Submission to: VCE
TITLE Course Experience Survey (CES), Semester 2 2009: Participation and Outcomes.
The Course Experience Survey (CES) is the University wide survey of student views on their learning experience within individual courses and has been administered with higher education and TAFE versions each semester since 2005. In addition to being an important tool in the collection and understanding of student feedback around teaching and learning issues data from the CES contributes to staff promotion applications.
BACKGROUND Course level reports are provided to academic and teaching staff as well as University staff responsible for monitoring and improving the quality of the RMIT student learning environment. In addition a summary report is prepared for the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive each semester. This report is intended to summarize trends and issues emerging from the gathered student feedback and details participation rates in the survey by the RMIT organization. The report also provides proposed actions to improve efficiency of administration and use of the CES instrument.
In 2009, 73% of all HE courses (excluding research) were surveyed with the CES and students from 1035 TAFE courses were surveyed. In total 4131 Higher Education course reports and 1394 TAFE course reports were prepared and distributed to academic and teaching staff.
Across all HE courses there was a three percent improvement between Semester 2 2008 and Semester 2, 2009 in the Good Teaching Scale (GTS) and 2.6% in the Overall Satisfaction Index (OSI). TAFE student feedback has remained largely unchanged at high levels on the GTS and the OSI. SUMMARY Key areas for improvement remain, as in previous reports, the amount of comment on work students received from staff and the use of computer based and online teaching materials.
A review of the student feedback policy, the CES instruments, reporting of data and the surveys is presently being undertaken. Immediate recommended improvements include changes to online administration of the CES, and the method used to calculate survey participation rates. An options paper is being developed for presentation to the DVC(A).
LINKAGES TO STRATEGIC Academic Plan Learning and Teaching Strategy DOCUMENTS AND POLICIES RESOURCE N/A IMPLICATIONS RISK CES findings assist Schools to address risk related to student satisfaction. IMPLICATIONS
IMPACT N/A
RESPONSIBILITY AND Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) COMMUNICATION
ATTACHMENTS N/A
RECOMMENDATION That VCE note the report.
Submitted by: Committee outcome:
Name: Professor Julianne Reid [Completed by committee secretary]
Title: Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Date:
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 Course Experience Survey (CES) Semester 2, 2009 Participation and Outcomes
Survey Services Centre Policy & Planning Group February 2010
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 1. Overview
Course Experience Survey (CES) outcomes for Semester 2 2009 show continuing high levels of satisfaction in students’ reported perceptions on the key indicators of good teaching and overall satisfaction in both the HE and TAFE sectors.
The CES instruments and administration, as well as the Student Feedback Policy underpinning the CES, are currently being reviewed. An options paper is under development for discussion.
2. Survey Findings
2.1 Higher Education
On the key statement of “Overall I am satisfied with the quality of this course” or Overall Satisfaction Index (OSI), RMIT HE students continue to report high and increasing levels of agreement. In Semester 2 2009 72.6% reported either agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement on satisfaction compared with 70% for the corresponding Semester in 2008 and 68% in Semester 2 2007.
On the items comprising the Good Teaching Scale (GTS) Higher Education students’ views of their courses have shown a continual improvement with each previous comparable Semester since the commencement of the survey in 2006. The GTS outcome for Semester 2 2009 has risen 3% to 67.3 compared to Semester 2 2008 and increased 12% compared with 2006.
The items within the GTS that the University is rated the most highly by its HE students are-: “The teaching staff work hard to make this course interesting” and, “The teaching staff are extremely good at explaining things.” The GTS item that students are least likely to agree with is “The staff put a lot of time into commenting on my work”. The time spent commenting on work is also the lowest rated item of all 21 questions on the CES. This finding was the same for previous semesters and gives a clear direction for strategies focused on improving the overall GTS score.
Looking at all items on the survey the three most positive responses, in order, from HE students were on:-
Assessment tasks in this course require me to demonstrate what I am learning. The learning objectives in this course are clear to me. The amount of work required in this course is about right.
Consistent with last Semester the items on the questionnaire that HE students rate their courses most poorly on are:-
The staff put a lot of time into commenting on my work. There is effective use of other computer-based teaching materials in this course. The web-based (online) materials for this course are effective in assisting my learning.
2.2 TAFE
TAFE students reported overall satisfaction with the quality of their courses has remained at a high and stable level with 71% of respondents strongly agreeing or agreeing with this measure in both Semester 2 2008 and 2009. Since Semester 2, 2007 to 2009 the percentage agreement on this overarching question has improved seven percent.
