Part 1: Current feedback system<\/em><\/p>\n Figure 1.1: Percentage of participants that complete the module feedback surveys<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Figure 1.2: Usefulness of access to feedback results<\/p><\/div>\n As shown in figure 1.2, 80% of students consider\u00a0access 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).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Figure 1.3: Impact of feedback on module re-shaping decisions<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Part 2: Factors of module choices<\/em><\/p>\n Figure 2.1: Information sources about modules<\/p><\/div>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Figure 2.2: Availability of information about module selection factors<\/p><\/div>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Figure 2.3: Certainty of module choice<\/p><\/div>\n 70% of participants think their module choices were not very well-informed, due to the nature of information currently provided at them.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Figure 2.4: Reluctance to express true opinion<\/p><\/div>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Figure 2.5: Frequency of use of existing solutions<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Part 3: Opinions on new platform<\/em><\/p>\n Figure 3.1: Usefulness of the suggested project<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Figure 3.2: Participation rate in the proposed platform<\/p><\/div>\n As shown in figure 3.2, all of the participants are intending\u00a0some 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Figure 3.3: Discussion interest in such a platform<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Figure 3.4: Academic participation and user uneasiness<\/p><\/div>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n![\"Percentage](\"http:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/g10\/files\/2015\/04\/image001.png\")
<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>