student evaluation questionnaires · complete coursework. the coursework was reasonable in terms of...
TRANSCRIPT
Student Evaluation Questionnaires:
This Information Pack provides an introduction to the Student Paper Based
Evaluation Questionnaire scheme.
The Information Pack includes information on the scheme, guidance for
academic and clerical staff and Student Evaluation Questionnaire examples of
forms and reports.
Should you have any queries please contact us at the address below:
Natasha Nakariakova
Service Owner for eAssessment
IT Services, Cedar Building
Westwood Campus
The University of Warwick
CV4 7AL
T: extension 22337
Information on the Paper Based Evaluation Questionnaire Scheme.
This service offers scanning and analysis of Student Module Evaluation Forms using Optical Mark Reader technology. The service is free for all academic departments and widely used at Warwick for data collection and standardised reporting.
The benefits include:
allowing departments to significantly reduce the time taken for data collection and analysis of module evaluation forms;
guaranteeing high response rates; providing departments with individually designed reports where data can be
presented in an easily accessible format; breakdown of results according to departmental needs and requirements; user friendly for students - simply marking a box with a pen.
1. Prepare your template
Most departments already have evaluation forms in hand. We will need a set of
questions and the scoring system for them, along with any other additional
information that ought to be placed on the form. Examples of the different types of
questionnaire that are used by University of Warwick Departments are presented at
the end of this booklet.
2. Send us your template
Once the template is ready, email it to us at [email protected].
3. We create a draft Master Copy based on your template
This is usually a multistep process with changes and corrections from both sides,
until the final version is approved. The final Master Copy, can then be used for
printing.
4. Print the forms, distribute and collect
It is highly advisable to refer to the Guidance for Printing that is included in the
Information Pack.
5. Send the forms to us
Please use the address below:
eAssessment Team
IT Services, Cedar Building
Westwood Campus
Internal Mail is the most common way of delivering the documents to us. For bulky
or important packages ordering a Porter Service or using Warwick Print would be a
safer alternative, however it is chargeable service.
6. We process the forms
We scan forms, verify them and produce reports that were designed according to
departmental requirements. Results are then returned to the sender: an electronic
report via email and the original evaluation forms to the department via Internal
mail or using Porter Service.
Guidance for Printing Standards for Paper Based Exam and Evaluation Forms.
The following guidelines are intended to assist in preparing exam sheets and evaluation
questionnaires for printing. Following these tips will minimise risk of common problems
which occur when printing large amounts of forms:
Use the PDF Master Copy that we provide you with.
It is particularly important to avoid applying changes to PDF Master Copies that may
cause distortions or misplacements of sensitive fields (answer boxes).
Please ensure that black corners and form’s ID Number are not cut off.
The software that we use to read the forms can only identify it from its ID number.
Black corners are essential in positioning the sensitive fields.
Use white or light colour paper.
It is always preferable to stick to standard of high contrast between background
colour and printed text. The more the contrast is, the less chance for scanner to
misread a poorly contrasted object.
Print from the PDF Master Copy.
It is highly advisable to set forms to print from PDF file. It ensures that all objects are
properly embedded and printed correctly. If photocopying, please use the Master
Copy that was printed from our PDF, every time. Copying from a photocopy may
result in quantities of forms with reduced contrast or changed dimensions.
Software and equipment were available when needed.
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCEMODULE QUESTIONNAIRE
Module Code: C S
Please use a blue or black pen and mark each answer with a clear cross in the relevant box.
SA = Strongly agree A = Agree N = Neutral D = Disagree SD = Strongly disagree
2016-2017
PTO
Module Organiser:
Module Title:
Your Course (e.g. CS, DM):
About the material covered:
The aims of the module were clear.
The module deepened my understanding of the subject matter.
The module is at the right level for my current knowledge and experience.
The module content is interesting and intellectually challenging.
The module content is relevant to me and to my academic goals.
Please list topics or aspects you found particularly difficult, and if possible explain why:
SA A N D SD
About the teaching material and environment:
The module handouts and notes were useful and adequate.
The slides and demos used in lectures were insightful and clear.
The module webpage was useful and consistent.
If textbooks were recommended, they were useful and relevant.
n/a
The module achieved its learning outcomes.
Lecture rooms, labs and learning spaces were suitable.
Please summarise what you liked and didn't like in the module:
SA A N D SD
9907365144
Assessment and Feedback:
The module assessment and feedback mechanisms are clearly explained.
The coursework was reasonable in terms of effort and time required.
The feedback provided so far has been timely and useful.
I have been given adequate help and advice to complete coursework.
About the module delivery.
Lecturer 1:
The lecturer's delivery is clear and easy to understand.
The lecturer explains the subject matter at appropriate level and pace.
The lecturer is helpful and responsive to students' needs.
Lecturer 2:
The lecturer's delivery is clear and easy to understand.
The lecturer explains the subject matter at appropriate level and pace.
The lecturer is helpful and responsive to students' needs.
About the seminar/lab tutor.
Name of tutor(s):
Supplementary sessions were helpful.
The tutor's delivery is clear and easy to understand.
The tutor explains the subject matter at approriate level and pace.
Please add any other comments, and suggestions for how the module can be improved:
Roughly how many lectures did you attend?
less than 10% 10%-40% 40%-60% 60%-80% 80% to almost all All of them
The tutor is helpful and responsive to students' needs.
n/a
If applicable, roughly how many seminar/lab sessions did you attend?
less than 10% 10%-40% 40%-60% 60%-80% 80% to almost all All of them
Overall this was a very good module.
SA A N D SD
SA A N D SD
SA A N D SD
SA A N D SD
SA A N D SD
7992365146
Department of Computer Science
Module code:
Module Questionnaire
2015-2016
No. of forms returned: 138
Module title:
Module Oraganiser:
About the module delivery:
01071 460
0
17
13
2
11
126159The content is interesting and intellectually challenging.
2
1
0
0
8
1
5
7
3
23
3
59
56
60
41
47
1656
2430
1460
2540
976
105469
458
SA
About the material covered:
SDDNA
The module achieved its learning outcomes.