The Good Teaching Scale outcome for TAFE has improved very marginally to 77% compared with Semester 2, 2008. The questions with the highest contribution to the TAFE GTS were: - “My instructors treat me with respect” and “My instructors provide opportunities to ask questions”.
Questions with the lowest contribution to the TAFE GTS outcome were:-
My instructors make the course as interesting as possible My instructors understand my learning needs
In common with Semester 1, RMIT TAFE students rate the following aspects of their experience with teaching staff the highest of all questions on the survey:-
My instructors treat me with respect.
2
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 My instructors provide opportunities to ask questions. My instructors have a good knowledge of current workplace skills.
The three most poorly performed areas in the view of TAFE students are:-
The web-based (online) materials for this course are effective in assisting my learning. There is effective use of other computer-based teaching materials in this course. I enjoy doing the work for this course.
2.3 College Comparisons
Comparing RMIT’s three Colleges, Design and Social Context (DSC) continues to receive higher ratings by students on the GTS and the OSI. Seventy five percent of the survey responses from students in this College report overall satisfaction with quality and 71% agree with the items on the GTS. Similarly in TAFE DSC students rate their courses with the highest GTS (78%) and 73% are satisfied with course quality.
Looking at each item of the CES by College shows that Business is rated more poorly on all items compared with total University responses. Notably Business students are eight percent less likely to agree with the statement: - “I enjoy doing the work for this course.”
The College of SEH continues a clear advantage compared to overall RMIT responses on facilities and online resources with the following items showing a 5% greater agreement than the total University responses:-
The facilities (such as classrooms, lecture theatres, studios, labs) are adequate for this course. There is effective use of other computer-based teaching materials in this course. The web-based (online) materials for this course are effective in assisting my learning.
Alternatively SEH students rate their course teaching staff more poorly on the feedback provided with the following items six and five percent under the average:-
The staff put a lot of time into commenting on my work. The teaching staff normally give me helpful feedback on how I am going in this course.
Survey data for the DSC shows the opposite pattern to SEH. That is to say, the items DSC outperforms most against the rest of the University – comment and feedback are the items SEH does least well. Conversely the SEH’s best areas – facilities and online and computer based materials resources - are the items the DSC does most poorly.
Comparing Schools in HE it was notable that Creative Media had a nine percent decrease in GTS ratings since Semester 2 2008. The School of Property Construction and Project Management on the other hand improved the GTS in that period by a massive 14%. The School of Art received the highest GTS student ratings.
TAFE students in DSC rate their courses equal or higher on all other items of the CES with the exception of:-
The web-based (online) materials for this course are effective in assisting my learning. There is effective use of other computer-based teaching materials in this course. The facilities (such as classrooms, lecture theatres, studios, labs) are adequate for this course.
Conversely, Business TAFE students responded with less agreement to all items than the overall student body, apart from the same three items about online materials and computer based materials and the item: - “The course is well organized”.
SEH TAFE students rate their courses more poorly than all students on all items with the very marginal exceptions of enjoying the work for the course and that learning resources are useful.
2.4 Item Improvements
Comparing Semester 2 HE 2009 with the corresponding Semester in 2008 the following items have shown the greatest improvement:-
The staff make a real effort to understand difficulties I might be having with my work.
3
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 The teaching staff normally give me helpful feedback on how I am going in this course. The staff put a lot of time into commenting on my work.
In the TAFE sector the areas of greatest improvement, both by two percent, in the year were:-
My instructors have a good knowledge of current workplace skills. The learning objectives in this course are clear to me.
2.5 Vietnam CES Outcomes
Reports were generated for 123 courses from Semester 2 in Vietnam from 12 Schools. An analysis of total Vietnam student responses compared with total HE responses for all students from all other campus locations shows that these students as a group were significantly less satisfied (9.6%) with the overall quality of their courses but reported the same levels of good teaching in their courses. Vietnam students were less satisfied with the amount of work required in the course, facilities and resources, class participation and assessment tasks.
3. CES Administration Issues
3.1 Review of the CES
The Policy and Planning Group have commenced a review of the student feedback policy, the CES instrument, reporting of data and the survey’s administration. A paper is currently being drafted to assist the Project Reference Group with options and recommendations. It is anticipated that the recommendations from this project will be implemented in the second semester of 2010 or the following Semester.
