evaluate university aggregated report · section 2 – quantitative and qualitative results of unit...

eVALUate University Aggregated Report

Participation rates, quantitative and qualitative results of teaching and unit evaluation Semester 2, 2016

Julie-Ann Pegden

eVALUate University Aggregated Report Semester 2, 2016

2

Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 5

Section 1 eVALUate at Curtin: An overview of trends since implementation in 2005 .......... 14

1.1 Research on who gives feedback and students’ perceptions ........................................... 14

1.2 Overall trends in Curtin’s overall response rates and results ........................................... 16

1.3 Closing the feedback loop in the USR ................................................................................. 24

1.4 Overall trends in Teaching evaluation requests and results ............................................. 26

Section 2 – Quantitative and qualitative results of unit evaluation Semester 2 2016 study period ............................................................................................................................................ 30

2.1 Quantitative results ............................................................................................................... 30

2.2 Qualitative results .................................................................................................................. 41

Themes in qualitative results ...................................................................................................... 46

2.3 Improving student perceptions of teaching and learning .................................................. 47

Appendix 1 – Trends of aggregated percentage of responses for each category for Semester 2 study period only ..................................................................................................... 49

Appendix 2 – Response rates ..................................................................................................... 54

Recommendations for improving response rates .................................................................... 66

Appendix 3 – Survey instruments .............................................................................................. 67 Index of tables Table 1 Quantitative results for Curtin Overall...................................................................................................... 6 Table 2 Quantitative results by major faculty ........................................................................................................ 8 Table 3 Number of student responses and response rate required for representative feedback in the eVALUate unit survey ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 4 Semester 2 eVALUate response rates from 2012 to 2016 for all locations and study periods ............. 16 Table 5 Semester 1 eVALUate response rates from 2012 to 2016 for all locations and study periods ............. 17 Table 6 Aggregated results for the unit survey at the University level for the last ten main semester events (% Agreement, % Disagreement and % Unable to Judge) ...................................................................................... 19 Table 7 Quantitative results for other study periods in Semester 2 2016 event ................................................. 23 Table 8 Number and percentage of USRs published ......................................................................................... 25 Table 9 Number and percentage of USRs published with a response .............................................................. 26 Table 10 Number of staff requesting feedback and number of Teaching evaluation requests .......................... 27 Table 11 Teaching evaluation results 2014-2016 .............................................................................................. 28 Table 12 Number and percentage of Teaching Evaluation Reports with 80%+ Agreement in all items ............ 29 Table 13 Percentage of responses in each category for each quantitative item in the unit survey ................... 31 Table 14 Percentage of agreement and disagreement combined for each quantitative item in the unit survey 32 Table 15 Quantitative results by faculty .............................................................................................................. 33 Table 16 Quantitative results by gender ............................................................................................................. 34 Table 17 Quantitative results by age group ........................................................................................................ 34 Table 18 Quantitative results by undergraduate and postgraduate unit level .................................................... 35 Table 19 Quantitative results by undergraduate unit year level ......................................................................... 35 Table 20 Quantitative results by load category .................................................................................................. 36 Table 21 Quantitative results by attendance mode (combined range of modes) ............................................... 36 Table 22 Quantitative results by attendance mode (full range of modes) .......................................................... 37 Table 23 Quantitative results by residency ......................................................................................................... 37 Table 24 Quantitative results for domestic and International (onshore-offshore) .............................................. 38 Table 25 Quantitative results by unit enrolment ................................................................................................. 39 Table 26 Themes in quantitative results ............................................................................................................. 40 Table 27 Number and percentage of responses with comments for each faculty and for Curtin overall ........... 41 Table 28 Number and percentage of students who provided qualitative comment ........................................... 42


3

Table 29 Number and percentage of responses about Most helpful aspects and How units might be improved ............................................................................................................................................................................ 42 Table 30 The domains and sub-domains within CEQuery ................................................................................. 43 Table 31 The number, percentage and rank of comments in each sub-domain. ............................................... 44 Table 32 Top ten sub-domains in ‘Most helpful aspects’ ................................................................................... 45 Table 33 Top ten sub-domains in ‘How unit might be improved’........................................................................ 46 Table 34 Response rate based on potential survey responses ......................................................................... 55 Table 35 Response rate based on potential number of students ....................................................................... 56 Table 36 Number of units with at least 10 ten students and a representative response rate ............................ 58 Table 37 Units with an enrolment of at least 100 students and a response of 50% or greater .......................... 58 Table 38 Response rates by gender .................................................................................................................. 59 Table 39 Response rates by age group ............................................................................................................. 59 Table 40 Response rates by undergraduate student year of study ................................................................... 60 Table 41 Response rates by postgraduate student year of study ...................................................................... 60 Table 42 Response rates by student load category ........................................................................................... 61 Table 43 Response rates by unit enrolment ....................................................................................................... 62 Table 44 Response rates by attendance mode .................................................................................................. 63 Table 45 Response rates by attendance mode (all categories) ......................................................................... 63 Table 46 Response rates by residency .............................................................................................................. 64 Table 47 Response rates by residency (with onshore/offshore breakdown) ..................................................... 64 Table 48 Response rates by campus ................................................................................................................. 65

Index of figures Figure 1 eVALUate results for Curtin Overall for Semester 2 study period only from 2012 to 2016 .................... 5 Figure 2 eVALUate results per major faculty and CAS for Semester 2 study period only for 2016 ..................... 7 Figure 3 eVALUate results Faculty of Humanities for Semester 2 study period only 2012 to 2016 .................... 9 Figure 4 eVALUate results Curtin Business School for Semester 2 study period only 2012 to 2016 ................ 10 Figure 5 eVALUate results Faculty of Science and Engineering for Semester 2 study period only 2012 to 2016 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 6 eVALUate results Faculty of Health Sciences for Semester 2 study period only 2012 to 2016 .......... 12 Figure 7 eVALUate results Centre for Aboriginal Studies for Semester 2 study period only from 2012 to 2016 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 8 Response rate trends in Semester 2 events from 2012 to 2016 for all locations and study periods ... 17 Figure 9 Response rate trends in Semester 1 events from 2011 to 2015 for all locations and study periods ... 18 Figure 10 Aggregated percentage Agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2012 to 2016 ............................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 11 Aggregated percentage Disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2012 to 2016 ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 12 Aggregated percentage Unable to judge for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2012 to 2016 ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 13 Percentage Strong agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years ........................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 14 Percentage Agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years ................................................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 15 Percentage Disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period from 2012 to 2016 ............................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 16 Percentage Strong disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period from 2012 to 2016 .................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 17 Percentage Unable to Judge for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period from 2012 to 2016 ............................................................................................................................................... 53


4

Introduction eVALUate is Curtin’s online system for gathering and reporting students’ perceptions of their learning experiences. eVALUate includes two surveys: a unit survey and a teaching evaluation survey (see Appendix 3 to view the survey instruments). The eVALUate University Aggregated Report (this document) is an analysis of the response rates, quantitative and qualitative results of the eVALUate unit and teaching surveys at the University and faculty levels for Semester 2 2016. An accompanying Faculty Supplement, showing response rates and results by teaching areas, is made available to each faculty. The Executive Summary provides the key findings for Curtin overall and for each major faculty including trend data for Semester 2 study period only. Section 1 provides an overview of developments and student behaviour in eVALUate since implementation and includes information about key research findings, analysis of trends in response rates and quantitative results for unit and teaching surveys in the Semester 2 event (all study periods and locations). Section 2 provides a full analysis of the Semester 2 2016 study period only including quantitative and qualitative results. To highlight overall trends, the following icon has been added to this report.

TREND

Comment on overall trend.


5

Executive Summary This Executive Summary outlines the key findings for the Semester 2 study period only for Curtin overall and the four major Faculties and the Centre for Aboriginal Studies.

Curtin Semester 2 Unit Survey Results Figure 1 shows the percentage Agreement with the 11 eVALUate items for Curtin overall in the Semester 2 study period from 2012 to 2016. As the graph shows, since 2012, results for Semester 2 declined in all items except in whether students think about how can learn more effectively (Item 10; up 0.3%). The most notable declines since Semester 2 2012 were in overall satisfaction (Item 11; down 1.5%), quality of teaching (Item 7; down 1.3%), learning experiences (Item 2; down 1.3%), and student motivation (Item 8; down 1.2%).

Figure 1 eVALUate results for Curtin Overall for Semester 2 study period only from 2012 to 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

2012

2013

2014

2014

2016

TREND

Since 2012, student satisfaction with the quality of their unit teaching and learning

experiences has decreased in most items. Students consistently register their lowest agreement with Item 5 (feedback).


6

Table 1 shows the trend in percentage Agreement with quantitative items 1 to 11 in the Semester 2 study period only over five years. The table shows that results declined in most items in 2016 compared to 2015, most notably in workload (Item 6; down 0.9%) and quality of teaching (Item 7; down 0.9%).

What helps achievement of the learning outcomes Student motivation

and engagement

Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Sem 2 2012 40659 37.6% 89.0 85.6 85.4 85.4 79.6 86.2 84.4 85.7 86.5 85.6 84.4

Sem 2 2013 34765 33.6% 88.8 84.8 85.1 85.2 79.1 86.0 84.0 85.1 86.5 85.5 83.6

Sem 2 2014 36909 33.7% 87.8 83.7 84.0 83.7 78.4 85.3 82.7 84.5 85.8 85.0 82.6

Sem 2 2015 36895 34.0% 88.9 84.8 84.8 84.9 79.8 86.5 84.0 85.0 86.0 85.6 83.4

Sem 2 2016 37813 34.6% 88.4 84.3 84.4 84.5 79.4 85.6 83.1 84.5 86.4 85.9 82.9

Note: Results are for Semester 2 study period enrolments only.

Table 1 Quantitative results for Curtin Overall

What are students most positive about? Overall eVALUate (quantitative and qualitative data) has elicited the most positive responses at the University level about:

1. The clarity of unit learning outcomes. 2. The quality of teaching (with frequent comment about staff quality and attitude and

accessibility and responsiveness). 3. Students’ perceptions of their workload. 4. The relevance of student assessment (this includes comments that their assessment is

interesting, challenging and helps their achievement of the unit learning outcomes). What are students least positive about? Overall eVALUate (quantitative and qualitative data) has elicited the least positive responses and highest percentage Disagreement (at the University level) about:

1. Feedback. 2. Assessment standards and expectations. 3. Overall satisfaction. 4. The quality of teaching.


7

Semester 2 Unit Survey Results Per Major Faculty and CAS Figure 2 shows the eVALUate results for each major faculty and CAS for the Semester 2 study period only in 2016. As the figure shows, Curtin Business School achieved the highest results in all items. Both the Faculty of Humanities and the Curtin Business School achieved agreement of over 80% in all items including feedback (Item 5) and are to be commended on this level of achievement.

Figure 2 eVALUate results per major faculty and CAS for Semester 2 study period only for 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

Humanities CBS Sci &Eng Health Sci CAS

Table 2 shows the Semester 2 study period only results for the major faculties and the Centre for Aboriginal Studies from 2012 to 2016. As the table shows, results declined in all or most items since 2015 for the Curtin Business School, the Faculty of Science and Engineering, the Faculty of Health Sciences, and the Centre for Aboriginal Studies. Since 2015, overall satisfaction declined by 0.3% for the Curtin Business School, by 1.2% for the Faculty of Science and Engineering, by 0.8% for the Faculty of Health Sciences and by 8.3% for the Centre for Aboriginal Studies. Results increased in all or most items since 2015 for the Faculty of Humanities, including overall satisfaction (Item 11; up 0.6%).


8


and engagement

Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

N

um

ber

of

Res

pon

ses

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Sem 2 2012

Hum 6370 34.5% 87.3 84.6 83.9 85.7 80.1 86.1 83.6

84.9 86.0 84.9

83.3

CBS 14078 39.6% 90.4 86.9 87.5 86.1 81.6 88.2 85.6 86.7 87.6 87.1 86.4

Sci &Eng 8809 34.1% 86.9 83.9 81.9 84.0 76.6 83.6 81.3 84.8 85.6 84.9 82.5

Health 11037 41.4% 89.9 85.6 86.2 85.4 79.0 86.0 85.8 85.3 86.2 84.5 83.9

CAS 135 17.9% 88.0 82.1 87.3 80.6 77.6 72.9 82.0 83.5 85.5 83.5 77.9

Sem 2 2013

Hum 6061 31.2% 88.0 85.4 85.0 86.3 80.9 86.9 84.4

84.8 86.7 85.6

83.2

CBS 10157 36.7% 89.4 86.0 86.3 85.8 80.7 86.5 85.0 85.7 87.1 85.9 84.9

Sci &Eng 7909 30.4% 88.2 83.7 82.8 84.4 77.0 85.4 81.7 85.7 87.1 87.0 83.2

Health 10160 36.1% 89.1 84.1 85.5 84.2 77.6 85.2 84.4 84.2 85.2 83.7 82.6

CAS 141 21.3% 84.9 84.3 86.3 85.0 81.4 82.0 77.5 81.4 85.0 87.1 83.5

Sem 2 2014

Hum 6434 32.8% 85.9 84.2 83.3 84.6 79.8 85.3 82.7

84.6 86.4 86.2

81.9

CBS 10354 35.9% 89.1 85.3 86.3 85.4 80.8 86.9 84.7 85.5 87.1 86.5 84.9

Sci &Eng 8622 31.2% 85.5 81.6 80.4 81.4 74.7 82.5 78.6 83.3 84.3 84.4 80.3

Health 10880 35.8% 89.1 83.3 84.7 83.3 78.0 85.6 83.8 83.9 85.1 83.2 82.2

CAS 164 23.7% 86.0 83.5 86.6 84.1 81.1 87.8 83.5 90.2 87.7 87.7 85.4

Sem 2 2015

Hum 6143 32.7% 86.5 83.0 82.2 83.6 78.7 85.5 82.7

83.4 84.7 84.8

81.5

CBS 11066 38.1% 90.0 86.5 86.7 86.0 82.2 87.6 85.4 86.1 87.1 86.9 85.2

Sci &Eng 8575 31.1% 87.6 83.3 82.3 84.1 77.2 84.8 81.3 83.3 84.2 84.9 82.3

Health 10557 35.1% 89.9 84.9 86.1 85.0 79.7 87.1 85.3 85.6 86.8 84.9 83.3

CAS 165 28.3% 90.9 83.6 85.4 86.0 78.2 84.8 81.6 88.3 89.6 88.9 80.9

Sem 2 2016

Hum 5934 31.4% 86.2 83.5 83.4 83.4 80.7 85.1 83.3

84.0 85.7 85.8

82.1

CBS 11416 37.5% 89.7 86.0 86.2 86.4 82.3 87.2 84.8 86.0 87.3 86.5 84.9

Sci &Eng 9101 32.8% 87.4 83.0 81.5 82.7 76.8 83.3 80.2 82.5 84.6 84.3 81.1

Health 10826 36.3% 88.8 83.8 85.4 84.2 77.8 86.0 83.6 84.8 87.2 86.4 82.5

CAS 121 27.6% 86.0 71.9 76.7 86.0 76.9 82.4 68.9 77.7 77.7 81.5 72.6

Note: Results are for Semester 2 study period only. Based on faculty of the owning org of the units.

