluation
questionnaires. Students are asked to respond using a five-point numerical scale and are also
given the option of including qualitative comments under each sub-section.

Section 2 of the Template gives Schools the option of including up to 10 locally-determined,

module-specific questions which might comprise a combination of numerical scale questions
and more open-ended qualitative questions, as desired. Appendix 2 provides a list of possible
open-ended questions for Schools to refer to as a guide, although this should not be seen as a
definitive list.

10

The Template requires Schools to clearly state where and when students responses will be
reviewed.

11

Adoption of this method is intended to ensure a transparent approach and a degree of

harmonisation across Schools and Faculties, and to prepare a path toward a more automated
system of module evaluation in due course. It enables cross-institution comparison of data
obtained under Section 1, whilst recognising the need for flexibility to satisfy local
requirements. Qualitative feedback is seen as complementary to the quantitative information
gained from the numerical scale questions.
12 The
Module
Evaluation
Template
is
available
as
a
Word
document
(http://www.reading.ac.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.aspx?lID=89913&sID=87193) and as a proforma on Blackboard.

Frequency of evaluation
13

Schools are not expected to evaluate each of their modules every year. Instead, they are
required to operate a bi-ennial cyclical evaluation programme for all modules, with the
following exceptions where annual evaluation will be required for a period of three years:
(i) new modules;
(ii) modules which have undergone significant changes;
(iii) modules where significant concerns have been raised, for example by SSLCs, a
Periodic Review panel or by previous module evaluations.
School Directors of Teaching and Learning will be ultimately responsible for determining
which modules fall within categories (ii) and (iii)

14

Boards of Studies will have oversight of module evaluations for programmes within their remit
and will be responsible for maintaining a comprehensive record of the cycle of module
evaluations and any underlying rationale. This information can then feed into the external

examining process as appropriate, the SPELT process and the six-yearly Periodic Review
process.
Questionnaire Administration
15

Schools may choose to use either paper-based or electronic questionnaires depending on local
circumstances and resources available, including cohort-size, the availability of software for
collation/analysis of results (for example, Optical Mark Recognition software) and staff time
available for data-inputting.

16

Whilst the use of Blackboard or other online survey tools such as Bristol Online Surveys (BOS)
can ease the administrative burden on Schools in respect of data collation and analysis, it
should be noted that electronic methods of module evaluation can lead to decreased response
rates. Paragraph 17d below suggests a number of approaches which might be adopted in
order to maximise completion rates when using electronic methods.

17

The University has established a set of good practice principles to guide Schools in respect of
questionnaire administration as follows:
a. Where paper questionnaires are being used, questionnaires should be distributed
towards the beginning of the lecture/seminar/workshop to prevent the tendency to
complete questionnaires in haste at the end of a session;
b. Where paper questionnaires are being used, a Course Rep or a member of staff other
than the module convenor/lecturer should be responsible for collecting the completed
questionnaires and taking them to the relevant School Office in order to preserve
anonymity and encourage honest and constructive feedback;
c. Similarly, where Blackboard or other online questionnaire methods are employed
within a class setting, the module convenor/lecturer should ensure that he/she is
clearly positioned out of the line of vision of students PC/laptop screens;
d. In order to maximise completion rates for electronic surveys, Schools may wish to
adopt one or more of the following approaches: taking groups of students to IT labs
towards the end of a lecture, encouraging students to access Blackboard via a smart
phone or tablet, or using specialist polling software;
e. Schools should aim for a minimum completion rate of 50%. Where small cohorts are
involved, it may be necessary to aim for a higher rate of completion.

Data collation and analysis of module evaluation

18

Schools are required to collate and analyse the results obtained from module evaluation
questionnaires at the end of each Academic Session.

19

The results of module evaluation questionnaires should be presented as a series of data

ideally in graphical or tabular format. Qualitative comments obtained should be included
alongside quantitative data.

