This research project was undertaken by Jesper Hansen (Arena Lead) and Abbi Shaw (Faculty Learning Technology Lead) in partnership with three student researchers (from English, Arts & Sciences, and Information Studies).
It sought to understand students’ experience of, and opinions on, the newly-required Continuous Module Dialogue exercise, under which it was suggested that academics would, at module level, consult students three times per term with a ‘light touch’ to ensure that students could, in the first instance, access their resources, and that, in the longer run, students felt that their voice was able to be heard.
A survey was conducted, to which 113 students from across the Faculty responded, and three focus groups were subsequently held.
Initial findings from the survey are outlined in this summary, shared amongst the Faculty in December 2022: link to access the Initial Findings Report.
The second part of the research generated a final summary, and a brief series of recommendations for carrying out CMD, accompanied by the rationale arising from the research. These were:
Use a mix of open-ended and closed questions (scales, yes/no).
Students had different preferences and as such this research does not suggest any one model as the perfect one. However, students overall agreed that a mix of open and closed questions was to be preferred. There was a general dislike for those evaluations that solely used closed questions.
Some students mentioned that questions regarding tutors’ teaching style should be incorporated in feedback forms, so students can give constructive feedback when they are not happy with the way teaching is structured and organised.
Do not share results of surveys/Mentimeter live on screen in the room.
Some students did not like it when survey results were shown on screen, and this made them not want to engage. They reported finding it uncomfortable and disconcerting, and expressed concern that their responses could be identified by others in the class. Many students did appreciate in-person opportunities to give feedback (as opposed to only Moodle surveys, for instance). Several mentioned academics talking through responses (which were not displayed on screen as they came in) as a positive and immediately rewarding experience of CMD.
Expectations and location
Where CMD is done asynchronously, students stress that surveys should be easy to find. Furthermore, where CMD is carried out across departments, the placement of these should be consistent, e.g. in the same, clearly-labelled section of a Moodle site.
Student expectations of the process should be explicitly aligned with academic understanding and expectations. Where students understand the purpose and value of the feedback (including understanding what it is not for) they are far more inclined to participate.
The full text of this second summary of our research can be read here: link to focus group findings and CMD recommendations.