3.2 Provision of student qualitative data and return of hard copy forms
The current version of the CES contains two open ended items asking about what students regarded as the best aspects of their course and what could be improved. The SSC is not resourced to undertake the massive task of keying these student comments and include them as part of its standard reporting process. Up until the past Semester the practice has been that once the forms have been scanned and a quantitative report of outcomes sent the original forms have been returned to the teaching staff so they are able to read the comments.
In Semester 2 the SSC continued to return the original forms to staff but also provide a zipped file of the scanned images so that staff were able to read the forms in soft copy. These zipped files were then also made available to other staff under the provisions of the Student Feedback Policy, such as Heads of School. This improvement is allowing for a complete electronic archiving of all student feedback.
In Semester 1 of 2010 the SSC will continue to provide zipped image files together with the standard quantitative report but will retain the original paper forms in archive for a year. Academic and teaching staff will be able to request the hard copy forms if they wish by return email.
3.3 Online CES administration
During the latter stages of Semester 2 2009 the SSC was able to successfully trial with ITS the new online survey platform called Blue and integrate outcomes with existing reporting methods. The intention in the forthcoming Semester is to extend the use of Blue to all online surveying instead of the cumbersome RMIT publishing system. Early analysis of response rates suggests that, presumably because of the more personalized nature of presentation in Blue, the new platform may gain greater data representativeness than has previously been available.
3.4 Calculation of survey participation rates
Previously the SSC has reported HE participation rates by determining the number of non research courses offered in a given Semester and calculating a percentage of courses where surveys are returned for processing. However, the Student Feedback Policy only requires that courses are surveyed once a year and not each time they are offered. Consequently where a School has repeated a course in the second semester of the year, but only surveyed students in that course in first Semester, the participation rate for that School for the second semester would be underestimated. Commencing in this report participation rates are calculated for the calendar year and reflect what percentage of unique courses, which do not have a
4
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 research career or are external outbound – both of which are not suitable for the CES – are surveyed at any time in the year.
5
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 3.5 Survey participation in TAFE
The number of courses and competencies surveyed has reduced very significantly in TAFE during 2009. However there have been no substantial changes to the administration of the TAFE CES during the year so it is uncertain what the cause may be. The SSC will meet individually will all School Student Feedback Coordinators to discuss this issue, determine the reasons and recommend whatever changes to procedure will assist to lift the TAFE participation rate in the CES.
4 Participation in the CES
TABLE 1. PARTICIPATION BY COLLEGE – HIGHER EDUCATION Percentage of non research courses surveyed Total 2009 Business 69.3 Design and Social Context 74.2 Science, Engineering and Health 73.1 Higher Education 72.9
TABLE 2. PARTICIPATION BY COLLEGE – TAFE No of courses/competencies surveyed Total 2008 Total 2009 Business 438 245 Design and Social Context 469 504 Science, Engineering and Health 401 286 TAFE 1308 1035
Figure 1. Trend of HE & TAFE Forms Processed 2007 - 2009
70,000 61,546 60,000 49,061 50,000 45,803 d
e 40,734 40,450 n
n 40,000 a 32,790 c S 30,000 s m
r 18,617
o 20,000 F 13,677 13,630 7,799 10,147 10,000 7,342