The slides and demos used in lectures were insightful and clear.
The module handouts and notes were useful and adequate
The module is at the right level for my current knowledge and experience.
The module content is relevant to me and to my academic goals.
The module deepened my understanding of the subject matter.
The aims of the module were clear.
SA=Strongly Agree A=Agree N=Neutral D=Disagree SD=Strongly Disagree
73
About the teaching material and environment:
SA SDDNA n/a
The module webpage was useful and consistent.
If textbooks were recommended, they were useful and relevant.
330237 4418
10149 383Software and equipment were available when needed.
Lecture rooms, labs and learning spaces were suitable. 01053 281
The lecture's delivery is clear and easy to understand.
The lecturer explains the subject matter at appropriate level and pace.
A N D SDSA
The lecturer is helpful and responsive to students' needs.
41
1154 4 0
71
2047 23 4
1150 3 0
66
Lecturer 1
Page 1
About the seminar/lab tutor:
Assessment and Feedback:
The module assessment and feedback mechanisms are clearly explained.
I have been given adequate help and advice to complete coursework.
The coursework was reasonable in terms of effort and time required.
The feedback provided so far has been timely and useful.
00267 656
10558 2839
091054 2038
131359 2134
Overall this was a very good module. 1468 1350
Roughly how many lectures did you attend?
If applicable, roughly how many seminar/lab sessions did you attend?
675671 30
1121721 00
SA SDDNA n/a
SA SDDNA
less than
10%
80% to
almost all
60%-80%40%-60%10%-40% All of
them
Supplementary sessions were helpful.
The tutor's delivery is clear and easy to understand.
A N D SDSA
The tutor explains the subject matter at appropriate level and pace.
The tutor is helpful and responsive to students' needs.
40
1947 9 3
44
2057 9 0
57
1955 6 1
49
1346 9 1
Name of Tutor(s):
Page 2
University of WarwickSchool of Law
LECTURER EVALUATION
PART B
How clearly did L indicate the objectives of the module?
How good was L at presenting ideas and concepts?
How interesting was L's presentation of material?
How intellectually stimulating was L?
How enthusiastic was L?
How well did L encourage critical thinking?
How accessible for consultation was L?
How would you rate this lecturer overall?
Module Code: Date: / /
Module Name:
Your Comments:
Please use a blue or black pen and mark one answer for each question, by placing a cross inthe relevant box:
Lecturer (name)
Poor Adequate Average Good V Good
NOTE: Please supplement your answers by commenting in the box above.
3565088016
School of Law
Part BLecturer Evaluation
No. of students on course:
15 July 2016
No. of forms returned: 37
Module code:
Lecturer:
Module name:
8. How would you rate this lecturer overall?
915823 3.68
Poor
1. How clearly did L indicate the objectives of the module?
Lecturer's comments:
2. How good was L at presenting ideas and concepts?
3. How interesting was L's presentation of material?
4. How intellectually stimulating was L?
5. How enthusiastic was L?
6. How well did L encourage critical thinking?
7. How accessible for consultation was L?
Adequate Average Good V.Good
8121232 3.57
10101043 3.54
1015723 3.73
914833 3.62
418824 3.44
8121142 3.54
615844 3.41
24%
22%
16%
27%
27%
24%
11%
22%
41%
32%
41%
27%
41%
38%
49%
32%
22%
32%
22%
27%
19%
22%
22%
30%
5%
8%
11%
11%
5%
8%
5%
11%
8%
5%
11%
8%
8%
8%
11%
5%
Mean
School of Life ScienceStudent Feedback on Laboratory Classes
Staff Supervisor:
Laboratory Code: Date: / /
Group: A B C
Was there sufficient time to carry out the work required?
Did the manual give adequate information to allow you to performthe experiments?
Please mark the appropriate box.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Were the briefings by the staff supervisor(s) to the whole classclear and adequate?
Were the staff supervisor(s) helpful in answering questions?
Were the necessary reagents and equipment readily available toyou?
Was the equipment supplied in good order?
Was the help which you received from postgraduate demonstratorsadequate?
Comments on demonstrators will be conveyed back to them privately by the Lab supervisor. Pleaseindicate below if any individual was, in your opinion, particularly worthy of commendation, oralternatively, did not fulfil their duties as a demonstrator adequately, giving your reasons.
Did you find the classes interesting?
Did you get experiments to work?
Please give below any suggestions you have for improving the class next year (continue over page ifnecessary).
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Always Most Rarely
Laboratory Title:
2805605523
Laboratory Classes Evaluation Report
Warwick University
School of Life Sciences
Title: Forms: 145
Supervisor:
32
37
27
128
3
2
95
36
2
116
20
1
114
12
11
118
0
17
119
0
17
112
15
10
93
31
6
Group no.
22.1%
25.5%
18.6%
88.3%
2.1%
1.4%
65.5%
24.8%
1.4%
80.0%
13.8%
0.7%
78.6%
8.3%
7.6%
81.4%
0.0%
11.7%
82.1%
0.0%
11.7%
77.2%
10.3%
6.9%
64.1%
21.4%
4.1%
Option Qty Perc. Option Qty Perc.
Option Qty Perc. Option Qty Perc.
Option Qty Perc. Option Qty Perc.
Option Qty Perc. Option Qty Perc.
Option Qty Perc.
1. Sufficient time
2. Did manual give adequate information? 3. Briefings by staff adequate?
4. Staff helpful in answering questions? 5. Reagents and equipment readily available?
6. Equipment in good order? 7. Sufficient help from postgraduate demonstrator(s)
8. Did you find classes interesting?
104
21
5
71.7%
14.5%
3.4%
Option Qty Perc.
9. Did you get experiments to work?
0 50 100 150
0 50 100 0 50 100 150
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
0 50 100 0 50 100 150
0 10 20 30 40
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
A
B
C
Yes
No
N/A
Always
Most
Rarely
Page 1 of 1
University of Warwick Mathematics DepartmentFinal Module Evaluation Form
LecturerModule
Please use a blue or black pen and cross one answer for each questionFor each question please put a tick in the box that you think is most relevant. There is room for comments on the reverse.