Reporting of module evaluation

20

School Directors of Teaching and Learning will maintain oversight of the analysis of student
evaluation findings and will be responsible for submitting a results package, complete with

lecturer(s) responses, to SSLCs and Boards of Studies for review at the first meeting of the
next Academic Session. It is recognised that evaluation results should be treated with caution
since it may not be beneficial or reasonable for some comments to be in the public domain personal comments about lecturers, for example. Names of staff and students should be
redacted from student evaluation findings in advance of their submission to SSLCs and Boards
of Studies. Personal issues should be dealt with privately by SDTLs in conjunction with
module convenors. If issues cannot be resolved, then the Head of School will need to be
informed and an appropriate course of action decided upon.
21

Boards of Studies are formally responsible for responding to student evaluation including
results of module evaluations. They are required to have a standard item for report on their
agenda on student evaluation, which should, depending on the timing in the academic year,
include results of module evaluations. The Student representation at the University of Reading
policy also specifies that SSLCs should receive and discuss the results of module evaluations
and programme evaluations.

22

Schools are required to make SSLC and Boards of Studies minutes, incorporating student
evaluation findings and actions, available to all students within the School via Blackboard.
Names of staff and students should be redacted from published information, as appropriate.
Chairs of SSLCs/Boards of Studies are responsible for ensuring that minutes are made
available in this way.

23

As part of the annual programme reporting process, the Associate Deans (Teaching and
Learning) (ADTLs) will ensure that any issues raised by module evaluation within their
Faculties are dealt with appropriately and in a timely manner. A section within the Annual
Programme Report template requires Boards of Studies to comment on the key outcomes of
evaluation and review mechanisms, including programme and module evaluation,
identifying key issues and any actions that will be taken in response, and examples of good
practice. Faculty Annual Quality Reports provide assurance that Boards of Studies have
considered, analysed and evaluated the relevant data and identify any particular issues which
require further action at Faculty or University level.

24

Schools/Departments may wish to consider involving Course Reps in devising, distributing

and reporting the outcomes of end-of-module evaluations, although ultimate responsibility
will remain with the SDTL/module convenor. Where Course Reps are involved, they should
be reminded of the potential sensitivities around the data collected and the need for
confidentiality.

Providing feedback on module evaluation to students

25

Schools must ensure that students receive informative and timely feedback on the actions
taken as a result of module evaluations (and not just feedback on the data obtained from
evaluations). Such feedback may be transmitted in a variety of appropriate ways but should
be communicated by the relevant module convenor directly to those on the module and to a
wider School audience.

26

To ensure that actions taken as a result of the module evaluations are communicated to
students, a range of the following mechanisms could be considered:
a. publication on Blackboard of a summary of points raised and actions undertaken in
response;
b. publication of SSLC and Boards of Studies minutes on Blackboard (see paragraph 22
also);

c. communication via Course Reps;

d. use of School/Departmental noticeboards;
e. oral updates during lectures by the module convenor, Programme Director or School
Director of Teaching and Learning;
f. use of social media;
g. dissemination via paper or electronic newsletter, for example making use of a You
Said We Did format;
h. publication of feedback actions in programme or module handbooks;
i. email sent to relevant students.
Mid-module evaluation
27

In addition to the requirements set out above in relation to end-of-module evaluation, all
Schools are strongly encouraged to undertake some form of informal, light-touch mid-module
evaluation for all modules on an annual basis. This can be particularly useful in the
resolution of practical and operational issues and provides an opportunity for module
convenors to react quickly and efficiently to feedback from students and to make (minor)
changes which will benefit the current cohort. Student feedback obtained via the Students
Union and from research carried out by the National Union of Students and the QAA on the
student experience in 2012 suggested that this would be welcomed by students and would
encourage them to engage in future feedback opportunities.

28

Module convenors may wish to select from a variety of methods of mid-module evaluation,
including (but not restricted to):

29

(i)

verbal feedback gathered informally by an academic member of staff with no

responsibility for the module under review or by a Course Rep, during a
lecture;

(ii)

use of the Poll Everywhere tool administered using mobile phone responses
during a lecture either via PowerPoint with no live feed or via a web
connection with a monitored live feed;

(iii)

Post-it and flip-chart method; for example, students are asked to note what is
working well on the module and what, if anything, could be improved.