0 S e m 1 , 2 0 0 7 S e m 2 , 2 0 0 7 S e m 1 , 2 0 0 8 S e m 2 , 2 0 0 8 S e m 1 , 2 0 0 9 S e m 2 , 2 0 0 9
H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n Semester T A F E
6
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 TABLE 3. PARTICIPATION BY SCHOOL – HIGHER EDUCATION No. and percentage of non-research courses surveyed No. of courses Surveyable % School surveyed courses surveyed Electrical and Computer Engineering 115 126 91.3 Applied Communication 208 239 87.0 Creative Media 109 128 85.2 Civil, Environmental and Chemical Engineering 59 70 84.3 Architecture and Design 136 164 82.9 Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences 136 167 81.4 Accounting and Law 82 101 81.2 Fashion and Textiles 56 69 81.2 Global Studies, Social Science and Planning 246 307 80.1 Applied Sciences 178 229 77.7 Medical Sciences 161 213 75.6 Graduate School of Business 26 35 74.3 Computer Science and Information Technology 114 156 73.1 Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering 154 211 73.0 Property, Construction and Project Management 64 91 70.3 Economics, Finance and Marketing 105 151 69.5 Management 91 133 68.4 Business TAFE* 4 6 66.7 Engineering (TAFE)* 24 37 64.9 Art 121 198 61.1 Business Information Technology 83 138 60.1 Health Sciences 242 404 59.9 Life and Physical Sciences 10 19 52.6 Education 74 162 45.7 Design TAFE* 4 14 28.6 Total 2602 3568 72.9 * courses from Associate Degrees using HE CES forms
TABLE 4. PARTICIPATION BY SCHOOL – TAFE* No. of courses/competencies surveyed No. No. School surveyed surveyed 2008 2009 Business TAFE School 438 245 Infrastructure, Electrotechnology and Building Services 54 nil Life and Physical Sciences 166 105 Creative Media 83 108 Fashion and Textiles 100 119 Education 76 53 Design (TAFE) 107 86 Global Studies, Social Science and Planning 67 109 Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering 65 nil International Centre for Graphic Technology 9 nil Engineering (TAFE)* 116 181 Art 27 29 Total 1,308 1,035 *competency numbers reported rather than percentages
7
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 5 Good Teaching Scale (GTS) Rankings and Item Analysis
The Good Teaching Scale (GTS) is made up of the following questions:-
The teaching staff in this course motivate me to do my best work. The staff put a lot of time into commenting on my work. The staff made a real effort to understand difficulties I might be having with my work. The teaching staff normally gave me helpful feedback on how I am going in this course. The teaching staff are extremely good at explaining things. The teaching staff work hard to make this course interesting.
The GTS percent agreement is calculated by adding the number of students that “agree” or “strongly agree” with these items as a percentage of all student responses so the GTS ranges from a low of 0 to 100 percent.
TABLE 5. GTS OUTCOMES FOR RMIT – HIGHER EDUCATION and TAFE (percent agreement)
Sem 1, Sem 2, Sem 1, Sem 2, Sem 1, Sem 2, 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 Higher Education 57.2 61.2 60.0 64.3 62.5 67.3 TAFE 70.5 70.2 73.8 76.3 76.5 76.9
Figure 2. Good Teaching Scale (GTS) 2007 - 2009
90.0
80.0
70.0
S e m 1 , 2 0 0 7
60.0 S e m 2 , 2 0 0 7
S e m 1 , 2 0 0 8 t n
e 50.0 S e m 2 , 2 0 0 8 m
e S e m 1 , 2 0 0 9 e r S e m 2 , 2 0 0 9 g 40.0 a
-
% 30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0 Higher Education TAFE
8
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 TABLE 6. OVERALL SATISFACTION INDEX (OSI) OUTCOMES – HIGHER EDUCATION and TAFE (percent agreement)
Sem 1, Sem 2, Sem 1, Sem 2, Sem 1, Sem 2, 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 Higher Education 65.0 68.0 67.2 70.0 69.0 72.6 TAFE 65.0 64.0 69.0 71.2 72.1 71.0
Figure 3. Overall Satisfaction Index (OSI) 2007 - 2009 74.0
72.0
70.0
S e m 1 , 2 0 0 7
t 68.0
n S e m 2 , 2 0 0 7 e
m S e m 1 , 2 0 0 8 e e
r 66.0 S e m 2 , 2 0 0 8 g a
S e m 1 , 2 0 0 9 -
% 64.0 S e m 2 , 2 0 0 9
62.0
60.0
58.0 Higher Education TAFE
9
