eVALUate University Aggregated ReporteVALUate University Aggregated Report Participation rates,...

eVALUate University Aggregated Report

Participation rates, quantitative and qualitative results of unit evaluation Semester 2, 2015

Beatrice Tucker and Julie-Ann Pegden

eVALUate University Aggregated Report Semester 2, 2015

2

Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

Reporting changes from Semester 2 2014 onwards .................................................................. 5

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 6

Section 1 eVALUate at Curtin: An overview of trends since implementation in 2005 .......... 15

1.1 Research on who gives feedback and students’ perceptions ........................................... 15

1.2 Overall trends in Curtin’s overall response rates and results ........................................... 17

1.3 Closing the feedback loop in the USR ................................................................................. 25

1.4 Overall trends in Teaching evaluation requests and results ............................................. 28

Section 2 – Quantitative and qualitative results of unit evaluation Semester 2 2015 study period ............................................................................................................................................ 31

2.1 Quantitative results ............................................................................................................... 31

2.2 Qualitative results .................................................................................................................. 42

Themes in qualitative results ...................................................................................................... 47

2.3 Improving student perceptions of teaching and learning .................................................. 48

Appendix 1 – Trends of aggregated percentage of responses for each category for Semester 2 study period only ..................................................................................................... 50

Appendix 2 – Response rates ..................................................................................................... 55

Recommendations for improving response rates .................................................................... 67

Appendix 3 – Survey instruments .............................................................................................. 68 Index of tables Table 1 Quantitative results for Curtin Overall ..................................................................................... 7 Table 2 Quantitative results by major faculty ....................................................................................... 9 Table 3 Number of student responses and response rate required for representative feedback in the eVALUate unit survey ........................................................................................................................ 16 Table 4 Semester 2 eVALUate response rates from 2010 for all locations and study periods .......... 17 Table 5 Semester 1 eVALUate response rates from 2011 to 2015 for all locations and study periods ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 6 Aggregated results for the unit survey at the University level for the last ten main semester events (% Agreement, % Disagreement and % Unable to Judge) ................................................... 20 Table 7 Quantitative results for other study periods in Semester 2 2015 event ................................ 24 Table 8 Number and percentage of USRs published ........................................................................ 26 Table 9 Number and percentage of USRs published with a response .............................................. 27 Table 10 Number of staff requesting feedback and number of Teaching evaluation requests .......... 28 Table 11 Teaching evaluation results 2013-2015 .............................................................................. 30 Table 12 Number and percentage of Teaching Evaluation Reports with 80%+ Agreement in all items ........................................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 13 Percentage of responses in each category for each quantitative item in the unit survey ... 32 Table 14 Percentage of agreement and disagreement combined for each quantitative item in the unit survey ................................................................................................................................................ 33 Table 15 Quantitative results by faculty ............................................................................................. 34 Table 16 Quantitative results by gender ............................................................................................ 35 Table 17 Quantitative results by age group ....................................................................................... 35 Table 18 Quantitative results by undergraduate and postgraduate unit level .................................... 36 Table 19 Quantitative results by undergraduate unit year level ......................................................... 36 Table 20 Quantitative results by load category .................................................................................. 37 Table 21 Quantitative results by attendance mode (combined range of modes) ............................... 37


3

Table 22 Quantitative results by attendance mode (full range of modes) .......................................... 38 Table 23 Quantitative results by residency ........................................................................................ 38 Table 24 Quantitative results for domestic and International (onshore-offshore) .............................. 39 Table 25 Quantitative results by unit enrolment ................................................................................ 40 Table 26 Themes in quantitative results ............................................................................................ 41 Table 27 Number and percentage of responses with comments for each faculty and for Curtin overall ................................................................................................................................................ 42 Table 28 Number and percentage of students who provided qualitative comment ........................... 43 Table 29 Number and percentage of responses about Most helpful aspects and How units might be improved ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Table 30 The domains and sub-domains within CEQuery................................................................. 44 Table 31 The number, percentage and rank of comments in each sub-domain. ............................... 45 Table 32 Top ten sub-domains in ‘Most helpful aspects’ ................................................................... 46 Table 33 Top ten sub-domains in ‘How unit might be improved’ ....................................................... 47 Table 34 Response rate based on potential survey responses ......................................................... 56 Table 35 Response rate based on potential number of students ...................................................... 57 Table 36 Number of units with at least 10 ten students and a representative response rate ............ 59 Table 37 Units with an enrolment of at least 100 students and a response of 50% or greater .......... 59 Table 38 Response rates by gender .................................................................................................. 60 Table 39 Response rates by age group ............................................................................................. 60 Table 40 Response rates by undergraduate student year of study ................................................... 61 Table 41 Response rates by postgraduate student year of study ..................................................... 61 Table 42 Response rates by student load category .......................................................................... 62 Table 43 Response rates by unit enrolment ...................................................................................... 63 Table 44 Response rates by attendance mode ................................................................................. 64 Table 45 Response rates by attendance mode (all categories)......................................................... 64 Table 46 Response rates by residency ............................................................................................. 65 Table 47 Response rates by residency (with onshore/offshore breakdown) ..................................... 65 Table 48 Response rates by campus ................................................................................................ 66