Table 2 Quantitative results by major faculty


9

Figure 3 shows the results for the Faculty of Humanities in the Semester 2 study period only from 2012 to 2016. As the graph shows, results for most items declined between 2012 and 2016, most notably in assessment (Item 4; down 2.3%), overall satisfaction (Item 11; down 1.2%), whether learning outcomes were clearly identified (Item 1; down 1.1%), and learning experiences (Item 2; down 1.1%). Results increased in most items in 2016 compared to 2015. The items with the greatest increase since 2015 were feedback (Item 5; up 2.0%) and learning resources (Item 3; up 1.2%).

Figure 3 eVALUate results Faculty of Humanities for Semester 2 study period only 2012 to 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16


10

Figure 4 shows the results for the Curtin Business School in the Semester 2 study period only from 2012 to 2016. As the graph shows, results declined in most items since 2012, most notably in overall satisfaction (Item 11; down 1.5%) and learning resources (Item 3; down 1.3%). Results also declined slightly in most items since 2015, most notably in quality of teaching (Item 7; down 0.6%), learning experiences (Item 2; down 0.5%), and learning resources (Item 3; down 0.5%).

Figure 4 eVALUate results Curtin Business School for Semester 2 study period only 2012 to 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16


11

Figure 5 shows the results for the Faculty of Science and Engineering in the Semester 2 study period only from 2012 to 2016. As the graph shows, results declined in most items since 2012, most notably in student motivation (Item 8; down 2.3%), overall satisfaction (Item 11; down 1.4%) and assessment (Item 4; down 1.3%). Results also declined in most items since 2015. The most notable declines since 2015 were in workload (Item 6; down 1.5%), assessment (Item 4; down 1.4%), overall satisfaction (Item 11; down 1.2%), and quality of teaching (Item 7; down 1.1%).

Figure 5 eVALUate results Faculty of Science and Engineering for Semester 2 study period only 2012 to 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16


12

Figure 6 shows the results for the Faculty of Health Sciences in the Semester 2 study period only from 2012 to 2016. As the graph shows, results declined in most items since 2012, most notably in quality of teaching (Item 7; down 2.2%), learning experiences (Item 2; down 1.8%), and overall satisfaction (Item 11; down 1.4%). Results also declined in most items since 2015. The most notable declines since 2015 were in feedback (Item 5; down 1.9%) and quality of teaching (Item 7; down 1.7%).

Figure 6 eVALUate results Faculty of Health Sciences for Semester 2 study period only 2012 to 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16


13

Figure 7 shows the results for the Centre for Aboriginal Studies in the Semester 2 study period only from 2012 to 2016. As the graph shows, results declined in most items since 2012, most notably in quality of teaching (Item 7; down 13.1%), learning resources (Item 3; down 10.6%), and learning experiences (Item 2; down 10.2%). Results also declined in most items since 2015. The most notable declines since 2015 were in quality of teaching (Item 7; down 12.7%), whether students make best use of the learning experiences (Item 9; down 11.9%), and learning experiences (Item 2; down 11.7%).

Figure 7 eVALUate results Centre for Aboriginal Studies for Semester 2 study period only from 2012 to 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16


14

Section 1 eVALUate at Curtin: An overview of trends since implementation in 2005

Key information about the eVALUate unit survey

The eVALUate unit survey focuses on student achievement of unit learning outcomes: it asks students’ level of agreement with three key indicators:

1. what helped their achievement of learning outcomes (Items 1 to 7) 2. their level of motivation and engagement (Items 8 to 10) and 3. their overall satisfaction with the unit (Item 11).

Two qualitative items ask about the most helpful aspects of this unit and how the unit might be improved. The survey items and rating scale have undergone rigorous testing to ensure reliability and validity (face validity with Australian and International students and content validity). Statistical testing shows that the rating scale is sufficiently discriminating to indicate areas of teaching and learning practice that need attention.

1.1 Research on who gives feedback and students’ perceptions

Student participation in eVALUate unit survey Statistical analysis shows that all demographic groups participate in eVALUate. Nevertheless, there is usually greater participation by female students, full-time students and students with a higher semester-weighted average. Part-time students, international students, students in older age groups and students with a higher semester weighted average are more likely to agree with the quantitative items. See http://evaluate.curtin.edu.au/publications/ for research publications.

Student comments in eVALUate About two-thirds of the participating students provide written comments, and their responses are often quite lengthy. Students tend to comment more frequently about the best aspects of a unit than about how the unit can be improved. In the seven things that students say most commonly about the best aspects, three of them are about staff - their quality and attitude, accessibility and responsiveness, and their teaching skills. These findings are stable since 2005. For the majority of students, their experience in fully online units is positive and they frequently comment on the quality and attitudes of their teachers indicating that they are accessible and responsive. Students consistently register lower agreement with the quality of teaching in fully online units. Student comments reveal that their learning is hindered by the teaching when the quality of information in relation to assessments and feedback is confusing and unclear. See http://evaluate.curtin.edu.au/publications/ for research publications. Response rates and validity of results The gathering and reporting of student feedback through systems such as eVALUate is not an exact science in that students' perceptions are not definitive judgements on the worth of a unit or of a teacher's ability. At best, student feedback at the unit level can indicate areas that are likely to be working well, and areas that need further exploration and possibly development. Each individual student response to the unit survey is valid in that each represents one student’s perception and must be taken seriously. The collective responses of students to the unit survey are representative of those who provided feedback. Likewise responses from what may appear to be an unrepresentative minority are still valid - they cannot be disregarded simply because they are few; nor should they be taken as a definitive indication of the quality of the unit.


15

To determine whether eVALUate results are representative of the views of the total student group enrolled in a unit, a minimum response rate is required and that response rate differs according to the number of students enrolled in the unit. Table 3 gives an indication of the response rate required in units of varying sizes to ascertain the representativeness of a sample. If the sample is representative, it means that the opinions of the sample are representative of the opinions of the whole group. Using Table 3, staff can be 95% confident that the actual percent agreement is within 10% (±) of the observed percent agreement for the total student group enrolled in the unit.

Student enrolment in the unit Response rate in eVALUate No of student responses required 20 85% 17 40 70% 28 60 60% 36 80 52% 42

100 46% 46 200 30% 60 500 15% 73 1500 5% 80

Table 3 Number of student responses and response rate required for representative feedback in the eVALUate unit survey

Study periods and campuses included in eVALUate in 2016 In 2016, six eVALUate events were available for students at all of Curtin's Australian campuses and at the following offshore campuses:

Miri Sarawak campus in Malaysia Limkokwing University of Creative Technology in Malaysia Charles Telfair Institute in Mauritius Curtin Singapore campus in Singapore Dongbei University of Finance and Economics in China Nanjing Audit University in China UHK Space Main campus in China UHK Space Admiralty Centre in China UHK Space CIDP in China Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology (from Semester 2 onwards)

These events were Summer School, Semester 1, Semester 2, and Trimesters 1, 2, and 3. The Semester 2 event included Open Universities Australia Session 2. Additional ‘Special Events’ were held for units and additional study periods as required. The results of these Special Events are not included in this report. Please see https://studentcentral.curtin.edu.au/references/studyperiods.cfm for further information about Curtin University study periods. See http://www.open.edu.au/student-admin-and-support/key-dates/ for further information about Open Universities Australia study periods.


16

1.2 Overall trends in Curtin’s overall response rates and results

Key information about Curtin’s overall response rate Overall, the response rate to the eVALUate unit survey has declined. Best comparisons about student behaviours are made between ‘like’ semesters, i.e. it is best to compare Semester 1 with that same semester in each year, and Semester 2 is best compared with that same semester in each year. This is because all first semesters have a similar unit load and profile as do second semesters. Therefore, in the section which follows, comparisons are made according to first or second semester. Response rate trends in Semester 2 events Table 4 shows the response rates for Semester 2 events since 2012. The table shows that in Semester 2 (2012 to 2016): the number of surveys submitted has declined by 2,845 (from 40,813 in 2012 to 37,968 in 2016); the percentage of students who participated has decreased from 44.1% in 2012 to 40.1% in 2016; the response rate has declined by 2.9% (from 37.5% in 2012 to 34.6% in 2016); and the number of potential surveys increased from 108,760 in 2012 to 109,733 in 2016.

Potential survey

submissions

Number of students who

could participate

Number of surveys

submitted


did participate

Overall response rate

(Surveys submitted divided by potential surveys)

% of students who did

participate

Sem 2 2012 108,760 32,903 40,813 14,524 37.5% 44.1%

Sem 2 2013 103,965 31,965 34,889 12,454 33.6% 39.6%

Sem 2 2014 112,126 33,785 37,768 13,611 33.7% 40.3%

Sem 2 2015 108,964 32,985 37,056 13,344 34.0% 40.5%

Sem 2 2016 109,733 33,670 37,968 13,491 34.6% 40.1%

Note: Figures include all student enrolments in the event (e.g. Sem 2 2016 event includes Semester 2, Study Period 9 and OpenUnis Session 2).

Table 4 Semester 2 eVALUate response rates from 2012 to 2016 for all locations and study periods

Figure 8 shows the response rate trends in Semester 2 events since 2012 for the overall response rate (surveys submitted divided by potential surveys) and percentage of students who participated. Since Semester 2, 2015, the overall response rate has increased by 0.6% (from 34.0% in 2015 to 34.6% in 2016).


17

Figure 8 Response rate trends in Semester 2 events from 2012 to 2016 for all locations and study periods

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

S2 12 S2 13 S2 14 S2 15 S2 16

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Semester Event

Overall response rate (Surveyssubmitted divided by potentialsurveys)

% of students who did participate

Response rate trends in Semester 1 events Table 5 shows the response rates for Semester 1 events since 2012. The table shows that in Semester 1 (2012 through to 2016): the number of surveys submitted by students has increased by 4,616 (from 47,274 in 2012 to

51,890 in 2016); the percentage of students who participated increased from 41.3% in 2012 to 44.4% in 2016; the response rate increased from 36.6% in 2012 to 39.9% in 2016; and the number of potential surveys increased from 129,151 in 2012 to 129,929 in 2016.

Potential survey

submissions


could participate

Number of surveys

submitted


did participate

Overall response rate

(Surveys submitted divided by potential surveys)

% of students who did

participate

Sem 1 2012 129,151 43,443 47,274 17,946 36.6% 41.3%

Sem 1 2013 126,519 42,628 48,466 18,520 38.3% 43.4%

Sem 1 2014 129,942 43,380 48,829 18,617 37.6% 42.9%

Sem 1 2015 132,386 43,683 50,264 19,905 38.0% 43.3%

Sem 1 2016 129,929 42,772 51,890 18,976 39.9% 44.4%

Note: Figures include all student enrolments in the event (e.g. Sem 21 2016 event includes Semester 1,Study Period 4, Study Period 5, Quarter 2, Trimester 1A, OpenUnis Session 1 and OpenUnis Study Period 1).

Table 5 Semester 1 eVALUate response rates from 2012 to 2016 for all locations and study periods


18

Figure 9 shows the response rate trends in Semester 1 events since 2012 for the overall response rate (surveys submitted divided by potential surveys) and percentage of students who participated. Since Semester 1 2015, the overall response rate has increased by 1.9% (from 38.0% in 2015 to 39.9% in 2016).

Figure 9 Response rate trends in Semester 1 events from 2011 to 2015 for all locations and study periods

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

S1 12 S1 13 S1 14 S1 15 S1 16

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Semester Event

Overall response rate (Surveyssubmitted divided by potentialsurveys)

% of students who didparticipate

TREND

Since 2012 response rates for the eVALUate unit survey in Semester 2 events

have declined.