Please give further comments overleaf….
Just right Too little Too muchThe quantity of material was
I found the example sheets
I found the pace of delivery
Just right Too easy Too hard
Just right Too slow Too fast
I attended most of the lectures
I found the lectures beneficial
I attended none of the lectures
The lectures were a waste oftime
6 5 4 3 2 1
The links with other modules wereclear
The Course Handbook entry was afair reflection of the module
The links with other modules wereunclear
The Course Handbook entry bore noresemblance to the module
No unreasonable assumption ofbackground knowledge
By the end the direction andpurpose of the module were clear
Unreasonable assumptions made
By the end the direction and purposewere unclear
I would like a module taking thissubject further
I had adequate access to therecommended texts
I would not like a module taking thissubject further
I could not find a copy of the textsanywhere
The lecturer was well organised andprepared
The lecturer's timing was good (i.e. notlate, didn't overrun)
The lecturer was not at all organisedand prepared
The lecturer's timing was poor
The style of delivery was stimulating
The lecturer was receptive toquestions
Style of delivery was dull
The lecturer was unreceptive toquestions
Explanations were clear
I have a good set of notes to revisefrom
Explanations were unclear
I have a poor set of notes to revisefrom
The lecturer was easy to hear
The lecturer's handwriting was legible
Diagrams were easy to read
It was difficult to hear the lecturer
The lecturer's handwriting wasunreadable
Diagrams were difficult to read
I attended most of the support classes
I found support classes useful
I attended none of the support classes
Support classes were no help
The support class TA was preparedThe support class TA wasdisorganised
If there were support classes provided:
6 5 4 3 2 1
6 5 4 3 2 1
6 5 4 3 2 1
Home Department Maths Other
5077021888
The links with other modules were clear
6
The Course Handbook entry was fair reflection of the module
No unreasonable assumption of background knowledge
By the end the direction and purpose of the module were clear
I would like a module taking this subject further
Organiser:
5 4 3 2
Total number of forms:
strongly agree
strongly disagree1
The quantity of material was
I found the example sheets
I found the pace of delivery
2
37 0 59
59 9 29
too little
I had adequate access to the recommended texts
just right too easy too hard
just right too slow too fast
47 50
I attended most of the lectures
6
61
I found the lectures beneficial
5 4 3 2
17 3 2
strongly agree
strongly disagree1
015
9 27 24 18 120
28 24 11 3 033
33 16 7 1 040
26 18 8 5 142
24 28 12 6 129
13 16 22 15 2410
25 28 13 2 024
Module
123
Maths: 107 Other: 8Home Department (number of forms):
just right too much
Where percentages do not summate to 100%, a proportion of students did not mark an answer for that question.
University of Warwick
Module Questionnaire Results
Mathematics Department
2016-2017 Term 1
% of answers 6 and 5
76
29
% of answers 6 and 5
61
73
68
53
23
49
Module:
Page 1 of 2
The lecturer was well organised and prepared
6
The lecturer's timing was good
The style of the delivery was stimulating
The lecturer was receptive to questions
Explanations were clear
5 4 3 2strongly
agreestrongly disagree1
I have a good set of notes
24 31 8 4 133
23 24 15 8 328
5 23 22 23 1414
36 23 8 0 033
8 30 25 12 1114
16 27 17 8 525
The lecturer was easy to hear
The lecturers handwriting was legible
Diagrams were easy to read
43 17 6 2 230
42 14 7 3 232
28 19 18 7 326
I attended most of the support classes
6
I found support classes useful
The support class TA was prepared
5 4 3 2strongly
agreestrongly disagree1
9 10 9 22 462
7 12 10 9 87
9 15 6 3 612
If there were support classes provided
Lecturer
57
51
19
69
22
41
73
74
54
% of answers 6 and 5
% of answers 6 and 5
11
14
21
Page 2 of 2
1.
2.
3.
PX
Lecturer
UNIVERSITY OF WARWICKDEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS
<50% 50-80% >80%
About right Too great Too little
In lectures After more work poorly
I attended (..?..) of the lectures
I understood the following main topics:
Title
By the end of the module, its purpose anddirection of the course were
Clear Hazy Unclear
The quantity of material was
(a)
In lectures After more work poorly
4.
(b)
In lectures After more work poorly
In lectures After more work poorly
In lectures After more work poorly
In lectures After more work poorly
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Explanation of new terms and concepts was good Adequate poor5.
6. I have a (..?..) set of notes good Adequate poor
7. I attempted (..?..) of examples sheet questions <40% 40-80% >80%
8. The example sheet question were too easy about right too hard
PROMPTNESS of feedback on submittedcoursework was
good Adequate poor9.
10. Would you like a course taking this subjectfurther?
Yes neutral no
11.Recommended textbook:
purchased consulted did not use
12. I found it to be very helpful helpful unhelpful
13.
Please give further comments overleaf ...
Academic Year /1 6 1 7
Please use a blue or black pen and mark one answer for each question thus
3730622126
I attended (..?..) of the lectures.1. <50% 50-80% >80%
50
By the end of the module, its purpose and direction were
2. Clear UnclearHazy
149 4 0
The quantity of the material was3. About right Too littleToo great
143 6 1
a In lectures After more work Poorly
108
b
c
d
e
43 2
In lectures After more work Poorly
In lectures After more work Poorly
In lectures After more work Poorly
In lectures After more work Poorly
39 62
PX
68 84 1
94 57 2
81 68 3
85 63 4
Microstates and Macrostates
Partition functions and the Boltzmann distribution
Relation between entropy and disorder
Connection between statistical mechanics and thermodynamics
Distinguishability and density of states
4. I understood the following main topics:
Number of forms returned: 154
f In lectures
58
After more work
89
Poorly
5
Academic Year 2015/16
Term 2
Distribution functions for fermions and bosons
UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS
Physics Course Questionnaire Results
Lecturer:
Module: Title:
Page 1 of 2
Explanation of new terms and concepts was
5. Good PoorAdequate
I attempted (..?..) of examples sheet questions
7. <40% >80%40-80%
The example sheet questions were
8.
