In order to confirm interest in the suggested platform, as well as any inefficiencies of the outlets already out there by the University of Southampton, we have conducted an online survey.
The survey was introduced by a short text, informing the participants on what the survey’s goals where, which aspects of module feedback they would be asked to give their opinions on, as well as a brief description of the suggested project and its aims.
The questions were, therefore, divided into three different parts. Questions in part one aimed to discover opinions and satisfaction about the official module feedback forms that the University provides. Users were asked to rate both its usefulness and its effectiveness on module planning. Part two was designed to discover which factors are considered when students select an optional module. Some of those factors are informed by the module feedback forms (such as Coursework style or Student satisfaction, for example), while others were additional (such as the reputation of the lecturer). Participants were given the option to include any additional factors in an ‘Other:’ free text field. Finally part three was investigating interest in the suggested platform (‘Lessonplan 2.0’) and opinions on its features and ambitions.
The results of the survey re-affirmed our assumptions about the deficiencies of the current model and the need for an alternative solution. In summary, the survey highlighted that while half of the students are willing to provide feedback to the University, the majority of them would like some access to the results and does not trust that it has any significant impact on module shaping. All of the participants also agree that ‘Lessonplan’ would be a valuable addition, who could assist them in choosing optional modules, meeting the module requirements and co-ordinating better with their fellow classmates.
Commentary on selected results can be found below. Note that this survey was conducted in a small scale, on a very short time and as such its response rate was low (the results published below represent a collection of 10 responses). As such, interpretation of these results is mainly considered a market trend which can inform our future design decisions for the platform and not as concrete evidence of the opinion of the majority of the student population.
Analysis of the results
Part 1: Current feedback system
Figure 1.1: Percentage of participants that complete the module feedback surveys
Figure 1.2: Usefulness of access to feedback results
As shown in figure 1.2, 80% of students consider access to the results of the module feedback surveys to be useful, whereas 90% are skeptical about their impact on course planning (Figure 1.3 below).
Figure 1.3: Impact of feedback on module re-shaping decisions
Part 2: Factors of module choices
Figure 2.1: Information sources about modules
80% of students inform their choices about their modules from the University’s Module Overview pages. Equally, 80% of them rely on fellow students to discover more information about a module. It is this source of information which is currently unrepresented in the University webpages and which ‘Lessonplan’ is aiming towards.
Figure 2.2: Availability of information about module selection factors
Interestingly, as shown in figure 2.2, 60% of the participants have difficulties finding out about the type of assessment in a module (even though this information is represented in the Module Overview webpages). 70% of them have difficulty finding out about student satisfaction from a module, which is currently asked about in the Module Feedback forms, but the results are not publicly accessible.
Figure 2.3: Certainty of module choice
70% of participants think their module choices were not very well-informed, due to the nature of information currently provided at them.
Figure 2.4: Reluctance to express true opinion
The question in figure 2.4 was put in place to solve a designing/modeling dilemma: In our proposed system, publicly shown University usernames would prohibit bad behaviours online. Instead though, it was decided to go with aliases (nicknames) for the users to allow for freedom of expression. 90% of the participants seem to agree with this choice, highlighting that identification of students could censor their true opinion.
Figure 2.5: Frequency of use of existing solutions
Part 3: Opinions on new platform
Figure 3.1: Usefulness of the suggested project
Figure 3.2: Participation rate in the proposed platform
As shown in figure 3.2, all of the participants are intending some level of participation in a platform like ‘Lessonplan’. Whether that is because of its online, student-driven or interactive nature remains to be seen in a subsequent study.
Figure 3.3: Discussion interest in such a platform
Figure 3.4: Academic participation and user uneasiness
As shown in figure 3.4, 70% of the participants consider the participation of academic staff in ‘Lessonplan’ valuable at some level. In conjunction with their opinions on anonymity (figure 2.4), it was decided that lecturers will be able to join and participate in ‘Lessonplan’, but their academic position would always be indicated in their posts.
Figure 3.5: Impact of new platform on class co-ordination
Figure 3.6: Impact of new platform on module choices