A trial of mid-module evaluation across a sample of different disciplines and module sizes
was undertaken during the Spring Term 2013. A table summarising the effectiveness of, and
resource required by, the various survey methods trialled is included as Appendix 3.

Programme evaluation
30

From 2013-14 onwards, all Schools will be required to carry out some form of programme
evaluation for all programmes on an annual basis, in addition to module evaluations. This can
be done either at end-of-Part and/or on completion of the whole programme.

31

The University acknowledges the resource implications of carrying out formal, paper-based
methods of programme evaluation and considers that formal methods of evaluation might
not always be appropriate given the level of survey activity for final year students in
particular. Schools are therefore encouraged to make use of alternative, less formal methods
of programme evaluation, including (but not restricted to):
a. student end-of-year focus groups;
b. informal feedback sessions held with ADTLs/Course Reps (in the absence of academic
staff members from the relevant School).

32

Schools may wish to refer to the good practice examples summarised in Appendix 4 in
respect of end-of-Part/programme evaluation.

33

Schools must ensure that students receive informative and timely feedback on the actions
taken as a result of programme evaluations, which can be transmitted in a variety of
appropriate ways (please see paragraph 26 above).

Requirements for Student Evaluation

of Teaching and Learning

Appendix 1- Module Evaluation Template 2013-14

[It is suggested that Schools/Departments include all questions in Section 1 below in all module evaluation
questionnaires. In addition, they may choose to include up to 10 module-specific questions in Section 2. These may
comprise questions with a quantitative scale (ranging from 1 Strongly Disagree to 5 Strongly Agree) and/or
questions seeking a qualitative response, as desired.]
Module title and code
Module convenor
Your degree programme
Please complete this short questionnaire on the module you have just studied. Your responses will be
completely confidential and reviewed by the appropriate Board of Studies and Student-Staff Liaison
Committee. You will be told of the outcome of the evaluation process, including any actions taken
by the School in response to feedback from students, via [complete as appropriate, citing the method(s) by
which the outcome will be communicated back to students e.g. via Blackboard, the School noticeboard, electronic
newsletter].
Responses will be kept strictly anonymous (so please do not give your name).
<< comments are invited as to whether students should be given an opportunity to give their
name if they want specific feedback, for example >>

Section 1
Content and Structure

The aims and objectives of the

module were clear
The module was well structured and
organised
The module content was at an
appropriate level
I could see how the content of this
module linked with other modules
in my programme
Comments

Strongly
Agree
5

Agree

Neutral

Disagree Strongly
Disagree
2
1

Not
Applicable

Assessment and Feedback

There was a clear link between the

type of assessment(s) and the aims
of the module
The assessment criteria were
provided when the work was set
Feedback I have received on my
work was informative and showed
me how to do better next time
I received feedback within 15
working days
Comments

Strongly
Agree
5

Quality of Teaching and Learning

The module was generally taught effectively

The methods of teaching (lectures, seminars,
tutorials, workshops and /or practicals) were
appropriate for the content of the module
The lecturer(s) were helpful and approachable
Lecturer 1 [name]
Lecturer 2 [name]
Lecturer 3 [name]
There was sufficient opportunities for interaction
between students and lecturer(s)
Lecturer 1 [name]
Lecturer 2 [name]
Lecturer 3 [name]
Comments

Agree

Neutral

Strongly
Agree
5

Disagree Strongly
Disagree
2
1

Agree

Neutral

Not
Applicable

Disagree Strongly
Disagree
2
1

Learning and Teaching Resources

The module content was effectively

supported by seminars, practical
sessions and/or on-line resources
Handouts and/or support materials
such as books or journal/conference
papers were useful and relevant
Comments

Strongly
Agree
5

Agree

Neutral

Disagree Strongly
Disagree
2
1

Not
Applicable

Section 2
Other Questions
[Schools/Departments may wish to include up to 10 questions in this Section, either with a quantitative scale
(ranging from 1 Strongly Disagree to 5 Strongly Agree) and/or questions seeking a qualitative response.]