19

Key information about Curtin’s overall quantitative results Table 6 shows the University-level aggregated results for the eVALUate unit survey since Semester 1 2012 for percentage Agreement, percentage Disagreement and percentage Unable to judge. These results include data from all study periods and locations covered by eVALUate. In this table, highlighted cells indicate where percentage Agreement was less than the University’s target of 80%.


and engagement Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

% Agree

S1 12 89.4 84.8 84.9 84.8 78.4 85.7 83.2 85.1 86.2 85.1 83.8

S2 12 89.1 85.6 85.4 85.4 79.6 86.2 84.4 85.7 86.6 85.6 84.4

S1 13 89.2 84.9 85.1 85.2 79.4 86.2 83.5 85.7 86.6 86.0 84.0

S2 13 88.8 84.8 85.1 85.2 79.1 86.0 84.0 85.1 86.5 85.5 83.6

S1 14 89.3 84.9 85.5 85.4 79.2 86.4 83.5 85.5 86.5 85.5 84.0

S2 14 87.8 83.8 84.0 83.8 78.6 85.3 82.7 84.5 85.8 85.1 82.7

S1 15 88.9 84.6 85.2 85.0 79.5 86.1 83.1 85.6 86.2 85.8 83.1

S2 15 88.9 84.8 84.8 84.9 79.8 86.5 84.0 85.0 86.1 85.6 83.4

S1 16 89.4 85.5 85.4 85.3 80.5 86.2 83.7 85.0 86.5 86.5 83.8

S2 16 88.4 84.3 84.4 84.5 79.4 85.6 83.1 84.5 86.4 85.9 82.9

% Disagree

S1 12 9.9 14.2 13.9 13.8 18.5 13.1 15.1

13.8 12.5 13.1

15.1

S2 12 10.2 13.4 13.5 13.2 17.8 12.7 14.0 13.4 12.2 12.6 14.4

S1 13 10.1 14.0 13.8 13.3 18.1 12.7 14.8 13.2 12.1 12.0 14.7

S2 13 10.5 14.0 13.8 13.5 18.4 12.9 14.5 13.9 12.3 12.7 15.1

S1 14 9.9 13.9 13.4 13.1 17.8 12.3 14.9 13.5 12.1 12.5 14.7

S2 14 11.4 15.2 14.9 14.9 18.9 13.6 15.5 14.5 12.9 13.1 16.1

S1 15 10.2 14.2 13.7 13.7 17.7 12.7 15.3 13.3 12.3 12.4 15.5

S2 15 10.2 14.1 14.0 13.7 17.6 12.4 14.3 13.8 12.5 12.7 15.2

S1 16 9.8 13.3 13.4 13.3 16.8 12.5 14.5 13.7 11.9 11.5 14.7

S2 16 10.6 14.5 14.2 14.0 17.9 13.0 15.1 14.2 12.2 12.3 15.7

% Unable to Judge

S1 12 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 3.1 1.2 1.6

1.0 1.3 1.8

1.2

S2 12 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.6 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.2

S1 13 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.5 2.5 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.9 1.3

S2 13 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.3 2.5 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.3

S1 14 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.4 3.0 1.2 1.7 1.0 1.3 2.0 1.3

S2 14 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.5 1.1 1.7 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.2

S1 15 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.3 2.7 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.8 1.4

S2 15 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 2.6 1.1 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.4

S1 16 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.4 2.7 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.6 2.0 1.5

S2 16 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.6 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.5

Note: Figures include all student enrolments in the event (e.g. Sem 2 2016 event includes Semester 2, Study Period 9 and OpenUnis Session 2)

Table 6 Aggregated results for the unit survey at the University level for the last ten main semester events (% Agreement, % Disagreement and % Unable to Judge)


20

Table 6 shows that the 80% Agreement target was reached in all items in Semester 2 2016 except Item 5 (feedback). The table shows a decline in percentage Agreement in most items in Semester 2 between 2015 and 2016. The table also shows a decline in most items in Semester 2 between 2012 and 2016. Figure 10 shows a comparison of ‘like’ Semester events (Semester 2 2012 - 2016). The figure shows that the greatest declines in student agreement since 2012 were in overall satisfaction (Item 11; down 1.5%), quality of teaching (Item 7; down 1.3%), and learning experiences (Item 2; down 1.3%).

Figure 10 Aggregated percentage Agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2012 to 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16

TREND

Student’s perceived satisfaction with the quality of their unit teaching and

learning experiences has decreased since both Semester 2 2012 and Semester 2 2015.


21

Student disagreement with the items is likely to indicate areas for improvement. Figure 11 shows that since 2012, students are more likely to disagree with most items. Student disagreement increased in all items since 2015. This figure shows that the biggest increases in disagreement since 2012 were in overall satisfaction (Item 11; up 1.3%), learning experiences (Item 2; up 1.1%), and quality of teaching (Item 7; up 1.1%).

Figure 11 Aggregated percentage Disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2012 to 2016

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dis

agre

emen

t (%

)

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16

TREND

Since 2012, students are more likely to disagree with most items about the quality

of their unit teaching and learning experiences.


22

The percentage of students who were Unable to judge has remained relatively stable over the last five years. Figure 11 shows that from 2012 to 2016, students were slightly more likely to report being Unable to Judge with most items. The most notable increases since 2012 were in workload (Item 6; up 0.3%) and overall satisfaction (Item 11; up 0.3%).

Figure 12 Aggregated percentage Unable to judge for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2012 to 2016

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Un

able

to

jud

ge

(%)

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16

TREND

The percentage of students reporting that they are Unable to judge the

quality of their teaching and learning experiences is small and relatively stable since 2012.


23

Unit survey results for other study periods The results of OpenUnis Session 2 (one of the other study periods included in the Semester 2 eVALUate event) are shown in Table 7. There were insufficient enrolments/responses to report on Study Period 9.

What helps achievement of the learning outcomes Student motivation and

engagement

Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

OUA Sess 2 155 42.1% 94.2 91.0 87.6 90.3 80.5 91.6 84.2 91.6 87.7 92.1 84.4

Table 7 Quantitative results for other study periods in Semester 2 2016 event


24

1.3 Closing the feedback loop in the USR

Publication of Unit Summary Reports (USRs) Prior to 2009, publication of USRs was low (ranging from 9% to 21% following a main Semester event). From 2009, all USRs were published by default: unit coordinators were able to opt out of publication at any time prior to or after the event. Table 8 shows the number of USRs published in the last six eVALUate main semester events.

Total units Total with

publishable USR* Number published as of report release date

% published

Sem 1 2014

Humanities 412 382 382 100%

CBS 268 250 250 100%

Sci & Eng 453 421 418 99.3%

Health Sci 385 364 352 96.7%

CAS 28 26 26 100%

Other 193 178 176 98.9%

Curtin Overall 1739 1621 1604 99.0%

Sem 2 2014

Humanities 419 392 389 99.2%

CBS 256 242 242 100%

Sci & Eng 449 417 411 98.6%

Health Sci 392 369 358 97.0%

CAS 25 24 24 100%

Cross Inst Enr 18 7 7 100%

Curtin L & T 44 39 39 100%

Curtin Overall 1603 1490 1470 98.7%

Sem 1 2015

Humanities 425 390 389 99.7%

CBS 259 248 246 99.2%

Sci & Eng 452 430 424 98.6%

Health Sci 389 372 364 97.8%

CAS 31 23 23 100%


Curtin L & T 188 173 169 97.7%

Curtin International 9 6 6 100%

DVC Academic 1 1 1 100%

Curtin Overall 1760 1645 1624 98.7%

Sem 2 2015

Humanities 427 383 379 99.0%

CBS 243 236 234 99.2%

Sci & Eng 438 408 395 96.8%

Health Sci 374 355 350 98.6%

CAS 25 19 19 100%


Curtin L & T 49 41 41 100%

Curtin International 8 5 5 100%

DVC Academic 4 1 1 100%

Curtin Overall 1574 1452 1428 98.3%

Sem 1 2016

Humanities 436 409 407 99.5%

CBS 253 250 248 99.2%

Sci & Eng 451 425 420 98.8%

Health Sci 370 358 349 97.5%

CAS 27 17 17 100.0%

DVC Academic 206 188 186 98.9%

DVC Int’l 11 5 5 100.0%

Curtin Overall 1754 1652 1632 98.8%


25

Sem 2 2016

Humanities 425 389 385 99.0%

CBS 232 228 224 98.2%

Sci & Eng 437 407 399 98.0%

Health Sci 368 352 342 97.2%

CAS 21 15 15 100.0%

DVC Academic 61 45 45 100.0%

DVC Int’l 8 4 4 100.0%

Curtin Overall 1552 1440 1414 98.2% *Criteria for eligibility for publication is more than one enrolment and one or more responses. Percentages shown are for publishable USRs only.

Table 8 Number and percentage of USRs published

Publication of Unit Summary Reports (USRs) with a response to students Table 9 shows the number of USRs which contain a unit coordinator response to students published in the last six eVALUate main semester events up to Semester 1 2016. Data is not yet available for Semester 2 2016 as staff have not had sufficient opportunity to post a USR response for this survey event as of the time this report was generated.

Number of publishable USRs*

Number published with a response to students

% published with a response to students

Sem 2 2013

Humanities 380 29 7.6%

CBS 251 38 15.1%

Sci & Eng 413 54 13.1%

Health Sci 365 87 23.8%

CAS 28 0 0.0%

Other 44 3 6.8%

Curtin Overall 1481 211 14.2%

Sem 1 2014


CBS 250 49 19.6%

Sci & Eng 421 70 16.6%

Health Sci 364 72 19.8%

CAS 26 0 0.0%

Other 178 40 22.5%


Sem 2 2014


CBS 242 47 19.4%

Sci & Eng 417 51 12.2%

Health Sci 369 81 22.0%

CAS 24 0 0.0%

Cross Inst Enr 7 0 0.0%

Curtin L & T 39 6 15.4%


Sem 1 2015


CBS 248 65 26.2%

Sci & Eng 430 66 15.3%

Health Sci 372 82 22.0%

CAS 23 0 0.0%


Curtin L & T 173 25 14.5%

Curtin International 6 0 0.0%

DVC Academic 1 0 0.0%



26

Sem 2 2015


CBS 236 62 26.3%

Sci & Eng 408 43 10.5%

Health Sci 355 92 25.9%

CAS 19 1 5.3%


Curtin L & T 41 9 22.0%

Curtin International 5 0 0.0%



Sem 1 2016


CBS 250 85 34.0%

Sci & Eng 425 68 16.0%

Health Sci 358 125 34.9%

CAS 17 0 0.0%


DVC International 5 0 0.0%

Curtin Overall 1652 362 21.9% *Criteria for eligibility for publication is more than one enrolment and one or more responses. Percentages shown are for publishable USRs only. Data extraction carried out on census date of the next main semester.

Table 9 Number and percentage of USRs published with a response

1.4 Overall trends in Teaching evaluation requests and results

Number of Teaching evaluation requests Table 10 shows the number of teaching staff who requested feedback and how many teaching evaluations they requested in the last six eVALUate main semester events.

Number of staff requesting feedback

Number of Teaching evaluation requests

Sem 1 2014

Humanities 170 310

CBS 236 408

Sci & Eng 235 447

Health Sci 267 480

CAS 3 3

Other 109 137

Curtin Overall* 963 1785

Sem 2 2014

Humanities 148 248

CBS 215 369

Sci & Eng 225 385

Health Sci 267 457

CAS 3 5

Cross Inst Enr 0 0

Curtin L & T 36 42


Sem 1 2015

Humanities 184 340

CBS 251 444

Sci & Eng 267 496

Health Sci 258 469

CAS 5 6

Cross Inst Enr 0 0

Curtin L & T 107 139



27

Sem 2 2015

Humanities 160 289

CBS 208 369

Sci & Eng 264 462

Health Sci 277 460

CAS 5 8

Cross Inst Enr 0 0

Curtin L & T 30 34

Curtin International 1 1


Sem 1 2016

Humanities 190 334

CBS 236 413

Sci & Eng 300 554

Health Sci 296 517

CAS 4 5

DVC Academic 117 155

DVC International 1 1


Sem 2 2016

Humanities 213 348

CBS 229 372

Sci & Eng 316 574

Health Sci 312 501

CAS 7 12

DVC Academic 35 46

DVC International 2 2

Curtin Overall* 1114 1855 *Number of staff requesting feedback for Curtin Overall does not equal the sum of staff per faculty requesting feedback as some staff teach in units in more than one faculty (e.g. Staff teaching in a major faculty as well as in OUA).

Table 10 Number of staff requesting feedback and number of Teaching evaluation requests

Aggregated results of Teaching evaluations for Curtin Overall and each Faculty Table 11 shows the percentage Agreement with each of the seven teaching survey items for Curtin Overall and each Faculty over the last six major eVALUate events.

TE

R r

equ

ests

No.

TE

Rs

wit

h r

esp

No.

Res

p

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Kn

owle

dge

able

En

thu

sias

tic

Wel

l org

anis

ed

Com

mu

nic

ates

cl

earl

y

Ap

pro

ach

able

Use

ful f

eed

bac

k

Eff

ecti

ve T

each

er

S1 14

Humanities 310 293 2108 95.7 92.2 91.7 88.0 91.6 86.2 89.7

CBS 408 394 4507 95.4 91.4 91.2 88.7 91.4 87.0 89.9

Sci & Eng 447 415 3834 95.5 91.2 89.9 85.9 90.6 85.1 88.5

Hlth Sci 480 446 4338 98.5 96.1 94.4 92.8 93.8 90.3 93.7

CAS 3 3 736 100 100 100 100 90.9 100 100

Other 137 125 11 97.0 93.9 94.0 92.2 91.4 88.8 91.8

Curtin Overall 1785 1676 15534 96.4 92.9 91.9 89.3 91.9 87.4 90.7

S2 14

Humanities 248 231 1469 95.3 92.9 90.2 87.8 89.9 86.4 88.5

CBS 369 359 3584 95.3 92.0 91.4 89.3 91.4 86.9 89.8

Sci & Eng 385 352 3028 94.9 90.5 88.9 85.4 89.5 84.0 87.6

Health Sci 457 415 3387 97.3 95.1 93.4 92.0 93.3 89.8 92.9

CAS 5 4 32 90.3 87.1 71.0 83.9 87.1 80.6 83.9

Curtin L & T 42 27 82 96.3 90.2 92.7 86.6 91.5 85.4 87.7

Curtin Overall 1506 1388 11582 95.8 92.6 91.1 88.8 91.3 86.9 89.9


28

S1 15

Humanities 340 318 2311 95.5 93.4 90.4 88.4 90.9 86.7 89.6

CBS 444 438 5259 95.8 91.9 91.7 89.3 92.2 88.1 90.0

Sci & Eng 496 468 4526 95.5 90.7 89.4 84.9 90.6 84.9 88.1

Health Sci 469 443 4687 97.4 95.0 92.7 91.7 92.2 88.4 92.4

CAS 6 4 19 89.5 73.7 89.5 68.4 84.2 73.7 73.7

Curtin L & T 139 136 755 96.4 92.3 91.1 90.7 90.7 87.4 91.2

Curtin Overall 1894 1807 17557 96.1 92.6 91.2 88.7 91.5 87.1 90.2

S2 15

Humanities 289 261 1429 96.7 93.6 91.1 89.3 91.4 86.1 90.1

CBS 369 360 4471 95.2 92.0 91.5 88.6 91.4 87.7 90.5

Sci & Eng 462 436 4160 94.6 90.5 89.1 85.5 90.0 85.2 88.6

Health Sci 460 435 3699 97.4 95.4 93.4 91.6 92.4 89.4 92.4

CAS 8 7 55 98.2 94.5 92.7 92.7 94.5 92.7 96.4

Curtin L & T 34 27 77 96.1 96.1 94.8 93.5 93.5 94.8 93.5

Curtin Intern’l 1 1 2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Curtin Overall 1623 1527 13893 95.8 92.7 91.3 88.6 91.3 87.3 90.5