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 TABLE 7. GTS RANKING BY COLLEGE – HIGHER EDUCATION (percent agreement)
Sem 1, Sem 2, Sem 1, Sem 2, Sem 1, Sem 2, 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 Business 51.5 57.1 57.9 59.9 58.4 65.0 Design and Social Context 63.7 67.1 65.6 69.0 69.4 71.4 Science, Engineering and 54.8 57.8 56.6 61.9 61.1 64.3 Health Total RMIT 57.2 61.2 60.0 64.3 62.5 67.3
Figure 4. GTS Performance by College 2007 - 2009 Higher Education 75.0
70.0
65.0 t n e
m 60.0 e e r g a
55.0 -
% 50.0
45.0
40.0 Sem 1, 2007 Sem 2, 2007 Sem 1, 2008 Sem 2, 2008 Sem 1, 2009 Sem 2, 2009
B u s i n e s s D e s i g n a n d S o c i a l C o n t e x t S c i e n c e , E n g i n e e r i n g a n d H e a l t h H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n t o t a l
10
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 TABLE 8. GTS RANKING BY COLLEGE – TAFE (percent agreement)
Sem 1, Sem 2, Sem 1, Sem 2, Sem 1, Sem 2, 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 Business 66.8 67.5 70.7 74.6 73.0 74.6 Design and Social Context 77.9 79.2 77.2 81.4 80.7 78.4 Science, Engineering and 67.4 69.0 73.9 72.6 74.1 76.3 Health Total TAFE 70.5 70.2 73.8 76.3 76.5 76.9
Figure 5. GTS Performance by College 2007 - 2009 TAFE 85.0
t 80.0 n e m e e r g
a 75.0
-
%
70.0
65.0
60.0 Sem 1, 2007 Sem 2, 2007 Sem 1, 2008 Sem 2, 2008 Sem 1, 2009 Sem 2, 2009
Business Design and Social Context Science, Engineering and Health TAFE total
11
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 TABLE 9. GTS RANKING BY SCHOOL – HIGHER EDUCATION (percent agreement)
Sem 1, Sem 2, Sem 1, Sem 2, Sem 1, Sem 2, 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 Art 69.8 73.5 73.8 76.2 74.3 80.5 Education 62.4 68.3 69.3 66.8 79.7 76.7 Business Information Technology 70.0 73.1 69.6 75.9 65.4 76.0 Graduate School of Business 67.9 72.1 67.5 68.9 76.0 74.2 Global Studies, Social Science and Planning 66.4 69.4 69.8 73.5 73.7 73.8 Architecture and Design 58.8 62.6 55.8 63.5 68.7 71.0 Business TAFE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.9 Applied Communication 70.1 72.2 68.4 72.2 69.7 69.6 Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences 53.9 56.0 53.9 65.7 64.4 68.7 Creative Media 65.8 68.0 68.1 76.4 69.6 67.6 Health Sciences 61.6 62.1 59.7 66.7 63.2 67.6 Fashion and Textiles 65.6 64.7 62.9 66.9 65.9 67.5 Life and Physical Sciences 0.0 0.0 81.8 81.9 69.2 67.2 Accounting and Law 47.0 49.6 50.9 58.3 56.6 66.0 Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing 48.5 52.9 52.8 59.3 61.5 65.3 Eng. Applied Sciences 60.2 67.1 58.1 66.1 61.6 64.9 Property, Construction and Project 45.3 49.1 49.5 50.7 54.0 64.6 Management Civil, Environmental and Chemical 47.1 46.3 54.2 55.7 61.8 64.2 Engineering Computer Science and Information 61.7 57.6 58.0 62.3 59.0 63.1 Technology Management 48.1 57.2 55.5 52.7 54.7 62.2 Medical Sciences 52.0 57.2 57.8 61.7 62.6 62.1 Engineering (TAFE)* 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.8 0.0 62.0 Design TAFE 0.0 0.0 62.4 0 0 61.5 Electrical and Computer Engineering 48.2 58.3 51.8 53.9 49.5 58.1 Economics, Finance and Marketing 50.3 52.5 55.4 58.8 59.0 57.1
TABLE 10. GTS RANKING BY SCHOOL – TAFE (percent agreement)
Sem. 1 Sem. 2 Sem. 1 Sem. 2 Sem. 1 Sem 2 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 Creative Media 82.3 83.9 80.4 83.7 82.8 82.5 Art 82.6* 86.3 82.7 78.1 85.7 82.0 Life and Physical Sciences 74.3 75.4 82.8 80.1 82.6 79.0 Fashion and Textiles 77.8 77.2 74.2 85.3 81.5 78.7 Global Studies, Social Science and Planning 78.5 100.0 80.1 88.1 78.1 78.2 Business TAFE 66.8 65.7 70.7 74.6 73.0 74.6 Engineering (TAFE) nil nil nil 67.4 70.8 74.4 Design TAFE 75.3 70.2 73.9 74.4 75.3 72.7 Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering 59.8 66.3 70.7 nil 73.9 nil Education 79.1 nil 82.2 79.3 83.3 nil
12
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 TABLE 11. ITEM ANALYSIS BY COLLEGE - HIGHER EDUCATION (percent agreement)