Would you like a course taking this subject further?
10.
Too easy Too hardAbout right
Yes NoNeutral
Recommended textbook: 11. Purchased Did not useConsulted
I found it to be 12. Very helpful UnhelpfulHelpful
219132
306855
61371
149103
119199
6186
I have a (..?..) set of notes.6. Good PoorAdequate
622125
9.24068
Good Poor AdequatePROMPTNESS of feedback on submitted coursework was
One of them was
Page 2 of 2
Politics and International StudiesUndergraduate Teaching Evaluation Survey for 30 CAT Modules
7.
The Module
Your Participation (or Learning)
10 or more 5-9 Less than 5How many hours each week did you devote to this module(including lectures and seminars)?
1 2 3 4 58. Rate your own performance on the module
Module Code
Module Lecturer 1
Module Seminar Tutor 1
For statements 1 to 25 (except 6 and 7) please use the following scale:1 - very poor 2 - poor 3 - adequate 4 - good 5 - very good
Module Lecturer 2
Module Seminar Tutor 2
1 2 3 4 51.Essays/other assignments promoted learning/improvedyour understanding of the subject matter
2. How useful was the module website? 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
3.How would you rate the availability, print or electronic, ofmodule materials through the Library?
a) books
1 2 3 4 5b) journal articles
4. Did this module achieve its aims and objectives?
1 2 3 4 55. How would you rate the module overall?
6.(a) Proportion of Lectures attended? 100% 80-99% 50-79% Below 50%
1 2 3 4 59. Rate your contribution to seminar discussions
1 2 3 4 5
100% 80-99% 50-79% Below 50%(b) Proportion of Seminars attended?
Lecturer
Lecturer 1 Lecturer 2
Academic Support
10. Communicates goals and requirements of themodule clearly and explicitly 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
11. Ability to present ideas and concepts clearly1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2016-2017
12.Ability to present material in an interestingway
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
6801147591
Seminar Tutor
13.Effectiveness in stimulating you intellectually
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
14.Enthusiasm for the subject matter
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
15.Encouragement of critical thinking andanalysis
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
17.Rate this lecturer overall
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
16.Accessibility for consultation (appointments,advice and feedback hours)
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
18. Ability to organise the seminar effectively1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Tutor 1 Tutor 2
22. Accessibility for consultation (appointments,advice and feedback hours)
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
20.. Encouragement of critical thinking andanalysis
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
23. Effectiveness in stimulating you intellectually1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
24. Ability to facilitate class discussion1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
19. Ability to deal effectively with questions andcomments from the class
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
25. Contribution of seminars in helping theachievement of module aims and objectives
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
21. How would you rate the feedback youreceived?
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
General
For statements 26 and 27 below, please use the following 5-point scale1 - low 2 - below average 3 - average 4 - above average 5 - high
26. Compared to other modules at the same level theworkload is: 1 2 3 4 5
27. Compared to other modules at the same level, thelevel of intellectual challenge is: 1 2 3 4 5
Please use the space below, or ask for a separate piece of paper, if you wish to provide supplementarycomments on the lecturers/ tutors for this Module. If there is more than one principal lecturer/tutor, pleasedistinguish them as lecturer/tutor 1 and/or lecturer/ tutor 2 (as advised by the seminar tutor). Your thoughtfulresponse will be important in assisting teachers in future module preparation. The information you provide hereis confidential and will be forwarded to your lecturers and seminar tutor only after final grades have beenagreed.
Lecturer 1 Lecturer 2
1125147595
Question
Number
No/% of
students
very poor
No/% of
students
poor
No/% of
students
adequate
No/% of
students
good
No/% of
students
very good
1 7 39 89 36
1 7 38 90 36
0 19 58 69 27
4 15 54 78 22
The Module
(Where answers do not summate to the full 100% a proportion of students did not mark an answer for that question)
No/% of
100%
No/% of
80-99%
No/% of
50-79%
No/%
Below 50%
25 60 46 41
Your Participation (or Learning)
13 85 71
10 or more 5-9 Less than 5
5 8 88 65 68.Rate your own
performance on the
module
9.Rate your own
contribution to
seminar discussions
Politics and International Studies
UG Teaching Evaluation Survey 2016 - 2017
No/% of
students
very poor
No/% of
students
poor
No/% of
students
adequate
No/% of
students
good
No/% of
students
very good
50 101 19 2
1. Essays promoted
learning
2. Rate module
website
3a. Availability in
Library: Books
3b. Availability in
Library: journal
articles4. Aims and
objectives achived?
5. Rate module
overall
% of
students
<
adequate
% of
students
> =
adequate
% of
students
good and
very good
5 95 73
5 95 73
11 89 55
11 89 58
6a. Proportion of
lectures attended
6b. Proportion of
seminars attended
7. Hours devoted to the module
% of
students
<
adequate
% of
students
> =
adequate
% of
students
good and
very good
8 92 41
Module Name:
Lecturer 2:
Number of module responses: 173
Lecturer 1:
1721
1 172
173
173
0
2
4
4
11
9
23
22
34
31
52
52
40
45
21
21
16
13
No of
responses
172
169
172
15
29
35
59
27
11
24
1
8 50 42
1723 5 51 38 3
1 12 39 76 42 8 92 69 1701 7 23 45 25
2 9 36 101
24 6 94 73 1721 5 21 59 14
5 23 68 58 18 16 84 44 1723 13 40 34 10
Module Code:
Page 1 of 5
Question
Number
No / % of
students
very poor
No / % of
students
poor
No / % of
studentsa
dequate
No / % of
students
good
No / % of
students
very good
Lecturer 1
6 10 34 37 13
10.Communic
ate goals
11.Present
ideas clearly
12.Present mat.
interesting
13.Stimulate
intellectually
14.Enthusiasm
15.Encourage
critical thinking
16.Accessibility
17.Rate lecturer
overall
Question
Number
% of
students
very poor
% of
students
poor
% of
students
adequate
% of
students
good
% of
students
very good
Lecturer 2
% of
students
< =
adequate
% of
students
> =
adequate
% of
students
good and
very good
16 84 50
% of
students
<
adequate
% of
students
> =
adequate
% of
students
good and
very good
10.Communic
ate goals
11.Present
ideas clearly
12.Present mat.
