Reporting Module Evaluation Outcomes

An Evolving Approach

Dr Tim LinseyHead of Academic Systems & Evaluation

Directorate for Student AchievementKingston University

London, UKt.linsey@Kingston.ac.uk

Bluenotes GlobalAugust 2019

Overview

• Introduction & Context• Delivery of MEQs• Reporting & Analysis & Evaluation of Reporting approaches• Data Warehouse

• University Dashboards• University Annual Monitoring and Enhancement process

• Issues and Developments

IntroductionAcademic Systems and Evaluation• TEL Systems, • Attendance Monitoring, • Learning Analytics, • Student Voice

• MEQs, • Kingston Student Survey• National Student Survey• Postgraduate Survey

Key considerations

• Creating a culture of continuous improvement supported by analytics

• Consistent approach embedded in Quality Assurance and Evaluation processes

• Closing the feedback back loop and valuing the student voice• Effectively engaging students throughout the curriculum• MEQs are a key part of the student feedback approach

Reintroduction of MEQs• Decision taken in January 2017 to reintroduce MEQs• MEQ Working Group• 10 Quantitative + 2 Qualitative questions• 2018/19 – All online surveys

• MEQ Environment: Blue from Explorance• Lead Indicator for Teaching Quality KPI.

VLE Integration

My Module Evaluations

Processes & Timing Consistent approach across all modules Automated scheduling and publishing of MEQs Scheduled to allow time for in-class discussion MEQs run all year but two main survey windows (16 days) Reports automatically Published into the VLE within a few hours of

an MEQ completing Response rates

Orchestrated approach–Briefing guide and PowerPoint for all module leaders– Set of agreed statements to conveyed to students–Student created video introducing MEQs–Staff asked to find a slot in class–Staff requested to leave class for 15 mins.–Use of course representatives

2018/19 (to March)

• 832 MEQ reports generated (exceeding minimum threshold of 4)• 76% of student responses contained qualitative feedback• 38% students completed one or more MEQs• 47% completed via mobile devices

Module ReportsStaff and student reports similar except the student version excluded

comments and comparisons (Department and Faculty averages)

Improve

Best things

Further Reports–Department, Faculty and University aggregate reports–Summary reports for each Faculty–Modules with zero responses or not met threshold–Custom Reports

Summary Report for all Modules 2016/17Summary table ranking all modules by their mean overall score.Colour coded => 4.5 =< 3.5

Summary Report for all Modules 2017/18– Colour coding was problematic– Staff suggestion to rank by standard deviation from the overall

university mean.

Additionally– Comparison of 2016/17 vs 2017/18

Summary Report for all Modules 2018/19Reviewed our approach to consider issues raised in the literature:

• Comparisons between modules of different types, levels, sizes, functions, or disciplines

• Averaging Ordinal scale data• Bias• Internal consistency

(e.g. Boring, 2017; Clayson, 2018; Hornstein, 2017; Wagner et. al. 2016)

Education Committee Summary Report

Sorted by Faculty, Level, Response rateInclude statistical significance

Statistical confidence

Methodology: Dillman, D. Smyth, J, Christian, L. 2014 Internet, Phone, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons.

Ranking by % Agree

Frequency Distributions–Request that staff also review the frequency distribution of their

responses–Is the distribution bimodal, and if so why?

Mean = 2.9

Aggregating Questions to Themes

–Teaching–Assessment–Academic Support–Organisation

We noted– Care needed to be taken with aggregated data and inferences

drawn from it– An individual MEQ report is informative for the module team

knowing the local context but care needs to be taken without looking at trends and holistically across other metrics.

Data Warehouse–Raw data passed to the KU Data Warehouse

–Tableau Dashboards (Strategic Planning and Data Insight Department).

• Dashboards accessible by all staff including showing top 5 and bottom 5 modules for each level.

• Data aggregated with ability to drill down to module level–Annual Monitoring and Enhancement Process

University Dashboards

CourseMetrics

ModuleMetricsMEQs Progression

AttainmentGap

NSSKSS

BME VA

Progression

KPIsEmployability

LearningAnalytics

MEQs

Drilling up and down

Department View

Annual Monitoring and Enhance Process

Module Enhancement PlansCourse Enhancement Plans

–Online–Pre-populated with MEQ and other metrics–Module leaders and course leaders review the performance of the

module / course citing evidence and pre-populated metrics

MEPs

(extract)

Issues & Developments–When should the MEQ be distributed? – Focus Group

feedback–Automation – Administration & Analysis–Text Analytics–47% students completing MEQs via Mobile Devices–Analysis across different student voice surveys

– Staff being named in qualitative feedback & issues of etiquette– Students concerned about anonymity– Response rates – followed up with modules with high response rates.– Feedback to Students– Demographic analysis

Collaborative • Directorate for Student Achievement• Academic Systems & Evaluation Team• Strategic Planning and Data Insight (Inc. all dashboard

development)• Academic Registry• Information & Technology Services• Faculties via the MEQ Working Group / Student Surveys Group• Student Course Representatives• Explorance

References• Boring, A. 2017 Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. Journal of

Public Economics 145, 27–41• Clayson, D. 2018 Student evaluation of teaching and matters of reliability.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43:4, 666-681• Dillman, DA, Smyth, JD, & Christian, LM 2014, Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-

Mode Surveys : The Tailored Design Method, John Wiley & Sons.• Hornstein, H. 2017 Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate

assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance. Cogent Education, 4, 1-8.• Wagner, N, Rieger, M, & Voorvelt, K 2016 Gender, ethnicity and teaching

evaluations: Evidence from mixed teaching teams. Economics of Education Review, 54, 79-94.

Any Questions?

t.linsey@Kingston.ac.uk