Total CES item BUS DSC SEH HE 1. The learning objectives in this course are clear to me. 73.2 77.6 77.4 76.6 2. I am learning what I expected to in this course. 71.4 74.1 77.0 74.7 3. The course is well organized. 70.8 72.9 69.6 71.2 4. The teaching staff are extremely good at explaining things. 71.6 74.2 71.3 72.6 5. The teaching staff normally give me helpful feedback on how I am going 64.7 70.6 60.9 65.6 in this course. 6. This course contributes to my confidence in tackling unfamiliar problems. 58.4 68.5 64.9 65.0 7. Assessment tasks in this course require me to demonstrate what I am 74.6 81.4 80.1 79.5 learning. 8. The amount of work required in this course is about right. 69.8 77.8 75.1 75.1 9. The teaching staff in this course motivate me to do my best work. 65.0 71.2 64.3 67.2 10. I enjoy doing the work for this course. 57.4 69.7 64.8 65.3 11. I find the learning resources for this course useful (e.g. notes, handouts, 66.5 68.9 72.3 69.7 readings, AV materials) 12. The web-based (online) materials for this course are effective in 60.5 60.6 68.1 63.6 assisting my learning. 13. There is effective use of other computer-based teaching materials in 54.0 57.1 64.4 59.4 this course. 14. The facilities (such as classrooms, lecture theatres, studios, labs) are 70.5 70.1 78.7 73.6 adequate for this course. 15. I feel I can actively participate in my classes. 68.9 79.3 73.7 75.0 16. There is a good balance between theory and practice. 64.9 71.0 68.7 68.9 17. The teaching staff work hard to make this course interesting. 70.0 76.7 72.2 73.6 18. I can see how I’ll be able to use what I am learning in this course in my 68.2 76.2 75.9 74.5 career. 19. The staff make a real effort to understand difficulties I might be having 63.0 70.4 64.0 66.4 with my work. 20. The staff put a lot of time into commenting on my work. 55.9 65.3 52.8 58.5 21. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of this course. 69.4 74.8 72.0 72.6
13
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 TABLE 12. ITEM ANALYSIS BY COLLEGE - TAFE (percent agreement)
Total CES item BUS DSC SEH TAFE 1. The learning objectives in this course are clear to me. 70.3 76.8 71.1 73.9 2. I am learning what I expected to in this course. 68.6 73.0 71.0 71.5 3. This course is well organized. 68.5 67.9 61.7 66.7 4. My instructors have a thorough knowledge of the course assessment. 80.2 81.5 80.7 81.0 5. My instructors provide opportunities to ask questions. 81.6 84.6 82.2 83.3 6. My instructors have a good knowledge of current workplace skills. 78.3 83.8 79.6 81.5 7. Assessment tasks in this course require me to demonstrate what I am learning. 75.6 80.9 76.5 78.6 8. The amount of work required in this course is about right. 70.8 74.8 72.3 73.2 9. My instructors treat me with respect. 81.2 85.2 83.8 83.9 10. I enjoy doing the work for this course. 59.5 70.0 66.7 66.6 11. I find the learning resources for this course useful (e.g. notes, handouts, readings, AV materials). 66.7 70.7 69.9 69.5 12. The web-based (online) materials for this course are effective in assisting my learning. 64.2 55.8 57.5 58.8 13. There is effective use of other computer-based teaching materials in this course. 63.1 58.1 58.2 59.6 14. The facilities (such as classrooms, lecture theatres, studios, labs) are adequate for this course. 73.3 69.3 70.3 70.5 15. I feel I can actively participate in my classes. 75.5 79.0 77.8 77.9 16. There is a good balance between theory and practice. 66.6 69.3 64.8 67.7 17. My instructors understand my learning needs. 67.1 71.5 69.4 69.9 18. I can see how I’ll be able to use what I am learning in this course in my career. 69.5 76.5 73.2 74.0 19. My instructors communicate the course content effectively. 70.5 75.8 72.7 73.8 20. My instructors make the course as interesting as possible. 66.7 71.5 68.7 69.7 21. This course contributes to my confidence in tacking unfamiliar problems 63.8 68.6 66.3 66.9 22. Overall I am satisfied with the quality of this course. 68.2 72.8 70.2 71.0
14
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 Figure 6. CES Item Analysis 2007-2009 Higher 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1. The learning objectives in this course are clear to me.