interesting
13.Stimulate
intellectually
14.Enthusiasm
15. Encourage
critical thinking
16.Accessibility
17.Rate lecturer
overall
167
167
167
168
167
162
168
145
143
144
142
139
142
143
10 17 56 62 22
15 23 35 19 8 38 62 2725 39 58 32 13
7 21 28 33 11 28 72 4412 35 47 55 18
5 11 32 39 13 16 84 528 19 53 66 22
6 7 38 36 14 13 87 5010 11 63 60 23
3 3 35 44 15 6 94 595 5 56 71 25
4 14 35 36 11 18 82 476 24 59 61 18
12 26 46 14 15 85 5918 37 66 20
9 35 35 13 17 83 4813 50 50 18
10 30 43 11 16 84 5415 43 62 16
3 15 46 35 4 96 815 21 66 50
5 32 44 15 8 92 597 46 63 21
4 36 44 14 6 94 585 50 61 20
10 25 51 10 14 86 6114 35 73 14
34
812
68
11
45
23
46
Academic Suppoprt
4 11 33 41 12 14 86 53 1666 18 54 68 20
1417 33 47 11 9 91 5810 46 66 1623
Andrew Reeve
Helen McCabe
Page 2 of 5
Question
Numbervery poor
N/ %
poor
N/%
adequate
N/%
good
N/%
very good
N/%
Seminar Tutor
19 Deal with
questions
20 Encourage
critical thinking
21 Feedback
22 Accessibility
23 Intellectually
stimulating
24 Facilitate
discussion
25 Seminars help
to achieve
module aims
% of
students
<
adequate
% of
students
= >
adequate
% of
students
good and
very good
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
7 3 34 52 10 90 862 1 10 15
3 10 45 34 10 90 791 3 13 10
7 14 55 24 7 93 792 4 16 7
0 14 59 28 0 100 860 4 17 8
10 14 41 31 14 86 723 4 12 9
3 24 41 28 7 93 691 7 12 8
14 10 34 38 17 83 724 3 10 11
31
72
00
00
31
31
31
18 Organise
seminar
290 14 48 38 0 100 860 4 14 1100
Number of responses: 30Andrew Reeve
Question
Numbervery poor
N/ %
poor
N/%
adequate
N/%
good
N/%
very good
N/%
Seminar Tutor
19 Deal with
questions
20 Encourage
critical thinking
21 Feedback
22 Accessibility
23 Intellectually
stimulating
24 Facilitate
discussion
25 Seminars help
to achieve
module aims
% of
students
<
adequate
% of
students
= >
adequate
% of
students
good and
very good
47
47
46
47
47
47
47
9 23 45 17 15 85 624 11 21 8
2 21 55 15 9 91 701 10 26 7
2 13 48 28 11 89 761 6 22 13
4 28 51 13 9 91 642 13 24 6
9 32 53 4 11 89 574 15 25 2
13 40 32 2 26 74 346 19 15 1
9 32 49 6 13 87 554 15 23 3
63
63
94
42
21
136
42
18 Organise
seminar
486 33 44 13 10 90 563 16 21 642
Number of responses: 49Helen McCabe
Page 3 of 5
Question
Numbervery poor
N/ %
poor
N/%
adequate
N/%
good
N/%
very good
N/%
Seminar Tutor
19 Deal with
questions
20 Encourage
critical thinking
21 Feedback
22 Accessibility
23 Intellectually
stimulating
24 Facilitate
discussion
25 Seminars help
to achieve
module aims
% of
students
<
adequate
% of
students
= >
adequate
% of
students
good and
very good
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
0 14 18 68 0 100 860 3 4 15
0 14 14 73 0 100 860 3 3 16
0 9 27 64 0 100 910 2 6 14
5 5 45 45 5 95 911 1 10 10
0 14 32 55 0 100 860 3 7 12
0 9 14 77 0 100 910 2 3 17
0 9 27 64 0 100 910 2 6 14
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
18 Organise
seminar
220 9 32 59 0 100 910 2 7 1300
Number of responses: 22Rebecca Reilly Cooper
Question
Numbervery poor
N/ %
poor
N/%
adequate
N/%
good
N/%
very good
N/%
Seminar Tutor
19 Deal with
questions
20 Encourage
critical thinking
21 Feedback
22 Accessibility
23 Intellectually
stimulating
24 Facilitate
discussion
25 Seminars help
to achieve
module aims
% of
students
<
adequate
% of
students
= >
adequate
% of
students
good and
very good
50
50
49
49
50
50
50
0 10 44 46 0 100 900 5 22 23
0 8 46 46 0 100 920 4 23 23
2 14 51 33 2 98 841 7 25 16
0 8 65 27 0 100 920 4 32 13
2 12 56 30 2 98 861 6 28 15
6 14 38 42 6 94 803 7 19 21
2 6 52 40 2 98 921 3 26 20
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
18 Organise
seminar
502 12 50 36 2 98 861 6 25 1800
Number of responses: 50Alexander Barker
Page 4 of 5
Low Below
average
Average Above
average
HighGeneral
2 3 50 68 49
2 5 41 60 64
26 Compared to other
workloads
27 Intellectual
challenge
172
172
1
1
2
3
29
24
40
35
28
37
Question
Numbervery poor
N/ %
poor
N/%
adequate
N/%
good
N/%
very good
N/%
Seminar Tutor
19 Deal with
questions
20 Encourage
critical thinking
21 Feedback
22 Accessibility
23 Intellectually
stimulating
24 Facilitate
discussion
25 Seminars help
to achieve
module aims
% of
students
<
adequate
% of
students
= >
adequate
% of
students
good and
very good
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
0 0 14 86 0 100 1000 0 3 19
0 0 14 86 0 100 1000 0 3 19
5 0 14 82 5 95 951 0 3 18
5 5 23 68 5 95 911 1 5 15
0 0 18 82 0 100 1000 0 4 18
0 0 9 91 0 100 1000 0 2 20
0 5 14 82 0 100 950 1 3 18
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
18 Organise
seminar
220 0 14 86 0 100 1000 0 3 1900
Number of responses: 22Hwa Young Kim
Page 5 of 5
T hem oduleprovidedastim ulatinglearningexperience
T hew ay them odulew asdeliveredencouragedm etoparticipate
T hem odulew orkloadw asappropriatetothem oduleobjectives
T heteachingstaff:
Ability topresentideasandconcepts
1 [ ]
S peedandpaceofthesessions
Know ledgeofthesubjectm atter
Ability todealw ithquestions
1N otatall
2 3 4 5
P leaseturnover
T hem aterialcoveredw aspitchedatasuitablelevel
W arw ickBusinessS chool
M astersP rogram m esM oduleFeedback
A boutthem odule
T hem oduleaim sw ereclear
T hem odulesucceededinitsobjectives(asdefinedintheintroductionsectionofthem odule)
P leaseuseablueorblackpenandm arkoneansw erforeachquestion,by placing acrossintherelevantbox:
Academ icYear /2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7M odulecode: /
T helecturenotes/coursem aterials/hand-outs/casestudies/onlineresourceshelpedw ithunderstanding
O verallIw ouldratethism odulehighly
Enthusiasm forthesubject
Ability toencouragecriticalthinking
How w ouldyou ratethislecturer,overall?
