Please find the common themes that arose out of the MEQ briefing sessions below:
Student completion of survey
Survey answers are saved if the student exits the survey without submitting but once submitted there is no way to return to the survey
Bb roll-over
- Information in the Student Feedback folder will be rolled over
- Timing of the rollover (mid-May)
Non-credit bearing modules
- These do not need to undertake MEQs
Accessing results
Results cannot be accessed whist the MEQ is open, only completion data
Student difficulty
- Where students have personal difficulty completing an on-line survey, this needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis
- Concerns raised about students with English as a second language and being able to fully follow the survey (same issue as with paper survey)
How do I contact Planning and Initiatives team?
- ! SSH Planning and Initiatives ssh-SSHPlanningandInitiatives-mb@exchange.shu.ac.uk
Response rates
- Concerns about quality and usefulness of data where response rates are low
- Concern over low response rates and judgements made on efforts of staff to collect responses à Departments and the Faculty appreciate the efforts staff are going to collect module evaluation data. Completion rates will be seen in the context of the challenges of moving to online.
MEQ Timings
- Concerns over MEQ windows not matching teaching delivery
→ Faculty will work with STEER to develop the use of the survey so that it becomes a more customisable tool with regards to survey windows.
- Concerns over MEQ analysis being at the same time as heavy marking periods
→ is no change from the previous paper based survey. Annual review processes which include MEQ data should be taking place around June Boards.
- Concerns the windows for completion should be controlled by Module Leaders
→ Currently the licencing arrangements do not allow for this. The Faculty are working with StEER to look into the possibility of increasing the number of survey windows available.
- Knowledge of next year’s MEQ windows would be useful to know in advance so that module timetabling requests can accommodate if tweaking of sessions is needed
→ Agreed, the Faculty will work with StEER to provide this.
- Concerns where the ‘assessment and feedback’ question at the time of the evaluation is not applicable
→ it is important that students are informed about the ‘n/a’ option if this is the case in your module at the time of evaluation and reinforces the need for a dialogue with your students around evaluation time to explain the process as well as the purpose of evaluation
Roles and responsibilities, power dynamics
- Some CLs may feel uncomfortable in approaching a ML with a poor MEQ
→ This is the same as when we had paper based. CLs should talk to their Head of Subject for support if they need it.
- CLs need time to digest and look at all MEQ data
→ Online MEQ supports with this given results in the Source in a more timely fashion. Qual results can also be accessed as soon as the survey closes in April. Annual review processes generally take place in June so this should provide enough time.
- Head of Subject Group may need / want to:
- be included in the discussion about MEQ data, including discussions with ML with poor results
- know about exceptions to on-line
- have access MEQ data including comments
- access comments without having to ask ML
→ The Head of Subject may have an active role in these processes. Local variations with this are fine.
‘Being monitored’
- Unease from some about the fact that a move to on-line MEQs feels like an increase in surveillance of staff
→ MEQ are just one source of data (along with NSS, attainment, retention, etc) that enable us to review provision. All need interpreting in light of their context.
- Can students be identified?
→ MLs do not know who has completed the survey
- Some staff unhappy that others (other than ML) are scrutinising this data
→ Departments and the Faculty appreciate the potential sensitives around this but emphasise the need to share module data for overall health of the course.
Collaborative
- Some staff were not sure their collaborative partners were aware of the on-line process
→ awareness of this will increase with these briefings and the embedding of the on-line process
Best practice?
- Interest in knowing if there is any good practice about the best timing for evaluations in Distance Learning modules that are less structured
- Jogging students’ memories of earlier sessions / events in the module through a ‘reminder sheet’ given at the time of the MEQ can be useful for students
Wording / language
- the use of the word ‘effectively’ can be too subjective
- the MEQ is felt by many staff to have questions that are too blunt in their focus and not tailored enough to specific modules
- Concerns about asking students whether the module helped them tackle ‘unfamiliar problems’ felt too distant from what a module may be trying to achieve and/ or too abstract a phrase
- some staff felt that the MEQ as it currently is written is not suitable for certain types of modules or delivery (e.g. Distance Learning, work-based, dissertation (PG and UG))
→ the University’s MEQ Steering Group is currently looking at dissertation-specific and work-based learning-specific MEQs
Paper-based
- felt by some to give greater flexibility for staff and students
→ it does for staff, with regards to timing. We are working on this with StEER. Online gives more flexibility to students as they don’t have to be there to complete it.
Evaluation of on-line process
- what evaluation is being taken of student experience of process?
- what evaluation is being taken of staff experience of process?
→ We will feed these questions to StEER and report back to Departments.
Supporting staff
- Can there be a check list for staff to know what has to be done in preparation for on-line MEQ process?
→ In large part this is covered in StEER resources but the request for an A4 summary sheet has been passed on.
Please click here to return to this months news bulletin