S1 16

Humanities 334 314 2165 96.0 94.0 90.2 88.2 91.2 86.3 89.5

CBS 413 408 5941 94.0 91.3 90.5 87.2 91.2 87.3 89.2

Sci & Eng 554 514 5625 93.5 90.3 87.4 84.9 88.9 84.6 87.3

Health Sci 517 501 5837 98.0 95.8 94.1 93.2 94.4 91.8 93.5

CAS 5 4 9 100 100 100 88.9 88.9 100 100

DVC Academic 155 136 761 98.2 96.1 93.4 93.4 92.6 90.6 94.1

DVC Intern’l 1 1 8 100 100 100 100 87.5 87.5 100

Curtin Overall 1979 1878 20346 95.4 92.8 90.7 88.6 91.5 87.9 90.1

S2 16

Humanities 348 302 1625 97.3 95.4 92.8 91.2 93.1 88.5 91.7

CBS 372 364 5097 95.0 92.2 90.9 88.2 90.8 88.0 90.0

Sci & Eng 574 498 4536 92.7 90.0 88.5 86.8 90.0 85.8 87.7

Health Sci 501 474 4440 98.0 95.7 93.8 92.4 92.8 90.0 92.5

CAS 12 10 52 94.2 78.8 69.2 76.5 90.4 75.0 76.9

DVC Academic 46 37 102 97.0 94.0 95.0 93.1 91.2 92.2 92.2

DVC Intern’l 2 2 7 100 100 85.7 100 100 100 100

Curtin Overall 1855 1687 15859 95.5 92.8 91.2 89.3 91.4 88.0 90.2

Table 11 Teaching evaluation results 2014-2016

TREND

Student satisfaction with the quality of teaching as measured by all items in

the teaching evaluation survey is high and has remained stable.


29

Number and percentage of Teaching Evaluation Reports with 80%+ in all items Student feedback on the characteristics of the teacher provides an indicator of teaching excellence. Students give feedback on the teacher using the eVALUate teaching evaluation survey. Excellence in teaching is recognised through the achievement of 80 percentage Agreement with each item in the Teaching Evaluation Report. Table 12 shows the number and percentage of surveys with at least 10 student responses who achieved 80 percentage Agreement with each of the seven survey items in the last six eVALUate main semester events.

No. of teaching staff requesting a

Teaching Evaluation Survey

No. of TERS with resp

No. TERs with 10+ resp

No. TERs with 80%+ in all items

No. TERs with 10+ resp & 80%+

in all items

% TERs with 10+ resp & 80%+ in

all items

Sem 1 2014 964 1676 605 1130 428 70.7%

Sem 2 2014 868 1388 438 911 309 70.5%

Sem 1 2015 1014 1807 678 1174 474 69.9%

Sem 2 2015 922 1527 505 1011 362 71.7%

Sem 1 2016 1144 1878 754 1273 550 72.9%

Sem 2 2016 1114 1687 555 1160 413 74.4%

Table 12 Number and percentage of Teaching Evaluation Reports with 80%+ Agreement in all items


30

Section 2 – Quantitative and qualitative results of unit evaluation Semester 2 2016 study period

2.1 Quantitative results This section provides data for student enrolments in Semester 2 study period only to allow accurate trend data with previous reports. Data from the minor study periods or ‘Special Events’ are not included. All percentage values are rounded to the nearest 0.1%. In Semester 2 2016, eVALUate was available (17 October to 4 December) for 993 undergraduate and 514 postgraduate coursework units at Curtin’s Australian campuses as well as at Limkokwing University of Creative Technology in Malaysia, Miri Sarawak campus in Malaysia, Singapore campus, Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology in Sri Lanka and Charles Telfair Institute in Mauritius. There was a total of 109,364 potential survey submissions by 33,401 students enrolled in those units. At the close of data gathering, there were 37,813 surveys submitted by 13,379 students. This is an overall response rate of 34.6% by 40.1% of the eligible students. In the tables presented in this section, highlighted cells indicate where response rates were less than the 35% target set by the Vice-Chancellor. Detailed information about response rates by faculty, mode, gender and many other breakdowns is available in Appendix 2. Appendix 2 also contains details of teaching areas which achieved the target 35% response rate, the number of units with a representative response rate and the large units with a response rate of 50% or higher. In this section, percentage Agreement (that is, the percentage of participating students who Agreed or Strongly Agreed) is reported for each quantitative item for Curtin overall and for each faculty. Percentage Agreement of less than 80% (and Disagreement of greater than 20%) has been highlighted to indicate areas for further investigation. Trend data from Semester 2 2012 onwards is also shown.

Quantitative results for Curtin overall Table 13 shows the percentage of responses in each category for each quantitative item at University level. The table shows a general trend of improvement in the category of Strongly Agree with a corresponding decline in the category of Agree. See Appendix 1 for further analysis and graphical representation of these results.


31


engagement

Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

S2 12

% SA 34.5 33.3 32.2 32.6 31.8 31.2 37.8

35.4 32.3 32.1

33.1

% A 54.5 52.3 53.2 52.9 47.8 55.0 46.6 50.3 54.2 53.5 51.3

% D 7.5 9.8 10.0 9.5 12.6 8.9 9.1 9.9 9.8 10.2 10.0

% SD 2.7 3.6 3.4 3.7 5.2 3.8 4.8 3.5 2.4 2.5 4.5

% UJ 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.6 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.2

S2 13

% SA 36.4 34.4 33.7 33.8 33.1 33.2 39.2

37.1 34.3 34.1

34.5

% A 52.4 50.5 51.4 51.4 46.0 52.8 44.8 48.1 52.2 51.4 49.2

% D 7.9 10.2 10.2 9.7 12.6 8.9 9.3 10.1 9.9 10.2 10.5

% SD 2.6 3.9 3.6 3.8 5.9 4.0 5.1 3.8 2.4 2.5 4.7

% UJ 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.3 2.5 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.3

S2 14

% SA 36.6 34.7 33.9 33.9 33.7 33.3 39.5

37.5 34.1 34.2

34.7

% A 51.1 49.1 50.0 49.9 44.7 51.9 43.2 47.0 51.7 50.8 47.9

% D 8.3 10.7 10.6 10.4 12.7 9.3 9.8 10.5 10.3 10.3 10.7

% SD 3.2 4.6 4.3 4.5 6.4 4.3 5.8 4.1 2.7 2.8 5.5

% UJ 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.5 1.1 1.7 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.2

S2 15

% SA 37.7 35.8 35.2 35.3 34.4 34.8 40.2

38.4 35.6 35.6

35.6

% A 51.2 49.0 49.6 49.6 45.5 51.6 43.8 46.6 50.4 50.0 47.8

% D 7.4 10.1 10.2 9.6 11.9 8.4 8.9 10.1 10.1 10.2 10.2

% SD 2.9 4.1 3.7 4.1 5.6 4.0 5.3 3.8 2.5 2.5 5.0

% UJ 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 2.6 1.1 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.4

S2 16

% SA 38.6 36.3 35.6 35.5 35.1 35.1 40.5

38.8 36.2 36.4

36.2

% A 49.7 47.9 48.8 49.0 44.3 50.5 42.6 45.7 50.2 49.4 46.7

% D 7.2 9.9 9.9 9.3 11.5 8.6 9.2 9.8 9.1 9.2 10.2

% SD 3.4 4.6 4.3 4.7 6.4 4.4 5.9 4.5 3.1 3.1 5.5

% UJ 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.6 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.5

Table 13 Percentage of responses in each category for each quantitative item in the unit survey

Table 14 shows percentage Agreement (that is the sum of the Strongly Agree and Agree responses) and percentage Disagreement (that is the sum of the Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses) at overall University level. For Semester 2 2016, the percentage Agreement for all items is greater than 80% with the exception of Item 5 (feedback). Since Semester 2 2012, percentage Agreement has generally decreased.


32

What helps achievement of the learning outcomes

Student motivation and engagement

Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

S2 12 % SA + A 89.0 85.6 85.4 85.4 79.6 86.2 84.4

85.7 86.5 85.6

84.4

% D + SD 10.2 13.4 13.4 13.3 17.8 12.7 14.0 13.4 12.2 12.6 14.4

S2 13 % SA + A 88.8 84.8 85.1 85.2 79.1 86.0 84.0

85.1 86.5 85.5

83.6

% D + SD 10.5 14.0 13.8 13.5 18.4 12.9 14.5 13.9 12.3 12.7 15.1

S2 14 % SA + A 87.8 83.7 84.0 83.7 78.4 85.3 82.7

84.5 85.8 85.0

82.6

% D + SD 11.5 15.3 14.9 14.9 19.1 13.6 15.6 14.6 12.9 13.2 16.2

S2 15 % SA + A 88.9 84.8 84.8 84.9 79.8 86.5 84.0

85.0 86.0 85.6

83.4

% D + SD 10.2 14.1 14.0 13.7 17.6 12.4 14.3 13.9 12.6 12.7 15.2

S2 16 % SA + A 88.4 84.3 84.4 84.5 79.4 85.6 83.1

84.5 86.4 85.9

82.9

% D + SD 10.6 14.5 14.3 14.0 17.9 13.0 15.1 14.3 12.2 12.3 15.7

Table 14 Percentage of agreement and disagreement combined for each quantitative item in the unit survey

TREND

Since 2012, students have indicated they are less satisfied with the quality of their

unit teaching and learning experiences in Semester 2.

Quantitative results by Faculty Table 15 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item for Curtin overall, and for each faculty. Overall trends show a decline in percentage Agreement in most items. The table shows that in 2016, Item 5 (feedback) continues to register the lowest percentage Agreement (and less than the target 80%) in all faculties except the Faculty of Humanities and the Curtin Business School). The highest percentage Agreement amongst the major faculties was achieved by the Curtin Business School.


33



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

S2 12

Humanities 6370 34.5% 87.3 84.6 83.9 85.7 80.1 86.1 83.6

84.9 86.0 84.9

83.3

CBS 14078 39.6% 90.4 86.9 87.5 86.1 81.6 88.2 85.6 86.7 87.6 87.1 86.4

Sci &Eng 8809 34.1% 86.9 83.9 81.9 84.0 76.6 83.6 81.3 84.8 85.6 84.9 82.5

Health Sci 11037 41.4% 89.9 85.6 86.2 85.4 79.0 86.0 85.8 85.3 86.2 84.5 83.9

CAS 135 17.9% 88.0 82.1 87.3 80.6 77.6 72.9 82.0 83.5 85.5 83.5 77.9

Other 230 24.7% 96.9 93.5 93.9 94.8 85.5 88.6 91.3 90.9 94.3 91.7 95.5

Curtin Overall 40659 37.6% 89.0 85.6 85.4 85.4 79.6 86.2 84.4 85.7 86.5 85.6 84.4

S2 13

Humanities 6061 31.2% 88.0 85.4 85.0 86.3 80.9 86.9 84.4

84.8 86.7 85.6

83.2

CBS 10157 36.7% 89.4 86.0 86.3 85.8 80.7 86.5 85.0 85.7 87.1 85.9 84.9

Sci &Eng 7909 30.4% 88.2 83.7 82.8 84.4 77.0 85.4 81.7 85.7 87.1 87.0 83.2

Health Sci 10160 36.1% 89.1 84.1 85.5 84.2 77.6 85.2 84.4 84.2 85.2 83.7 82.6

CAS 141 21.3% 84.9 84.3 86.3 85.0 81.4 82.0 77.5 81.4 85.0 87.1 83.5

Other 337 21.3% 92.6 89.3 92.9 92.8 88.4 90.1 89.5 89.6 91.4 92.9 91.9

Curtin Overall 34765 33.6% 88.8 84.8 85.1 85.2 79.1 86.0 84.0 85.1 86.5 85.5 83.6

S2 14

Humanities 6434 32.8% 85.9 84.2 83.3 84.6 79.8 85.3 82.7

84.6 86.4 86.2

81.9

CBS 10354 35.9% 89.1 85.3 86.3 85.4 80.8 86.9 84.7 85.5 87.1 86.5 84.9

Sci &Eng 8622 31.2% 85.5 81.6 80.4 81.4 74.7 82.5 78.6 83.3 84.3 84.4 80.3

Health Sci 10880 35.8% 89.1 83.3 84.7 83.3 78.0 85.6 83.8 83.9 85.1 83.2 82.2

CAS 164 23.7% 86.0 83.5 86.6 84.1 81.1 87.8 83.5 90.2 87.7 87.7 85.4

Cross Inst Enr 20 12.5% 85.0 80.0 80.0 85.0 75.0 70.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 95.0 85.0

Curtin L & T 435 20.0% 94.5 91.2 89.9 91.0 88.9 91.7 86.9 90.7 89.8 90.4 91.3

Curtin Overall 36909 33.7% 87.8 83.7 84.0 83.7 78.4 85.3 82.7 84.5 85.8 85.0 82.6