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Please add below any further comments on the module

Thank you for your comments

Jennifer Lauren Chetcuti

Section name

Requirements for Student Evaluation

of Teaching and Learning

Appendix 2 - Suggestions for generic, open-ended

questions for inclusion in Section 2 of Module
Evaluation questionnaires
1. The best thing about this module was..
2. In what ways was your learning supported in this module?
3. What do you think were the main strengths of this module?
4. If you could improve one aspect of the ways in which this module is taught, what
would it be?
5. If you could improve one aspect of the ways in which this module is assessed, what
would it be?
6. Please state one thing that was done especially well. Why was that?
7. Please state one thing that was not done well, and how it might be improved
8. For me the main learning outcome of this module has been
9. Relative to other University modules you have taken, the intellectual challenge
presented was higher/average/lower
10. Relative to other University modules you have taken, the amount of effort you put
into this module was higher/average/lower
11. How could your own development and learning have been enhanced?
12. What percentage of lectures did you attend?
13. Which aspects of this module did you most enjoy?
14. Which aspects of this module did you least enjoy?

University of Reading 2013

Friday 26 July 2013

Page 1

Section name

Requirements for Student Evaluation

of Teaching and Learning

Appendix 3 Methods of mid-module evaluation trialled

during the Spring Term 2013
Approach

Verbal
feedback
Poll
Everywhere
(by text
message)

Post it & flip

chart

Pre
evaluation
preparation

Post
evaluation
effort

Delivered by

Student
feedback on
method

Overall

Low

Low

Not the module

convenor

Very positive

Good for small

groups

Medium/High
depending on
experience
and whether
using
PowerPoint or
live feed

Low

Preferably not
the module
convenor

Very positive

Most effective
overall and
suitable for
any size group

Medium

Low

Not the module

convenor

Positive

Fair for small

and medium
sized groups

Very positive

Works with
large groups
but can be
resource
intensive

Course
Representative?
Paper and
Pen

Medium/High
depending on
photocopies
required

University of Reading 2013

High

Module
convenor or
other

Thursday 18 April 2013

Page 1

Section name

Requirements for Student Evaluation

of Teaching and Learning

Appendix 4 - End of Part/Programme Student Evaluation Good Practice Examples

School/Department

Chemistry

Maths and Statistics

Title of initiative

Part One Review

Staff- Student Forums

Primary evaluation
method

Themed focus groups

Focus groups

Led by

Departmental academic staff, teaching fellows/ Postdoctoral

staff

Departmental senior T&L academic staff

Rationale

Enables more informal and reflective feedback from whole

cohort on key T&L themes in a prioritised way.

To amplify the student voice within a large school, allowing more relaxed
discussion of relevant issues beyond the formalised structure of the SSLC.

When?

End of summer term in Part One

Middle of Autumn and Spring terms

Reporting to

Department T&L Group

Staff-Student Liaison Committee

Examples of changes More introductory lectures in difficult subject areas such as

to practice resulting Physical Chemistry to help smooth the transition between A
level and degree level work.
from feedback
Moving the Physical Chemistry module to the spring term so
that students have already completed a term of Maths before
starting this course.

Some books were moved to the Course Collection in the library after
students raised the issue of not being able to access popular texts when
they needed them.
Part 2 skills module will consolidate the generic skills into one module, and
combine the mathematical skills development components to create
another module, to help students see the relevance of these skills to their
degree and the profession.

Introductory practical course to ensure all students are up to

speed with laboratory techniques before starting the main
course.
Introduction of Part 1 module designed to encourage
independent learning.

Completion of
feedback loop

University of Reading 2013

Participating students informed of actions taken via email &

informal communication within the Department and through
Staff Student Committee.

Minutes of the meetings are annotated with feedback regarding actions

taken or to be taken, and are made available on Blackboard soon after the
meeting, and are passed to the SSLC for further consideration if necessary.
Later actions affecting module content are highlighted on the Blackboard
Student Portal (in a Student Voice box).

Thursday 18 April 2013

Page 1

Contact

University of Reading 2013

Dr Elizabeth Page ([email protected])

Prof Matthew Almond ([email protected])

Dr Karen Ayres ([email protected])

Dr Paul Glaister ([email protected])

Thursday, 18 April 2013

Page 2