2. I am learning w hat I expected to in this course.
3. The course is w ell organized.
4. The teaching staff are extremely good at explaining things.
5. The teaching staff normally give me helpful feedback on how I am going in this course.
6. This course contributes to my confidence in tackling unfamiliar problems.
7. Assessment tasks in this course require me to demonstrate w hat I am learning.
8. The amount of w ork required in this course is about right.
9. The teaching staff in this course motivate me to do my best w ork.
10. I enjoy doing the w ork for this course.
11. I find the learning resources for this course useful (e.g. notes, handouts, readings, AV materials)
12. The w eb-based (online) materials for this course are effective in assisting my learning.
13. There is effective use of other computer-based teaching materials in this course.
14. The facilities (such as classrooms, lecture theatres, studios, labs) are adequate for this course.
15. I feel I can actively participate in my classes.
16. There is a good balance betw een theory and practice.
17. The teaching staff w ork hard to make this course interesting.
18. I can see how I’ll be able to use w hat I am learning in this course in my career. Sem 1, 2008
19. The staff make a real effort to understand difficulties I might be having w ith my w ork. Sem 2, 2008
20. The staff put a lot of time into commenting on my w ork. Sem 1, 2009 Sem 2, 2009 21. Overall, I am satisfied w ith the quality of this course.
15 Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 Figure 7. CES Item Analysis 2007-2009 TAFE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1. The learning objectives in this course are clear to me.
2. I am learning w hat I expected to in this course.
3. This course is w ell organized.
4. My instructors have a thorough know ledge of the course assessment.
5. My instructors provide opportunities to ask questions.
6. My instructors have a good know ledge of current w orkplace skills.
7. Assessment tasks in this course require me to demonstrate w hat I am learning.
8. The amount of w ork required in this course is about right.
9. My instructors treat me w ith respect.
10. I enjoy doing the w ork for this course.
11. I find the learning resources for this course useful (e.g. notes, handouts, readings, AV materials).
12. The w eb-based (online) materials for this course are effective in assisting my learning.
13. There is effective use of other computer-based teaching materials in this course.
14. The facilities (such as classrooms, lecture theatres, studios, labs) are adequate for this course.
15. I feel I can actively participate in my classes.
16. There is a good balance betw een theory and practice.
17. My instructors understand my learning needs.
18. I can see how I’ll be able to use w hat I am learning in this course in my career.
19. My instructors communicate the course content effectively. Sem 1, 2008
20. My instructors make the course as interesting as possible. Sem 2, 2008
Sem 1, 2009 21. This course contributes to my confidence in tacking unfamiliar problems
Sem 2, 2009 22. Overall I am satisfied w ith the quality of this course.
16 Survey Services Centre Feb 2010 TABLE 13. ITEM ANALYSIS, GTS and OSI HE and Vietnam (percent agreement) Sem2, 2009 Total Total CES item diff RMIT Vn 1. The learning objectives in this course are clear to me. 76.6 69.6 7 2. I am learning what I expected to in this course. 74.7 65.5 9 3. The course is well organized. 71.2 66.2 5 4. The teaching staff are extremely good at explaining things. 72.6 70.4 2 5. The teaching staff normally give me helpful feedback on how I am going in this course. 65.6 67.1 -1 6. This course contributes to my confidence in tackling unfamiliar problems. 65.0 59.4 6 7. Assessment tasks in this course require me to demonstrate what I am learning. 79.5 69.8 10 8. The amount of work required in this course is about right. 75.1 63.4 12 9. The teaching staff in this course motivate me to do my best work. 67.2 65.8 1 10. I enjoy doing the work for this course. 65.3 59.3 6 11. I find the learning resources for this course useful (e.g. notes, handouts, readings, AV materials) 69.7 59.8 10 12. The web-based (online) materials for this course are effective in assisting my learning. 63.6 54.4 9 13. There is effective use of other computer-based teaching materials in this course. 59.4 50.5 9 14. The facilities (such as classrooms, lecture theatres, studios, labs) are adequate for this course. 73.6 62.1 11 15. I feel I can actively participate in my classes. 75.0 65.2 10 16. There is a good balance between theory and practice. 68.9 63.1 6 17. The teaching staff work hard to make this course interesting. 73.6 70.4 3 18. I can see how I’ll be able to use what I am learning in this course in my career. 74.5 66.3 8 19. The staff make a real effort to understand difficulties I might be having with my work. 66.4 66.2 0 20. The staff put a lot of time into commenting on my work. 58.5 62.5 -4
21. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of this course. (OSI) 72.6 63.0 10 Good Teaching Score (GTS) 67.3 67.1 0
17
Survey Services Centre Feb 2010