S2 15

Humanities 6143 32.7% 86.5 83.0 82.2 83.6 78.7 85.5 82.7

83.4 84.7 84.8

81.5

CBS 11066 38.1% 90.0 86.5 86.7 86.0 82.2 87.6 85.4 86.1 87.1 86.9 85.2

Sci &Eng 8575 31.1% 87.6 83.3 82.3 84.1 77.2 84.8 81.3 83.3 84.2 84.9 82.3

Health Sci 10557 35.1% 89.9 84.9 86.1 85.0 79.7 87.1 85.3 85.6 86.8 84.9 83.3

CAS 165 28.3% 90.9 83.6 85.4 86.0 78.2 84.8 81.6 88.3 89.6 88.9 80.9

Curtin L & T 364 16.0% 95.9 92.0 92.8 91.2 91.7 92.2 88.9 96.4 92.0 92.0 92.7

Curtin Intern’l 17 15.3% 68.8 75.0 75.0 73.3 75.0 81.3 75.0 93.8 93.8 93.8 100

Curtin Overall 36895 34.0% 88.9 84.8 84.8 84.9 79.8 86.5 84.0 85.0 86.0 85.6 83.4

S2 16

Humanities 5934 31.4% 86.2 83.5 83.4 83.4 80.7 85.1 83.3

84.0 85.7 85.8

82.1

CBS 11416 37.5% 89.7 86.0 86.2 86.4 82.3 87.2 84.8 86.0 87.3 86.5 84.9

Sci &Eng 9101 32.8% 87.4 83.0 81.5 82.7 76.8 83.3 80.2 82.5 84.6 84.3 81.1

Health Sci 10826 36.3% 88.8 83.8 85.4 84.2 77.8 86.0 83.6 84.8 87.2 86.4 82.5

CAS 121 27.6% 86.0 71.9 76.7 86.0 76.9 82.4 68.9 77.7 77.7 81.5 72.6

DVC Academic 394 20.6% 94.7 90.8 90.3 89.8 86.7 89.3 87.9 86.7 88.5 88.7 87.6

DVC Intern’l 21 20.2% 95.2 90.5 95.2 85.7 85.7 90.5 90.5 85.7 90.5 81.0 90.5

Curtin Overall 37813 34.6% 88.4 84.3 84.4 84.5 79.4 85.6 83.1 84.5 86.4 85.9 82.9

Note: Based on faculty of the owning org of the units.

Table 15 Quantitative results by faculty


34

TREND

Since 2012, student satisfaction with the quality of their unit teaching and learning

experiences has declined overall. Students consistently register their lowest agreement with Item 5 (feedback).

Quantitative results by gender Table 16 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by student gender. In 2016, females registered higher levels of agreement in all items.



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Female 21683 38.6% 88.5 84.1 84.8 84.8 79.6 86.0 83.3 84.8 87.3 86.7 82.9

Male 16117 30.3% 88.2 84.5 83.9 84.0 79.2 85.0 82.9 84.1 85.0 84.7 82.8

Note: Results not reported for Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspecified due to low number of enrolments/responses.

Table 16 Quantitative results by gender

Quantitative results by age group Table 17 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by age group. Students aged 20 years or less consistently register lower agreement with all items. Percentage agreement with each quantitative item generally increases as age group increases.



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

20 yrs & less 14398 32.6% 86.3 82.2 82.7 83.0 77.2 84.4 81.3 81.2 83.8 82.8 80.7

21-25 yrs 15078 32.6% 88.6 84.9 84.8 85.0 80.5 86.1 83.7 85.0 86.6 86.4 83.6

26-35 yrs 5764 41.2% 90.7 86.1 86.2 85.8 80.9 86.4 84.7 87.9 89.0 89.1 84.7

36-45 yrs 1779 50.2% 92.8 87.7 88.0 85.8 82.4 87.9 86.6 92.0 92.3 92.3 86.2

46+ yrs 794 57.5% 93.9 89.1 88.5 87.8 80.9 88.0 86.1 93.7 94.4 93.2 86.5

Table 17 Quantitative results by age group


35

Quantitative results by undergraduate and postgraduate unit level Table 18 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item for undergraduate and postgraduate units. Students in undergraduate units consistently register lower agreement with all items and in particular with student motivation and engagement (Items 8-10), and learning resources (Item 3).



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

UG 32940 33.6% 87.8 83.7 83.9 84.0 78.9 85.2 82.7 83.8 85.8 85.2 82.3

PG 4873 43.0% 92.2 88.3 87.8 87.4 83.3 88.0 85.7 89.4 90.2 90.3 86.7

Table 18 Quantitative results by undergraduate and postgraduate unit level

Quantitative results by undergraduate unit year level Table 19 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by undergraduate unit year level. Undergraduate students in first, third and fourth year units registered lower agreement with Item 5 (feedback).



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Pre-tertiary

410 20.4% 95.4 91.4 90.9 91.2 88.2 90.4 88.7 87.0 88.9 89.4 88.3

Year 1 12504 35.2% 87.0 83.4 84.1 84.1 77.5 85.1 82.5 81.5 83.8 83.1 81.7

Year 2 9546 34.2% 88.4 83.5 84.0 84.1 80.2 85.6 82.9 85.0 86.8 86.6 82.7

Year 3 8459 33.8% 88.0 84.0 83.5 83.8 79.4 85.0 82.9 85.3 87.1 86.4 82.5

Year 4 2021 26.6% 87.6 83.4 82.6 82.4 76.6 84.3 81.1 84.7 86.7 85.7 81.8

Table 19 Quantitative results by undergraduate unit year level


36

Quantitative results by student load category Table 20 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by student load category. Part-time students registered higher agreement with all items, most notably in student motivation (Item 8) and in whether learning outcomes were clearly identified (Item 1).



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Full-time 33887 34.5% 87.9 83.9 84.2 84.3 79.4 85.3 82.9 84.0 86.0 85.5 82.6

Part-time 3926 35.3% 92.5 87.4 86.3 86.1 79.7 87.9 84.7 88.9 89.5 89.1 84.9

Table 20 Quantitative results by load category

Quantitative results by attendance mode Table 21 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by attendance mode with two categories of mode only. External students registered lower agreement in most items, and particularly lower agreement with quality of teaching (Item 7).



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Internal 35015 34.6% 88.3 84.5 84.6 84.6 79.7 85.7 83.5 84.5 86.5 85.9 83.1

External 2798 34.3% 89.1 81.6 82.6 82.7 75.9 84.3 78.8 83.8 85.0 85.1 79.7

Table 21 Quantitative results by attendance mode (combined range of modes)


37

Table 22 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by attendance mode for the full range of attendance modes. Fully Online students registered lower agreement than Internal students in most items, particularly in quality of teaching (Item 7).



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Fully Online

2795 34.5% 89.1 81.6 82.5 82.7 75.8 84.3 78.8 83.8 84.9 85.1 79.7

Internal 35014 34.6% 88.3 84.5 84.6 84.6 79.7 85.7 83.5 84.5 86.5 85.9 83.1

Note: Results not reported for Area External or Partially Online due to low number of enrolments/responses.

Table 22 Quantitative results by attendance mode (full range of modes)

Quantitative results by residency Table 23 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by residency. Australian students consistently register a markedly lower level of agreement with all items and in particular with Item 5 (feedback).



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Australian 23391 31.7% 87.4 82.2 82.9 82.8 76.2 85.2 81.5 83.4 85.4 84.6 80.6

International 14422 40.6% 90.0 87.6 86.9 87.2 84.7 86.3 85.8 86.2 87.9 87.9 86.5

Table 23 Quantitative results by residency


38

Quantitative results by domestic and international (onshore-offshore) Table 24 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item for Australian, International onshore and International offshore students. Domestic Australian students consistently register a markedly lower level of agreement with all items and in particular Item 5 (feedback). Offshore International students registered lower agreement than Onshore International students in all items. What helps achievement of the learning outcomes


Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

No.

Res

pon

ses

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

S2 12

Domestic Australian 24011 35.6% 87.6 83.4 83.6 83.5 76.0 85.0 82.8

83.9 84.5 82.9

81.7

Onshore International 9395 42.0% 91.5 89.0 88.4 88.5 84.9 88.6 87.4 89.0 89.9 90.0 89.0

Offshore International 7253 39.3% 90.7 88.4 87.4 87.7 84.5 86.9 86.1 87.2 88.9 88.7 87.3

S2 13

Domestic Australian 23063 32.5% 87.4 82.7 83.5 83.5 75.9 85.1 82.2

83.5 84.7 83.3

81.2

Onshore International 6829 36.5% 91.7 89.3 88.9 88.2 85.3 88.6 87.6 88.9 90.0 90.3 88.5

Offshore International 4873 35.2% 91.3 88.7 87.2 88.5 85.2 86.1 87.5 87.3 89.9 89.4 88.3

S2 14

Domestic Australian

25159 32.9% 86.5 81.9 82.5 82.1 75.6 84.5 81.2

83.0 84.2 82.9

80.2

Onshore International

7035 37.8% 91.2 87.9 88.2 88.0 84.7 88.5 86.4 88.9 89.5 90.3 88.0

Offshore International

4715 32.9% 89.3 87.2 85.6 86.3 84.4 84.4 84.9 85.7 88.7 88.6 86.9

S2 15

Domestic Australian

23824 32.1% 87.8 82.9 83.3 83.5 76.9 86.1 82.6

83.9 84.4 83.8

81.3


6516 34.4% 91.6 89.2 88.2 87.9 85.5 88.2 87.3 88.4 89.4 89.7 87.9


6555 42.5% 90.0 87.1 86.6 87.3 84.8 86.3 85.7 85.5 88.5 87.8 86.5

S2 15

Domestic Australian

23391 31.7% 87.4 82.2 82.9 82.8 76.2 85.2 81.5

83.4 85.4 84.6

80.6


6895 36.4% 91.9 89.7 89.0 88.8 86.3 88.2 87.4 88.8 89.6 89.8 88.2


7527 45.4% 88.2 85.7 85.0 85.7 83.2 84.6 84.3 83.8 86.4 86.2 84.9

Table 24 Quantitative results for domestic and International (onshore-offshore)


39

Quantitative results by unit enrolment Table 25 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by unit enrolment. Students register a lower level of agreement with Item 5 (feedback) in units with more than 100 students.



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

10 stu or fewer 549 39.6% 92.7 89.8 87.2 88.1 84.1 89.7 88.1 91.4 91.0 92.8 87.3

11-25 stu 2298 39.4% 91.0 88.1 87.3 87.6 83.5 87.0 86.2 89.4 90.1 90.0 86.2

26-50 stu 4199 35.0% 90.9 87.9 86.6 87.7 82.7 88.8 86.2 89.4 90.5 89.7 86.7

51-100 stu 6526 33.8% 90.2 85.9 85.8 85.6 81.1 87.5 84.3 86.6 88.0 87.6 84.8

101-200 stu 8019 33.2% 88.4 83.6 83.9 83.2 79.4 84.6 82.5 84.6 86.6 86.5 81.8

201-500 stu 8552 33.0% 86.2 82.2 82.5 83.2 77.8 84.8 81.3 82.7 85.3 84.3 81.0

501-1000 stu 2746 36.3% 90.3 86.0 85.8 86.8 79.6 84.2 84.3 84.8 85.3 85.0 85.4

1001-1500 stu 3582 37.6% 88.5 84.6 85.5 84.7 79.1 85.0 83.4 81.8 83.5 82.8 82.9

1501+ stu 1342 36.8% 74.7 69.1 74.2 72.5 63.7 77.6 72.5 65.2 71.8 71.8 66.7

Table 25 Quantitative results by unit enrolment


40

Themes in quantitative results Table 26 summarises which specific student subgroups registered less than 80% agreement with the quantitative items. The table shows lower agreement with Item 5 (feedback) in all faculties except the Faculty of Humanities and the Curtin Business School, in undergraduate first, third and fourth year units, in male students, in Australian students, in students aged 20 years and younger, in full-time and part-time students, in both internal and external students, and in units with enrolments of more than 100 students.


engagement Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Faculty

Humanities

CBS

Sci & Eng

Health

CAS DVC Acad

DVC Int

Undergraduate

Pre-tertiary

Unit year 1

Unit year 2

Unit year 3

Unit year 4

Postgraduate

Gender Males

Females

Citizenship Australian

International

Age group

20 yrs or less

21-25 years

26-35 years

36-45 years

46+ years

Attendance Full-time

Part-time

Study mode Internal

External

Unit enrolment

10 or fewer

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-200

201-500

501-1000

1001-1500

1501+

Table 26 Themes in quantitative results


41

2.2 Qualitative results

This section reports students’ feedback in the two qualitative items, namely: 12. What are the most helpful aspects of this unit? 13. How do you think this unit might be improved?

The proportion of students providing comment Out of 37,813 survey responses, 25,817 (68.3%) contained data in response to at least one qualitative item. Table 27 shows the number and proportion of surveys with at least one comment in Curtin overall and in each faculty. The table shows that overall, more than two thirds of the surveys contained a comment. The major faculty with the highest percentage of surveys containing a comment was Health Sciences (74.9%), followed closely by the Faculty of Humanities (73.1%). The major faculty with the lowest percentage of surveys containing a comment was Curtin Business School (62.8%).

Hum CBS Sci & Eng Health CAS Curtin Int DVC Ed

Curtin Overall

Total surveys submitted

5934 11416 9101 10826 121 394 21 37813

No. with comment(s)

4337 7167 5867 8108 81 240 17 25817

% with comment(s) 73.1% 62.8% 64.5% 74.9% 66.9% 60.9% 81.0% 68.3%

Table 27 Number and percentage of responses with comments for each faculty and for Curtin overall

The characteristics of students providing comment Table 28 shows the number and percentage of students in various subgroups that provided comment. The table shows that the following demographic groups were more likely to comment:

female students students aged 36 years or more undergraduate students external students Australian students part-time students.

These student subgroups were the same as in previous events.