DegreeCourse:
M oduletitle:
T hereisspaceforcom m entsonthelastpageoftheform
6T otally
O verall,thism odulem etm y expectations
1 2 3 4 5 6T otally unclear T otally clear
T otallyappropriate
Inappropriate
ExcellentVery poor
T otallyeffective
T otallyineffective
Veryenthusiastic
Veryunenthusiastic
Veryencouraging
N otencouraging
ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average A boveaverage Good
S tronglyagree
S tronglydisagree
Disagree S om ew hatdisagree
S om ew hatagree
Agree
M oduleappraisalenablesstudentstoform ally expresstheiropinionoftheirlearning experienceatm odulelevel. Itseekstoinform staffaboutstudents'view s,sothatm odulequality m ay beenhanced. M odulequestionnairescom plem entbothform al(e.g.S S L Cs,S tudentR epresentatives)andinform alfeedbackm echanism susedatW BS . M oreinform ationonhow yourfeedbackisusedcanbefoundinyouronlinestudentHandbook.S tudentsareencouragedtobefrankandconstructivew ithrespecttotheircom m ents.
1272373713
Ability topresentideasandconcepts
4 [ ]
S peedandpaceofthesessions
Know ledgeofthesubjectm atter
Ability todealw ithquestions
Enthusiasm forthesubject
Ability toencouragecriticalthinking
How w ouldyou ratethislecturer,overall?
1 2 3 4 5 6T otally unclear T otally clear
T otallyappropriate
Inappropriate
ExcellentVery poor
T otallyeffective
T otallyineffective
Veryenthusiastic
Veryunenthusiastic
Veryencouraging
N otencouraging
ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average Aboveaverage Good
Ability topresentideasandconcepts
2 [ ]
S peedandpaceofthesessions
Know ledgeofthesubjectm atter
Ability todealw ithquestions
Enthusiasm forthesubject
Ability toencouragecriticalthinking
How w ouldyou ratethislecturer,overall?
1 2 3 4 5 6T otally unclear T otally clear
T otallyappropriate
Inappropriate
ExcellentVery poor
T otallyeffective
T otallyineffective
Veryenthusiastic
Veryunenthusiastic
Veryencouraging
N otencouraging
ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average A boveaverage Good
Ability topresentideasandconcepts
3 [ ]
S peedandpaceofthesessions
Know ledgeofthesubjectm atter
Ability todealw ithquestions
Enthusiasm forthesubject
Ability toencouragecriticalthinking
How w ouldyou ratethislecturer,overall?
1 2 3 4 5 6T otally unclear T otally clear
T otallyappropriate
Inappropriate
ExcellentVery poor
T otallyeffective
T otallyineffective
Veryenthusiastic
Veryunenthusiastic
Veryencouraging
N otencouraging
ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average A boveaverage Good
2810373712
Ability topresentideasandconcepts
5[ ]
S peedandpaceofthesessions
Know ledgeofthesubjectm atter
Ability todealw ithquestions
Enthusiasm forthesubject
Ability toencouragecriticalthinking
How w ouldyou ratethislecturer,overall?
1 2 3 4 5 6T otally unclear T otally clear
T otallyappropriate
Inappropriate
ExcellentVery poor
T otallyeffective
T otallyineffective
Veryenthusiastic
Veryunenthusiastic
Veryencouraging
N otencouraging
ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average A boveaverage Good
Ability topresentideasandconcepts
6[ ]
S peedandpaceofthesessions
Know ledgeofthesubjectm atter
Ability todealw ithquestions
Enthusiasm forthesubject
Ability toencouragecriticalthinking
How w ouldyou ratethislecturer,overall?
1 2 3 4 5 6T otally unclear T otally clear
T otallyappropriate
Inappropriate
ExcellentVery poor
T otallyeffective
T otallyineffective
Veryenthusiastic
Veryunenthusiastic
Veryencouraging
N otencouraging
ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average A boveaverage Good
Ability topresentideasandconcepts
7[ ]
S peedandpaceofthesessions
Know ledgeofthesubjectm atter
Ability todealw ithquestions
Enthusiasm forthesubject
Ability toencouragecriticalthinking
How w ouldyou ratethislecturer,overall?
1 2 3 4 5 6T otally unclear T otally clear
T otallyappropriate
Inappropriate
ExcellentVery poor
T otallyeffective
T otallyineffective
Veryenthusiastic
Veryunenthusiastic
Veryencouraging
N otencouraging
ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average A boveaverage Good
0735373716
Ability topresentideasandconcepts
8[ ]
S peedandpaceofthesessions
Know ledgeofthesubjectm atter
Ability todealw ithquestions
Enthusiasm forthesubject
Ability toencouragecriticalthinking
How w ouldyou ratethislecturer,overall?