42

Total surveys submitted No. with comment(s) % with comment(s)

Gender Female 21683 15268 70.4%

Male 16117 10537 65.4%

Age group

20 yrs & under 14398 10232 71.1%

21-25 yrs 15078 9646 64.0%

26-35 yrs 5764 3961 68.7%

36-45 yrs 1779 1353 76.1%

46+ yrs 794 625 78.7%

Study level Undergraduate 32940 22537 68.4%

Postgraduate 4873 3280 67.3%

Study mode Internal 35015 23764 67.9%

External 2798 2053 73.4%

Residency Australian 23391 17773 76.0%

International 14422 8044 55.8%

Attendance type Full-time 33887 22885 67.5%

Part-time 3926 2932 74.7%

Table 28 Number and percentage of students who provided qualitative comment

Aspects of units commented on most frequently Table 29 shows the number and percentage of responses in Most helpful aspects and How units might be improved in each faculty and in Curtin overall. The table shows that in the major faculties, students in Curtin Business School consistently provide fewer comments on the Most helpful aspects of units and fewer comments on the How units might be improved.

Most helpful aspects of unit How unit might be improved

No. resp with comment % of resp with comment No. resp with comment % of resp with comment

Hum 4032 67.9% 3658 61.6%

CBS 6475 56.7% 6150 53.9%

Sci & Eng 5255 57.7% 5181 56.9%

Health 7353 67.9% 6862 63.4%

CAS 76 62.8% 67 55.4%

DVC Academic 219 55.6% 195 49.5%

DVC International 14 66.7% 16 76.2%

Curtin Overall 23424 61.9% 22129 58.5%

Table 29 Number and percentage of responses about Most helpful aspects and How units might be improved


43

The following analysis of qualitative feedback was performed using CEQuery which automatically classifies comments into 5 domains (Outcomes, Staff, Unit Design, Assessment, and Support) and 26 sub-domains using a custom-tailored dictionary (as shown in Table 30)1. Outcomes Staff Unit design Assessment Support

Intellectual

Work application /career

Further learning

Personal

Interpersonal

Knowledge/skills

Accessibility & responsiveness

Teaching skills

Practical experience (current)

Quality & attitude

Practical-theory links

Relevance (to work/life/discipline)

Flexibility/responsiveness

Methods of learning & teaching

Structure & expectations

Relevance

Marking

Expectations

Feedback/return

Standards

Library

Learning resources

Infrastructure/environment

Student administration

Student services

Social affinity/support

Table 30 The domains and sub-domains within CEQuery

Table 31 shows the results of the CEQuery analysis: the number and percentage and ranking of hits in each sub-domain. The top 10 ranked sub-domains are bolded. The table shows that students commented most frequently about:

Rank 1: Unit design: Methods of teaching and learning Rank 2: Support: Learning resources Rank 3: Staff: Quality and attitude Rank 4: Unit design: Structure and expectations Rank 5: Assessment: Standards

These top 5 sub-domains were the same in the Semester 2 2015 event except that Unit design: Structure and expectations has replaced Staff: Accessibility and responsiveness as the 4th highest ranked sub-domain.

1 For further information about CEQuery, see Accessing the student voice: Using CEQuery to identify what retains students and promotes engagement in productive learning in Australian higher education at http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/63955/HEIPCEQueryFinal_v2_1st_Feb_06.pdf


44

Domain results Sub-domain results

Domain No. hits Rank Sub-domain No. hits % hits Rank

ASSESSMENT 10197 2nd Expectations 2517 3.7 12th

Feedback 2312 3.4 13th

Marking 1512 2.2 17th

Relevance 4121 6.0 7th

Standards 4417 6.4 5th

Unspecified 54 0.1 29th

UNIT_DESIGN 16482 1st Flexibility 3446 5.0 9th

Methods 10509 15.3 1st

Practical_theory_links 682 1.0 19th

Relevance 3192 4.7 10th

Structure 4420 6.4 4th


OUTCOMES 6164 5th Further_learning 70 0.1 28th

Intellectual 2067 3.0 14th

Inter_personal 331 0.5 20th

Knowledge_skills 2988 4.4 11th

Personal 245 0.4 22th


Work_application 1544 2.3 16th

STAFF 8950 4th Accessibility 4305 6.3 6th

Practical_experience 112 0.2 26th

Quality 5840 8.5 3rd

Teaching_skills 3716 5.4 8th


SUPPORT 9211 3rd Infrastructure 1353 2.0 18th

Learning_resources 6234 9.1 2nd

Library 83 0.1 27th

Social_affinity 1605 2.3 15th

Student_administration 182 0.3 24th

Student_services 206 0.3 23th

Timetabling 247 0.4 21th


Table 31 The number, percentage and rank of comments in each sub-domain.

Top ten sub-domains in ‘Most helpful aspects’ Table 32 shows the frequency of hits in the top 10 sub-domains in comments about the Most helpful aspects of units. The table also shows the odds of a sub-domain being identified as a Most helpful aspect (BA) or an aspect which Needs Improvement (NI). As an example, BA:NI odds of 3.0 in the Most helpful aspects means that the sub-domain is 3 times more likely to have been mentioned as a Most helpful aspect than as an aspect which Needs Improvement. The table shows that students commented most frequently on methods of learning and teaching in unit design, the quality and attitude of staff, staff accessibility and responsiveness, learning resources, relevance of assessment, staff teaching skills, relevance in unit design, intellectual and knowledge/skills in aspects of outcomes and flexibility and responsiveness in unit design. It is particularly notable that three of the six most frequently commented on ‘most helpful’ sub-domains refer to staff. These top 10 sub-domains were the same as Semester 2 2015 and in the same rank order (1-10) except that the 9th ranked sub-domain (Outcomes: Knowledge/skills) and the 10th ranked sub-domain (Unit design: Flexibility/responsiveness) were in reverse order (10th and 9th respectively).


45

The table also shows that students were 8.8 times more likely to make a positive (Most helpful aspect) comment than a negative (Needs improvement) comment about Outcomes: Intellectual and around 3 times more likely to make positive comments than negative comments about both Staff: Quality and attitude and Staff: Accessibility and responsiveness.

Sub-domain Rank Total hits BA:NI odds

Unit design: Methods of learning & teaching 1 6284 1.5

Staff: Quality & attitude 2 4309 2.8

Staff: Accessibility & responsiveness 3 3176 2.8

Support: Learning resources 4 2960 0.9

Assessment: Relevance 5 2602 1.7

Staff: Teaching skills 6 2147 1.4

Unit design: Relevance 7 2025 1.7

Outcomes: Intellectual 8 1908 12.0

Outcomes: Knowledge/skills 9 1699 1.3

Unit design: Flexibility/responsiveness 10 1664 0.9

Table 32 Top ten sub-domains in ‘Most helpful aspects’

Top ten sub-domains in ‘How unit might be improved’ Table 33 shows the frequency of hits in the top 10 sub-domains in comments about How units might be improved. The table also shows the odds of a sub-domain being identified as a Needs Improvement (NI) than a Most helpful aspect (BA). As an example, NI:BA odds of 3.0 in the Needs Improvement means that the sub-domain is 3 times more likely to have been mentioned as an area needing improvement than as a best aspect. The table shows that students commented most frequently on methods of learning and teaching in unit design, assessment standards, learning resources, structure and expectations of unit design, flexibility/responsiveness of unit design, assessment expectations, assessment feedback, staff teaching skills, staff quality and attitude, and assessment relevance. These top 10 sub-domains were the same in Semester 2 2015 except the 2nd ranked sub-domain (Assessment: Standards) and the 3rd ranked sub-domain (Support: Learning resources) were in reverse order (3rd and 2nd respectively). The table also shows that students were around 3 times more likely to make a negative (Needs improvement) comment than a positive (Most Helpful Aspect) comment about Assessment: Standards, Unit design: Structure and expectations, Assessment: Expectations and Assessment: Feedback.


46

Sub-domain Rank Total hits NI/BA odds

Unit design: Methods of learning & teaching 1 4225 0.7

Assessment: Standards 2 3330 3.1

Support: Learning resources 3 3274 1.1

Unit design: Structure & expectations 4 3261 2.8

Assessment: Expectations 5 1857 2.8

Unit design: Flexibility/responsiveness 6 1782 1.1

Assessment: Feedback 7 1667 2.6

Staff: Teaching skills 8 1569 0.7

Staff: Quality & attitude 9 1531 0.4

Assessment: Relevance 10 1519 0.6

Table 33 Top ten sub-domains in ‘How unit might be improved’

Themes in qualitative results The analysis reported above suggests that while there are many units in which students are positive about teaching and learning methods, learning resources, unit design, assessment relevance and the quality of staff, there are many others where these same things need improvement. Closer analysis can be performed by using SPSS Text Analytics for Surveys within each CEQuery sub-domain to explore not only what students comment about most frequently, but what they actually say2. Specific reports on unit or course or school/department groups showing this level of analysis can be requested from the eVALUate team ([email protected]).

2 Using this method, no ‘raw’ comments appear, only themes and common words.


47

2.3 Improving student perceptions of teaching and learning

Heads of Schools and Departments are urged to embrace Transforming Learning at Curtin (TL@C), a strategic program designed to position Curtin competitively in the global higher education market. Transformed courses will provide an innovative, richly interactive, personalised learning experience for students resulting in highly satisfied students and employers. TL@C will enable teaching and learning in the converged mode that best supports the learning outcomes of the course. The transformation of learning within the curriculum will be achieved through the ART 2015 Project, a unifying project which has three major elements: Assessment, curriculum Review and learning Transformation that is designed to transform learning through a whole of curriculum approach (see http://www.curtin.edu.au/learningfortomorrow). Suggestions for improving student perceptions of teaching and learning as measured by eVALUate:

Unit coordinators and Heads of Schools and Departments or Faculties are urged to read and act on student feedback through eVALUate as follows: 1. plan improvements to units in consultation with unit teams and academic colleagues - for

specialist advice contact a. the Faculty Dean of Teaching and Learning b. the Teaching Support staff in Curtin Teaching and Learning

2. where teaching staff need development opportunities, encourage them to participate in professional learning programs run by the Curtin Learning Institute (see http://www.curtin.edu.au/cli/professional_learning/programs.cfm) including the Foundations of Learning and Teaching Program which is an intensive course in teaching and learning.

3. respond to student feedback by a. including information in the unit outline for each unit - the unit outline template has an

introductory section specifically for this purpose (see http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/course_quality/unit_outline_builder/unit_outline_builder.cfm for a downloadable template), and b. including a response to students in the eVALUate Unit Summary Report (see

https://evaluate.curtin.edu.au/staff/faqs.cfm?sid=361).

4. scrutinise the assessment and feedback of all units across semesters and within courses. Please contact your Dean of Teaching and Learning or Director of Teaching and Learning for assistance. All assessments are also reviewed during the ART 2015 process. Further resources and information are available at http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning_practice/assessment/

5. make use of Curtin’s resources for improving teaching and learning, particularly a. Teaching and Learning at Curtin

http://www.curtin.edu.au/cli/professional_learning/index.cfm b. resources for Assessment, Review and Design and Transformed Engagement (available

soon at http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning_practice/art_new.cfm#) c. resources for teachers (available at http://www.curtin.edu.au/cli/resources/index.cfm) d. resources focussed on improving performance in relation to the eVALUate quantitative

items (see https://evaluate.curtin.edu.au/staff/improve_results_resources.cfm).

6. encourage teachers to participate in Curtin’s new Peer-based Professional Learning Pilot Program which includes developmental and evaluative peer review of teaching activities to enhance and assure teaching excellence (see www.curtin.edu.au/cli/peer_review_teaching/index.cfm).

7. encourage teachers to use the Teaching Excellence at Curtin criteria (at http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning_practice/) which provide dimensions of teaching


48

excellence for each academic level (A-D) and evidence of achievement for each dimension. The Teaching Excellence criteria are designed to assist in clarifying expectations for individual academic staff, to identify career objectives and development needs and to inform professional learning needs and recognition of teaching excellence for promotion and awards.


49

Appendix 1 – Trends of aggregated percentage of responses for each category for Semester 2 study period only This Appendix includes graphs that show the overall percentage of responses in each category (that is, Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree and Unable to Judge) for each quantitative item in each Semester 2 study period in the last five years. In the Strongly agree category, there has been an increase in the percentage in almost every item in each successive Semester 2. This means that students are increasingly likely to register a Strongly agree response to all the quantitative items. The items showing the greatest amount of change since 2012 (that is, an improvement of 3.9% or more) are: whether students think about how they can learn more effectively (Item 10; up 4.3%), whether learning outcomes were clearly identified (Item 1; up 4.1%), workload (Item 6; up 3.9%), and whether students make best use of the learning experiences (Item 9; up 3.9%).

Figure 13 Percentage Strong agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

(%)

Item

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16


50

In the Agree category, the trend is less clear. For all items, percentage Agree has declined since 2012 and given the increase in Strong Agreement, it is possible that some students who were inclined to register an Agree response in previous years are now choosing the Strongly Agree.

Figure 14 Percentage Agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

ree

(%)

Item

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16


51

In the Disagree category, there has been a decrease in the percentage response in most items since 2012. The items showing the greatest decrease in disagreement since 2012 were feedback (Item 5; down 1.1%), whether students think about how they can learn more effectively (Item 10; down 1.0%), and whether students make best use of the learning experiences (Item 9; down 0.7%).

Figure 15 Percentage Disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period from 2012 to 2016

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Dis

agre

e (%

)

Item

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16


52

In the Strongly disagree category, there has been an increase in the percentage Agreement since 2012 in all items. The most notable increases in strong disagreement were in feedback (Item 5; up 1.2%), quality of teaching (Item 7; up 1.1%), learning experiences (Item 2; up 1.0%), assessment (Item 4; up 1.0%), student motivation (Item 8; up 1.0%), and overall satisfaction (Item 11; up 1.0%).

Figure 16 Percentage Strong disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period from 2012 to 2016

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Str

on

gly

dis

agre

e (%

)

Item

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16


53

In the Unable to judge category, all percentages are very small. Since 2012, there has been a very small increase in the percentage Unable to judge in most items. The most notable changes since 2012 are in workload (Item 6; up 0.3%) and overall satisfaction (Item 11; up 0.3%).