1 2 3 4 5 6T otally unclear T otally clear
T otallyappropriate
Inappropriate
ExcellentVery poor
T otallyeffective
T otallyineffective
Veryenthusiastic
Veryunenthusiastic
Veryencouraging
N otencouraging
ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average Aboveaverage Good
Ability topresentideasandconcepts
9 [ ]
S peedandpaceofthesessions
Know ledgeofthesubjectm atter
Ability todealw ithquestions
Enthusiasm forthesubject
Ability toencouragecriticalthinking
How w ouldyou ratethislecturer,overall?
1 2 3 4 5 6T otally unclear T otally clear
T otallyappropriate
Inappropriate
ExcellentVery poor
T otallyeffective
T otallyineffective
Veryenthusiastic
Veryunenthusiastic
Veryencouraging
N otencouraging
ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average A boveaverage Good
Ability topresentideasandconcepts
10 [ ]
S peedandpaceofthesessions
Know ledgeofthesubjectm atter
Ability todealw ithquestions
Enthusiasm forthesubject
Ability toencouragecriticalthinking
How w ouldyou ratethislecturer,overall?
1 2 3 4 5 6T otally unclear T otally clear
T otallyappropriate
Inappropriate
ExcellentVery poor
T otallyeffective
T otallyineffective
Veryenthusiastic
Veryunenthusiastic
Veryencouraging
N otencouraging
ExcellentVery poor P oor Below average A boveaverage Good
0242373719
Warwick Business School
Module code: Year: 2015 / 2016
Masters Programmes Module Feedback
No. of forms returned: 19Degree course:
Module title:
Strongly disagree
Disagree Somewhat disagree
Somewhat agree
Agree
Totally
Strongly agree
Overall I would rate this module highly 7 5.28920 00
7
6
8
12
12
7
6
5.26
5.166
9
75
10
64
5.11000The course materials and resources helped with understanding
3
5.00
5.21
5.47
5.58
5.16
7
8
4
6
9
6
2
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
00
10
00
00
10
000
00
1
Not at all
Module Mean5432
The way the module was delivered encouraged me to participate
The module workload was appropriate to the module objectives
The material covered was pitched at a suitable level
The module provided a stimulating learning experience
Overall, this module met my expectations
The module succeeded in its objectives
The module aims were clear 0
Ability to present ideas and concept
Speed and pace of the sessions
2 3 4 5 Mean1
Knowledge of the subject matter
Ability to deal with questions
0
00 2 4 5.58
0
10 1 6 5.42
0
00 2 5 5.53
0
00 1 4 5.68
(1) = Totally unclear . . . . (6) = Totally clear
Enthusiasm for the subject
Ability to encourage critical thinking
Rate the lecturer overall
0 00 0 4 5.79
0 00 2 4 5.58
0 00 0 5 5.74
13
11
12
14
15
13
14
Lecturer 1
6
(1) = Inappropriate . . . . (6) = Totally appropriate
(1) = Very poor . . . . (6) = Excellent
(1) = Totally ineffective . . . . (6) = Totally effective
(1) = Very unenthusiastic . . . (6) = Very enthusiastic
(1) = Not encouraging . . . . (6) = Very encouraging
Poor Below average
Above average
GoodVery poor Excellent
Page 1
Ability to present ideas and concept
Speed and pace of the sessions
2 3 4 5 Mean1
Knowledge of the subject matter
Ability to deal with questions
0
00 1 9 5.39
0
10 1 9 5.22
0
00 2 6 5.44
0
10 2 5 5.33
(1) = Totally unclear . . . . (6) = Totally clear
Enthusiasm for the subject
Ability to encourage critical thinking
Rate the lecturer overall
0 00 2 5 5.50
0 00 3 6 5.33
0 00 2 5 5.50
8
7
10
10
11
9
11
Lecturer 2
6
(1) = Inappropriate . . . . (6) = Totally appropriate
(1) = Very poor . . . . (6) = Excellent
(1) = Totally ineffective . . . . (6) = Totally effective
(1) = Very unenthusiastic . . . (6) = Very enthusiastic
(1) = Not encouraging . . . . (6) = Very encouraging
Poor Below average
Above average
GoodVery poor Excellent
Ability to present ideas and concept
Speed and pace of the sessions
2 3 4 5 Mean1
Knowledge of the subject matter
Ability to deal with questions
0
00 1 5 5.61
0
00 2 4 5.56
0
00 0 6 5.67
0
00 0 6 5.67
(1) = Totally unclear . . . . (6) = Totally clear
Enthusiasm for the subject
Ability to encourage critical thinking
Rate the lecturer overall
0 00 0 5 5.72
0 00 1 7 5.50
0 00 0 7 5.61
12
12
12
12
13
10
11
Lecturer 3
6
(1) = Inappropriate . . . . (6) = Totally appropriate
(1) = Very poor . . . . (6) = Excellent
(1) = Totally ineffective . . . . (6) = Totally effective
(1) = Very unenthusiastic . . . (6) = Very enthusiastic
(1) = Not encouraging . . . . (6) = Very encouraging
Poor Below average
Above average
GoodVery poor Excellent
Page 2
S ession ratings: P leas e markwitha c ros s within appropriate box to ind ic ate you ropinion ofeac hs es s ion:
M od u le C od e: D ate ofM od u le:
M asters and C P DW arwic kM ed ic alS c hool
M od u le S tu d entEvalu ation Q u estionnaire
Nam e ofM od u le:
W e are interes ted in you rviews ofthis mod u le and wou ld be gratefu lifyou wou ld c omplete eac hs ec tion ofthis s hortqu es tionnaire.
1 .
2 .
3.
4.
5.
6.
7 .
8 .
9.
10 .
11 .
12 .
13.
14.
15.
16.
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
Title of SessionExcellent Good Satisfactory P oor Excellent Good Satisfactory P oor
M O D UL E C O NTENT TEA C H ING Q UA L ITY
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
1 7 .