Figure 17 Percentage Unable to Judge for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period from 2012 to 2016

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Un

able

to

jud

ge

(%)

Item

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

S2 16


54

Appendix 2 – Response rates This section provides data for student enrolments in Semester 2 study period only to allow accurate trend data with previous reports. Data from the minor study periods or ‘Special Events’ are not included. All percentage values are rounded to the nearest 0.1%. Table 34 shows response rates based on the number of potential surveys by faculty and for Curtin Overall. Trend data is shown for Semester 2 in each year. The table shows that in 2016, Curtin Business School and the Faculty of Health Sciences achieved the target 35% survey response rate while the other faculties were below the target response rate. The highest overall survey response rate at the major faculty level was achieved by Curtin Business School (11,416 surveys; 37.5%). Curtin Business School also achieved the highest response rate in a major faculty at the undergraduate level (9,857 surveys; 36.8%). The Faculty of Health Sciences achieved the highest response rate in a major faculty at the postgraduate level (1,517 surveys; 43.7%).

All Units UG Units PG Units

No.

Un

its

No.

E

nro

lmen

t

No.

R

esp

onse

s

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

No.

Un

its

No.

E

nro

lmen

t

No.

R

esp

onse

s

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

No.

Un

its

No.

E

nro

lmen

t

No.

R

esp

onse

s

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

Sem 2 2012

Hum 415 18471 6370 34.5% 299 16731 5470 32.7% 116 1740 900 51.7%

CBS 278 35573 14078 39.6% 153 31433 12010 38.2% 126 4140 2068 50.0%

S&E 510 25869 8809 34.1% 339 24213 7946 32.8% 171 1656 863 52.1%

Health 394 26674 11037 41.4% 229 23276 9128 39.2% 165 3398 1909 56.2%

CAS 34 754 135 17.9% 31 691 101 14.6% 3 63 34 54.0%

Other 18 930 230 24.7% 17 929 230 24.8% 1 1 0 0.0%

Curtin Overall

1649 108271 40659 37.6% 1067 97273 34885 35.9% 582 10998 5774 52.5%

Sem 2 2013

Hum 428 19431 6061 31.2% 324 17355 5223 30.1% 104 2076 838 40.4%

CBS 259 27702 10157 36.7% 141 24551 8711 35.5% 118 3151 1446 45.9%

S&E 456 25993 7909 30.4% 325 24661 7254 29.4% 131 1332 655 49.2%

Health 377 28181 10160 36.1% 218 24767 8476 34.2% 159 3414 1684 49.3%

CAS 31 661 141 21.3% 29 572 117 20.5% 2 89 24 27.0%

Other 24 1585 337 21.3% 22 1583 337 21.3% 2 2 0 0.0%

Curtin Overall

1575 103553 34765 33.6% 1059 93489 30118 32.2% 516 10064 4647 46.2%

Sem 2 2014

Hum 415 19606 6434 32.8% 309 17341 5345 30.8% 106 2265 1089 48.1%

CBS 254 28829 10354 35.9% 140 25238 8531 33.8% 114 3591 1823 50.8%

S&E 449 27609 8622 31.2% 316 25934 7840 30.2% 133 1675 782 46.7%

Health 392 30366 10880 35.8% 228 26890 8977 33.4% 164 3476 1903 54.7%

CAS 25 693 164 23.7% 24 588 127 21.6% 1 105 37 35.2%

Cross Inst 18 160 20 12.5% 16 158 19 12.0% 2 2 1 50.0%

CLT 6 2175 435 20.0% 6 2175 435 20.0% 0 0 0 -

Curtin Overall

1559 109438 36909 33.7% 1039 98324 31274 31.8% 520 11114 5635 50.7%


55

Sem 2 2015

Hum 427 18797 6143 32.7% 306 16407 5131 31.3% 121 2390 1012 42.3%

CBS 243 29013 11066 38.1% 129 25301 9492 37.5% 114 3712 1574 42.4%

Sci & Eng 438 27602 8575 31.1% 310 25868 7856 30.4% 128 1734 719 41.5%

Health Sci 374 30110 10557 35.1% 221 26807 9019 33.6% 153 3303 1538 46.6%

CAS 25 583 165 28.3% 24 464 112 24.1% 1 119 53 44.5%

Cross Inst 6 30 7 23.3% 6 30 7 23.3% 0 0 0 -

CLT 8 2275 364 16.0% 8 2275 364 16.0% 0 0 0 -

Curtin Int 8 111 17 15.3% 7 110 17 15.5% 1 1 0 0.0%

DVC Acad 4 27 1 3.7% 4 27 1 3.7% 0 0 0 -

Curtin Overall

1533 108548 36895 34.0% 1015 97289 31999 32.9% 518 11259 4896 43.5%

Sem 2 2016

Hum 425 18889 5934 31.4% 293 16301 4809 29.5% 132 2588 1125 43.5%

CBS 232 30450 11416 37.5% 128 26799 9857 36.8% 104 3651 1559 42.7%

Sci & Eng 437 27708 9101 32.8% 309 26211 8492 32.4% 128 1497 609 40.7%

Health Sci 368 29860 10826 36.3% 221 26389 9309 35.3% 147 3471 1517 43.7%

CAS 21 439 121 27.6% 20 308 58 18.8% 1 131 63 48.1%

DVC Acad 16 1914 394 20.6% 16 1914 394 20.6% 0 0 0 -

DVC Int 8 104 21 20.2% 6 102 21 20.6% 2 2 0 0.0%

Curtin Overall

1507 109364 37813 34.6% 993 98024 32940 33.6% 514 11340 4873 43.0%

Table 34 Response rate based on potential survey responses

Response rates by potential number of students Table 35 shows response rates based on the potential number of students. The table shows that in 2016, the highest student response rate (i.e. student participation) was achieved by the Curtin Business School (3,719 students; 43.1%). At the undergraduate level the highest student response rate in a major faculty was in the Curtin Business School (3,181 students; 42.6%). At the postgraduate level, the Faculty of Health Sciences achieved the highest rate of student participation amongst the major faculties (682 students; 48.1%).


56

All Students UG Students PG Students

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

espo

nse

R

ate

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

espo

nse

R

ate

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

espo

nse

R

ate

Sem 2 2012

Humanities 5916 2426 41.0% 5071 1959 38.6% 845 467 55.3%

CBS 10390 4643 44.7% 8888 3863 43.5% 1502 780 51.9%

Sci & Eng 7196 2962 41.2% 6481 2570 39.7% 715 392 54.8%

Health Sci 8367 4192 50.1% 6834 3249 47.5% 1533 943 61.5%

CAS 177 23 13.0% 176 23 13.1% 1 0 0.0%

Other 501 173 34.5% 465 156 33.5% 36 17 47.2%

Curtin Overall 32547 14419 44.3% 27915 11820 42.3% 4632 2599 56.1%

Sem 2 2013

Humanities 6363 2349 36.9% 5383 1887 35.1% 980 462 47.1%

CBS 7951 3377 42.5% 6835 2828 41.4% 1116 549 49.2%

Sci & Eng 7393 2697 36.5% 6702 2358 35.2% 691 339 49.1%

Health Sci 8636 3708 42.9% 7123 2896 40.7% 1513 812 53.7%

CAS 145 37 25.5% 145 37 25.5% 0 0 -

Other 701 199 28.4% 648 173 26.7% 53 26 49.1%

Curtin Overall 31189 12367 39.7% 26836 10179 37.9% 4353 2188 50.3%

Sem 2 2014

Humanities 6393 2557 40.0% 5356 2003 37.4% 1037 554 53.4%

CBS 8205 3435 41.9% 6983 2790 40.0% 1222 645 52.8%

Sci & Eng 7698 2976 38.7% 6917 2579 37.3% 781 397 50.8%

Health Sci 9128 3974 43.5% 7631 3083 40.4% 1498 892 59.5%

CAS 129 19 14.7% 129 19 14.7% 0 0 -

Cross Inst Enr 252 97 38.5% 207 78 37.7% 45 19 42.2%

Curtin L & T 682 154 22.6% 682 154 22.6% 0 0 -

DVC International 302 66 21.9% 302 66 21.9% 0 0 -

Curtin Overall 32774 13273 40.5% 28196 10768 38.2% 4582 2506 54.7%

Sem 2 2015

Humanities 6224 2478 39.8% 5161 1976 38.3% 1063 502 47.2%

CBS 8275 3677 44.4% 7056 3089 43.8% 1219 588 48.2%

Sci & Eng 7650 2878 37.6% 6888 2536 36.8% 762 342 44.9%

Health Sci 9206 3810 41.4% 7813 3094 39.6% 1393 716 51.4%

CAS 92 16 17.4% 92 16 17.4% 0 0 -

Cross Inst Enr 160 68 42.5% 119 46 38.7% 41 22 53.7%

Curtin L & T 753 146 19.4% 753 146 19.4% 0 0 -

Curtin Internat’l 333 150 45.0% 329 147 44.7% 4 3 75.0%

DVC Academic 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 -

Curtin Overall 32693 13223 40.5% 28211 11050 39.2% 4482 2173 48.5%

Sem 2 2016

Humanities 6206 2339 37.7% 5158 1851 35.9% 1048 488 46.6%

CBS 8636 3719 43.1% 7464 3181 42.6% 1172 538 45.9%

Sci & Eng 7795 3029 38.9% 7112 2738 38.5% 683 291 42.6%

Health Sci 9562 3959 41.4% 8143 3277 40.2% 1419 682 48.1%

CAS 80 13 16.3% 80 13 16.3% 0 0 -

DVC Academic 753 194 25.8% 719 177 24.6% 34 17 50.0%

DVC International 369 126 34.1% 364 122 33.5% 5 4 80.0%

Curtin Overall 33401 13379 40.1% 29040 11359 39.1% 4361 2020 46.3%

Table 35 Response rate based on potential number of students


57

TREND

Curtin’s overall student response rate in the semester 2 study period has declined over the last five years, from 37.6% in Semester 2 2012 to 34.6% in Semester 2 2016. The overall response rate increased from 34.0% in Semester 2 2015 to 34.6% in Semester 2 2016. In Semester 2 2016, all major faculties achieved the target response rate of 35% except for

the Faculty of Humanities and the Faculty of Science and Engineering.

Achieving the target response rate of 35% During the first implementation of the unit survey system, it was agreed that faculties would strive to attain an overall response rate of at least 35%. In Semester 2, 2016, a 35% response rate was also achieved by the following 20 larger departments and schools (i.e. with 100+ enrolments) in the Semester 2 study period:

1 Department of Applied Geology 50.8% *

2 Metallurgical Engineering 48.3%3 Department of Information Studies 47.8% *

4 School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science 43.7%5 Department of Art 42.6%6 School of Accounting 41.8% *

7 School of Information Systems 39.7% *

8 School of Management 39.1% *

9 Department of Spatial Sciences 39.1% *

10 School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine 39.1% *

11 Engineering Foundation Year 38.4% *

12 Department of Exploration Geophysics 37.7%13 Faculty of Health Sciences (Faculty owned units) 37.3%14 Curtin Law School 37.1% *

15 School of Public Health 36.4% *

16 Faculty of Humanities (Faculty owned units) 35.6% *

17 School of Design and Art (School owned units) 35.6% *

18 Faculty of Science and Engineering (Faculty owned units) 35.5%19 School of Economics and Finance 35.1% *

20 Department of Computing 35.0%

*Denotes teaching areas that also achieved the target response rate in Semester 2 2015

TREND

The number of larger departments and schools which achieved the target response rate remained steady at 20 in Semester 2 2016 (compared to the same number in

Semester 2 2015).


58

Table 36 shows the number of units that achieved the representative response rate based on enrolments and responses for the Semester 2 study period only. A high response rate was achieved in many large units (i.e. with more than 100 enrolments).

Hum CBS Sci & Eng Health CAS DVC Ed DVC Int Curtin

Overall

No. units with enrolment ≥ 10 and ≤ 100

298 152 230 255 9 3 3 950

No. of units with representative response rate (enrolment ≥ 10 and ≤ 100)

3 4 4 5 0 0 0 16

No. units with enrolment > 100 45 64 84 80 1 6 0 280

No. of units with representative response rate (enrolment > 100)

12 50 36 55 1 2 0 156

Table 36 Number of units with at least 10 ten students and a representative response rate

Table 37 lists the 7 large units (units with an enrolment of 100 or more students) which achieved a response rate of at least 50% (well in excess of the representative response rate) based on enrolments and responses for Semester 2 study period only. The number of large units with a response rate of 50% or higher decreased in Semester 2 2016 from 10 in Semester 2 2015. Students and staff in these units are to be congratulated on achieving this level of participation.

Unit Name Unit Owning Org Enr Resp Resp Rate

Design For The Future Department of Design 111 82 73.9%

Geological Field Mapping Department of Applied Geology 123 73 59.3%

Tectonics and the Dynamic Earth Department of Applied Geology 102 59 57.8%

Environmental Geoscience Department of Applied Geology 116 67 57.8%

Neuroanatomy and Pathology School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science 159 85 53.5%

Exercise Science for Health School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science 108 56 51.9%

Technologies to Engage Learners School of Education 123 63 51.2%

Table 37 Units with an enrolment of at least 100 students and a response of 50% or greater

TREND

The number of large units (with 100 or more students) which achieved a response

rate of 50% or higher decreased to 7 in Semester 2 2016 (from 10 in Semester 2 2015).


59

Response rates by gender

Table 38 shows response rates by gender. The table shows that overall a higher percentage of females than males participated (43.9% versus 35.8%), and that this was the case in each major faculty. Since the introduction of eVALUate, males have consistently participated less and should be targeted for greater participation in future events.

Female Male

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

Hum 3618 1468 40.6% 2586 869 33.6%

CBS 4337 2089 48.2% 4299 1630 37.9%

S&E 1775 803 45.2% 6019 2226 37.0%

Health 7259 3169 43.7% 2300 787 34.2%

CAS 51 6 11.8% 29 7 24.1%

DVC Acad 162 120 74.1% 352 74 21.0%

DVC Int 401 72 18.0% 207 54 26.1%

Curtin Overall 17603 7727 43.9% 15792 5647 35.8%

Note: Response rates not reported for Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspecified due to low number of enrolments/responses.

Table 38 Response rates by gender

Response rates by age group Table 39 shows response rates by age group. Since the introduction of eVALUate, students aged 25 years and younger have consistently participated at a lower rate than students in older age groups and should be targeted for greater participation in future events. 20 yrs & under 21-25 yrs 26-35 yrs 36-45 yrs 46+ yrs

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

Hum 2338 822 35.2% 2396 815 34.0% 895 404 45.1% 344 171 49.7% 233 127 54.5%

CBS 3057 1326 43.4% 3967 1638 41.3% 1223 547 44.7% 286 149 52.1% 103 59 57.3%

Sci & Eng

2873 1161 40.4% 3794 1413 37.2% 894 341 38.1% 178 78 43.8% 56 36 64.3%

Health 3194 1266 39.6% 3487 1251 35.9% 1930 909 47.1% 696 372 53.4% 255 161 63.1%

CAS 23 3 13.0% 11 0 0.0% 25 2 8.0% 12 4 33.3% 9 4 44.4%

DVC Ac 460 92 20.0% 152 38 25.0% 98 42 42.9% 27 14 51.9% 16 8 50.0%

DVC Int 189 66 34.9% 155 52 33.5% 24 7 29.2% 1 1 100.0% 0 0 -

Curtin Overall

12134 4736 39.0% 13962 5207 37.3% 5089 2252 44.3% 1544 789 51.1% 672 395 58.8%

Table 39 Response rates by age group


60

Response rates by undergraduate student year of study Table 40 shows response rates by undergraduate student year of study. The table shows that overall a lower percentage of fourth year (31.8%) and fifth year (26.1%) undergraduate students participated. These students should be targeted for greater participation in future events. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

Hum 2194 755 34.4% 1395 499 35.8% 1289 471 36.5% 278 126 45.3% 2 0 0.0%

CBS 3057 1298 42.5% 2489 1040 41.8% 1879 827 44.0% 36 15 41.7% 3 1 33.3%

Sci &Eng

2579 1049 40.7% 1707 619 36.3% 1669 704 42.2% 1097 352 32.1% 60 14 23.3%

Health 3248 1386 42.7% 2088 864 41.4% 1879 776 41.3% 905 243 26.9% 23 8 34.8%

CAS 75 13 17.3% 2 0 0.0% 3 0 0.0% 0 0 - 0 0 -

DVC Ac 719 177 24.6% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -

DVC Int 364 122 33.5% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -

Curtin Overall

12236 4800 39.2% 7681 3022 39.3% 6719 2778 41.3% 2316 736 31.8% 88 23 26.1%

Note: Student year level calculated based on credit points completed within course.

Table 40 Response rates by undergraduate student year of study

Response rates by postgraduate student year of study Table 41 shows response rates by postgraduate student year of study. Postgraduate students from all faculties are participating in eVALUate at higher rates than undergraduate students.

Year 1 Year 2

Students No. Respondents % Response rate Students No. Respondents % Response rate

Humanities 877 419 47.8% 171 69 40.4%

CBS 803 378 47.1% 369 160 43.4%

Sci &Eng 485 221 45.6% 198 70 35.4%

Health Sci 1096 540 49.3% 323 142 44.0%

CAS 0 0 - 0 0 -

DVC Academic 34 17 50.0% 0 0 -

DVC Internat’l 5 4 80.0% 0 0 -

Curtin Overall 3300 1579 47.8% 1061 441 41.6%

Note: Student year level calculated based on credit points completed within course.

Table 41 Response rates by postgraduate student year of study


61

Response rates by student load category Table 42 shows response rates by student load category. The table shows that overall, part-time students participated at lower rates than full-time students.

Full-time Part-time


Humanities 4735 1792 37.8% 1471 547 37.2%

CBS 7220 3211 44.5% 1416 508 35.9%

Sci &Eng 6629 2671 40.3% 1166 358 30.7%

Health Sci 7235 3005 41.5% 2327 854 36.7%

CAS 69 11 15.9% 11 2 18.2%

DVC Academic 374 91 24.3% 379 103 27.2%

DVC Internat’l 106 44 41.5% 263 82 31.2%

Curtin Overall 26368 10825 41.1% 7033 2554 36.3%

Table 42 Response rates by student load category

Response rates by unit enrolment Table 43 shows response rates by unit enrolment size category. The table shows that overall a lower percentage of students in units with between 51 and 500 enrolments participated. These students should be targeted for greater participation in future events.


62

Hum CBS S & E Hlth Sc CAS DVC Acad

DVC Int Curtin

10 or less stu

Potential surveys 424 82 664 144 38 23 11 1386

No. Responses 162 37 277 62 7 1 3 549

% Response Rate 38.2% 45.1% 41.7% 43.1% 18.4% 4.3% 27.3% 39.6%

11-25 stu


No. Responses 643 409 523 678 24 14 7 2298

% Response Rate 36.1% 43.4% 39.2% 43.4% 17.4% 25.5% 38.9% 39.4%

26-50 stu


No. Responses 1332 638 1146 1067 5 0 11 4199

% Response Rate 33.4% 39.6% 35.3% 35.1% 15.2% - 14.7% 35.0%

51-100 stu


No. Responses 1729 1508 1359 1908 22 0 0 6526

% Response Rate 30.5% 38.9% 33.2% 34.3% 22.2% - - 33.8%

101-200 stu


No. Responses 1287 1142 2423 3062 63 42 0 8019

% Response Rate 29.7% 35.1% 30.9% 36.4% 48.1% 22.3% - 33.2%

201-500 stu


No. Responses 781 3194 2382 1962 0 233 0 8552

% Response Rate 29.2% 36.3% 30.4% 35.9% - 20.4% - 33.0%

501-1000 stu


No. Responses 0 906 991 745 0 104 0 2746

% Response Rate - 38.6% 36.7% 37.0% - 20.5% - 36.3%

1001-1500 stu


No. Responses 0 3582 0 0 0 0 0 3582

% Response Rate - 37.6% - - - - - 37.6%

1501+ stu


No. Responses 0 0 0 1342 0 0 0 1342

% Response Rate - - - 36.8% - - - 36.8%

Note: Based on number of potential surveys (i.e. enrolments) and responses rather than number of students as students are enrolled in units of varying sizes.

Table 43 Response rates by unit enrolment

Response rates by attendance mode Tables 44 and 45 show response rates by attendance mode (aggregated and all categories). Both tables show that internal and external students participated in eVALUate at similar rates.


63

Internal External

Potential surveys No. Responses % Response rate Potential surveys No. Responses % Response rate

Humanities 16949 5231 30.9% 1940 703 36.2%

CBS 28422 10807 38.0% 2028 609 30.0%

Sci &Eng 27354 8962 32.8% 354 139 39.3%

Health Sci 26556 9607 36.2% 3304 1219 36.9%

CAS 408 112 27.5% 31 9 29.0%

DVC Academic 1410 275 19.5% 504 119 23.6%

DVC Internat’l 104 21 20.2% 0 0 -

Curtin Overall 101203 35015 34.6% 8161 2798 34.3%

Note: Based on unit owning faculty and reported based on number of potential surveys (i.e. enrolments) and responses rather than number of students as students can be studying different units of different modes simultaneously.

Table 44 Response rates by attendance mode

Area External Fully Online Internal Partially Online

Pot

enti

al S

urv

eys

No.

Res

pon

ses

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

Pot

enti

al S

urv

eys

No.

Res

pon

ses

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

Pot

enti

al S

urv

eys

No.

Res

pon

ses

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

Pot

enti

al S

urv

eys

No.

Res

pon

ses

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

Humanities 56 0 0.0% 1884 703 37.3% 16949 5231 30.9% 0 0 -

CBS 0 0 - 2028 609 30.0% 28422 10807 38.0% 0 0 -

Sci &Eng 7 3 42.9% 347 136 39.2% 27354 8962 32.8% 0 0 -

Health Sci 0 0 - 3304 1219 36.9% 26555 9606 36.2% 1 1 100.0%

CAS 0 0 - 31 9 29.0% 408 112 27.5% 0 0 -

DVC Academic 0 0 - 504 119 23.6% 1410 275 19.5% 0 0 -

DVC International 0 0 - 0 0 - 104 21 20.2% 0 0 -

Curtin Overall 63 3 4.8% 8098 2795 34.5% 101202 35014 34.6% 1 1 100.0%

Note: Based on unit owning faculty and reported based on number of potential surveys (i.e. enrolments) and responses rather than number of students as students can be studying different units of different modes simultaneously.

Table 45 Response rates by attendance mode (all categories)

Response rates by residency Tables 46 and 47 show response rates by residency (aggregated and by location). Table 46 shows that overall, International students participated at a higher rate than Australian students. Table 47 shows that International offshore students participated at a higher rate than International onshore students.


64

Australian students International students


Humanities 5260 1960 37.3% 946 379 40.1%

CBS 4565 1714 37.5% 4071 2005 49.3%

Sci &Eng 4466 1543 34.5% 3329 1486 44.6%

Health Sci 8497 3520 41.4% 1065 439 41.2%

CAS 80 13 16.3% 0 0 -

DVC Academic 710 173 24.4% 43 21 48.8%

DVC Intern’l 72 21 29.2% 297 105 35.4%

Curtin Overall 23650 8944 37.8% 9751 4435 45.5%

Note: Australian students are those with Australian Citizenship or Permanent Residency or NZ Citizenship; International students are those without Australian Citizenship or Permanent Residency or NZ Citizenship.

Table 46 Response rates by residency

Domestic International Onshore International Offshore

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

Hum 5260 1960 37.3% 606 256 42.2% 340 123 36.2%

CBS 4565 1714 37.5% 2023 914 45.2% 2048 1091 53.3%

S&E 4466 1543 34.5% 1426 474 33.2% 1903 1012 53.2%

Health 8497 3520 41.4% 1065 439 41.2% 0 0 -

CAS 80 13 16.3% 0 0 - 0 0 -

DVC Acad 710 173 24.4% 32 16 50.0% 11 5 45.5%

DVC Int 72 21 29.2% 297 105 35.4% 0 0 -

Curtin Overall

23650 8944 37.8% 5449 2204 40.4% 4302 2231 51.9%

Table 47 Response rates by residency (with onshore/offshore breakdown)


65

Response rates by campus Table 48 shows response rates by campus. Highlighted cells indicate where the target response rate of 35% was not achieved.

Hum CBS Sci & Eng

Health CAS DVC Ac DVC Int Campus Overall

Albany: Great Southern TAFE

Potential Surveys 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 15

No. Responses 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9

% Response rate - - - 60.0% - - - 60.0%

Albany: UWA Centre


No. Responses 23 0 0 0 1 0 0 24

% Response rate 47.9% - - - 100.0% - - 49.0%

Bentley


No. Responses 5536 7600 5315 10817 118 393 11 29790

% Response rate 31.3% 34.0% 27.7% 36.2% 27.3% 20.6% 13.9% 32.6%

Kalgoorlie


No. Responses 67 0 335 0 2 0 0 404

% Response rate 47.5% - 36.7% - 33.3% - - 38.1%

Malaysia: Limkokwing


No. Responses 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

% Response rate 19.7% - - - - - - 19.7%

Malaysia: Miri Campus


No. Responses 64 2292 3115 0 0 0 10 5481

% Response rate 54.7% 50.8% 44.6% - - - 40.0% 47.1%

Margaret River


No. Responses 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 23

% Response rate - - 37.7% - - - - 37.7%

Mauritius: Charles Telfair Institute


No. Responses 232 1493 0 0 0 0 0 1725

% Response rate 28.6% 42.4% - - - - - 39.8%

Perth City


No. Responses 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8

% Response rate - 27.6% - - - - - 27.6%

Singapore


No. Responses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% Response rate - 0.0% - - - - - 0.0%

Sri Lanka Inst Info Tech


No. Responses 0 0 313 0 0 0 0 313

% Response rate - - 54.3% - - - - 54.3%

Sydney


No. Responses 0 23 0 0 0 1 0 24

% Response rate - 57.5% - - - 33.3% - 55.8%

Table 48 Response rates by campus


66

Recommendations for improving response rates Consistent with previous eVALUate main semesters, response rates are higher in female students and postgraduate students. The following student subgroups are less likely to give feedback on units using eVALUate and need to be targeted to improve their participation.

Students enrolled in all Faculties except for CBS and Health Sciences Male students Students aged 21 to 25 years Undergraduate students in their fourth and fifth year of study Domestic students Students enrolled in units with an enrolment between 51 and 500 students Students enrolled in Australia at Bentley and Perth city campuses Students enrolled in Malaysia at Limkokwing Uni of Creative Technology.


67

Appendix 3 – Survey instruments

Unit survey The eVALUate unit survey items are designed to be meaningful to students across a wide range of disciplines in all Curtin’s varied learning contexts (on- or off-campus, locally and internationally). The survey has 11 quantitative items and 2 qualitative items. Each quantitative item has a brief explanatory for clarification. Students can hide the explanatory text online if they wish. The items ask students to indicate their level of agreement. Students may indicate Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree or Unable to Judge for each item. Items one to seven ask students to report on what helped and hindered their achievement of unit learning outcomes.

The remaining four items ask students to report on their motivation, enthusiasm and commitment in the learning experiences and their overall satisfaction with the unit.


68

The qualitative items invite students to answer two questions in a constructive and professional manner (each text answer is limited to 600 characters):

Teaching survey The eVALUate teaching evaluation survey asks students to report on aspects of teaching performance. It has 7 quantitative and 2 qualitative items. Each quantitative item has a brief explanatory for clarification. Students can hide the explanatory text online if they wish. The items ask students to indicate their level of agreement. Students may indicate Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly disagree or Unable to Judge for each item. The survey appears as follows:

evaluate university aggregated report · section 2 – quantitative and qualitative results of unit...

Documents