1 8 .
19.
20 .
21 .
P TO
8242246198
24.
25.
26.
2 7 .
2 8 .
29.
30 .
31 .
32 .
33.
34.
35.
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
Title of SessionExcellent Good Satisfactory P oor Excellent Good Satisfactory P oor
M O D UL E C O NTENT TEA C H ING Q UA L ITY
P leas e markone ans werforeac hq u es tion,by plac inga c ros s in the relevantbox:
M od u le Virtu alL earning Environm ent(VL E):
Very eas y Eas y S atis fac tory D iffic u lt Very D iffic u ltH ow eas y was itto find VL E information on the web?
H ow wou ld you rate the overallqu ality ofmaterialavailable via the VL E pages ?
Exc ellent Good S atis fac tory P oor Very P oor
D o you thinkthatthe learningres ou rc es available onthe VL E pages enhanc ed you rlearningon thismod u le?
D efinitely P robably N ots u re M aybe N o
O verallopinions:
H ow wou ld you rate the overallqu ality ofteac hingand learningd u ringthis mod u le?
D o you thinkyou rprac tic e willc hange as a res u ltofthis mod u le?
Exc ellent Good S atis fac tory P oor Very P oor
D o you thinkthatthe mod u le learningobjec tives areappropriate?
D efinitely P robably N ots u re Unlikely N o
W ou ld you rec ommend this mod u le? Yes N o
Very appropriate A ppropriate N ots u re Slightlyinappropriate
Inappropriate
Yes N oD o you thinkthatthe mod u le learningobjec tiveswere met?
4 3 2 1 4 3 2 123.
22 . 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1
7493246195
Master and CPDWarwick Medical School
Module Evaluation Questionnaire Results
Number of Forms Returned: 18
Number of students on course:
Name of Module
Module Code Date of Module:
Module Content
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Mean NRespSession Name
4 12 1 0 3.18 17IntroductiontotheM oduleandtheAssignm ent
6 11 1 0 3.28 18IntroductiontoKey ConceptsinAssessm ent1
6 12 0 0 3.33 18IntroductiontoKey ConceptsinAssessm ent2
12 5 1 0 3.61 18Validity
9 8 0 0 3.53 17Blueprinting
5 10 2 0 3.18 17R eliability
11 7 0 0 3.61 18S tandardS etting
12 6 0 0 3.67 18S tandardS ettingW orkshop
8 9 1 0 3.39 18ApproachestoO bservedClinicalP ractice
11 6 0 0 3.65 17DesigningItem sforO bservedClinicalP ractice
6 10 1 1 3.17 18ApproachestoW orkplaceBasedAssessm ent
4 6 3 5 2.50 18Academ icw riting
5 7 6 0 2.94 18Assessm entthroughP ortfolio
5 9 4 0 3.06 18Assessm entforS election
12 6 0 0 3.67 18DesigningW rittenT estItem s
9 8 0 0 3.53 17ApproachestoW rittenAssessm ent
P age1 of4
Module Teaching
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Mean NRespSession Name
6 11 1 0 3.28 18IntroductiontotheM oduleandtheAssignm ent
8 9 1 0 3.39 18IntroductiontoKey ConceptsinAssessm ent1
8 10 0 0 3.44 18IntroductiontoKey ConceptsinAssessm ent2
13 4 1 0 3.67 18Validity
8 10 0 0 3.44 18Blueprinting
6 11 1 0 3.28 18R eliability
11 7 0 0 3.61 18S tandardS etting
14 4 0 0 3.78 18S tandardS ettingW orkshop
9 8 0 1 3.39 18ApproachestoO bservedClinicalP ractice
12 5 0 0 3.71 17DesigningItem sforO bservedClinicalP ractice
7 9 2 0 3.28 18ApproachestoW orkplaceBasedAssessm ent
1 1 8 8 1.72 18Academ icw riting
6 8 4 0 3.11 18Assessm entthroughP ortfolio
7 9 2 0 3.28 18Assessm entforS election
13 5 0 0 3.72 18DesigningW rittenT estItem s
9 8 0 0 3.53 17ApproachestoW rittenAssessm ent
1 4 5 3 2.23 13Assignm entP reparation
7 5 4 0 3.19 16Assignm entW orkshop
3 4 1 0 3.25 8FinalIssues
1 3 7 3 2.14 14Assignm entP reparation
7 3 6 0 3.06 16Assignm entW orkshop
3 5 1 0 3.22 9FinalIssues
P age2 of4
0
34
5
Module Virtual Learning Environment (VLE):
0
34
5
How easy was it to find VLE information on the web?
0
3
4
5
How would you rate the overall quality of materialavailable via the VLE pages?
Do you think that the learning resources available onthe VLE pages enhanced your learning on this module?
0
Yes
Would you recommend this module?
0
3
4
5
How would you rate the overall quality of teaching andlearning?
(5) Very easy 2
(4) Easy 8
(3) Satisfactory 5
(2) Difficult 0
(1) Very Difficult 0
(0) Did not answer 3
(5) Excellent 1
(4) Good 10
(3) Satisfactory 4
(2) Poor 0
(1) Very Poor 0
(0) Did not answer 3
(5) Definitely 1
(4) Probably 9
(3) Not sure 5
(2) Maybe 0
(1) No 0
(0) Did not answer 3
Yes 16
No 0
(0) Did not answer 2
(5) Excellent 3
(4) Good 12
(3) Satisfactory 1
(2) Poor 0
(1) Very Poor 0
(0) Did not answer 2
Overall opinions:
P age3 of4
0
4
5
0
4
5
Do you think that the module learning objectives areappropriate?
0
Yes
Do you think that the module learning objectives weremet?
(5) Definitely 7
(4) Probably 9
(3) Not sure 0
(2) Unlikely 0
(1) No 0
(0) Did not answer 2
Yes 15
No 0
(0) Did not answer 3
Do you think your practice will change as a result of thismodule?
(5) Definitely 5
(4) Probably 11
(3) Not sure 0
(2) Unlikely 0
(1) No 0
(0) Did not answer 2
P age4 of4