Index of figures Figure 1 eVALUate results for Curtin Overall for Semester 2 study period only from 2011 to 2015 .... 6 Figure 2 eVALUate results per major faculty for Semester 2 study period only for 2015 .................... 8 Figure 3 eVALUate results Faculty of Humanities for Semester 2 study period only 2011 to 2015 .. 10 Figure 4 eVALUate results Curtin Business School for Semester 2 study period only 2011 to 2015 11 Figure 5 eVALUate results Faculty of Science and Engineering for Semester 2 study period only 2011 to 2015 ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6 eVALUate results Faculty of Health Sciences for Semester 2 study period only 2011 to 2015 ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7 eVALUate results Centre for Aboriginal Studies for Semester 2 study period only from 2011 to 2015 ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 8 Response rate trends in Semester 2 events from 2011 to 2015 for all locations and study periods ............................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 9 Response rate trends in Semester 1 events from 2011 to 2015 for all locations and study periods ............................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 10 Aggregated percentage Agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2011 to 2015 ................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 11 Aggregated percentage Disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2011 to 2015 ................................................................................................ 22 Figure 12 Aggregated percentage Unable to judge for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2011 to 2015 ................................................................................................ 23 Figure 13 Percentage Strong agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years .................................................................................................. 50 Figure 14 Percentage Agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years ............................................................................................................ 51


4

Figure 15 Percentage Disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years ............................................................................................................ 52 Figure 16 Percentage Strong disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period from 2011 to 2015 ......................................................................................................... 53 Figure 17 Percentage Unable to Judge for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years .................................................................................................. 54


5

Introduction eVALUate is Curtin’s online system for gathering and reporting students’ perceptions of their learning experiences. eVALUate includes two surveys: a unit survey and a teaching evaluation survey (see Appendix 3 to view the survey instruments). The eVALUate University Aggregated Report (this document) is an analysis of the response rates, quantitative and qualitative results of the eVALUate unit and teaching surveys at the University and faculty levels for Semester 2 2015. An accompanying Faculty Supplement, showing response rates and results by teaching areas, is made available to each faculty. The Executive Summary provides the key findings for Curtin overall and for each major faculty including trend data for Semester 2 study period only. Section 1 provides an overview of developments and student behaviour in eVALUate since implementation and includes information about key research findings, analysis of trends in response rates and quantitative results for unit and teaching surveys in the Semester 2 event (all study periods and locations). Section 2 provides a full analysis of the Semester 2 2015 study period only including quantitative and qualitative results. To highlight overall trends, the following icon has been added to this report.

TREND

Comment on overall trend.

Reporting changes from Semester 2 2014 onwards From Semester 2 2014, the University Aggregated Report layout has changed in response to feedback from the University Teaching and Learning Committee. The report now includes an Executive Summary and aggregated teaching survey findings to inform dimensions within the Framework for Quality and Excellence in Teaching and Learning. From Semester 2 2014 onwards, results in the University Aggregated Report and the University Aggregated Report Faculty Supplementary Reports follow the same reporting methodology as used in the Business Intelligence Tool. Specifically, these changes, which are minimal, are:

1. With unit based reporting (ie. results by faculty, teaching area, unit level, unit year), previously units not owned by a major faculty or CAS were reported together as ‘Other’. From Semester 2 2014 onwards, the results by faculty where units are not owned by a major faculty or CAS are being reported separately based on their Student One faculty such as Cross Institutional Enrolments, Curtin Learning and Teaching and Curtin International.

2. With student based reporting (ie. results by gender, age group), previously students not enrolled in a course (such as students enrolled in Not for Degree – Study Abroad programs and Cross Institutional enrolments) were assigned to a faculty based on the owning organisation of the majority of their units. From Semester 2 2014 onwards, these students are being assigned to a faculty based on the faculty derived directly from Student One ownership (eg. Curtin International for the Not for Degree – Study Aboard students).


6

Executive Summary This Executive Summary outlines the key findings for the Semester 2 study period only for Curtin overall and the four major Faculties.

Curtin Semester 2 Unit Survey Results Figure 1 shows the percentage Agreement with the 11 eVALUate items for Curtin overall in the Semester 2 study period from 2011 to 2015. As the graph shows, since 2011, results for Semester 2 increased in all items except learning experiences (Item 2; no change) and overall satisfaction (Item 11; down 0.2%). The most notable increases since Semester 2 2011 were in feedback (Item 5; up 1.4%), workload (Item 6; up 1.1%) and whether students think about how they can learn more effectively (Item 10; up 0.9%).

Figure 1 eVALUate results for Curtin Overall for Semester 2 study period only from 2011 to 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TREND

Since 2011, student satisfaction with the quality of their unit teaching and learning

experiences has increased in most items. Students consistently register their lowest agreement with Item 5 (feedback).


7

Table 1 shows the trend in percentage Agreement with quantitative items 1 to 11 in the Semester 2 study period only over five years. The table shows that results increased in all items in 2015 compared to 2014, most notably in feedback (Item 5; up 1.4%), quality of teaching (Item 7; up 1.3%), assessment (Item 4; up 1.2%) and workload (Item 6; up 1.2%).

What helps achievement of the learning outcomes Student motivation

and engagement

Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Sem 2 2011 43126 37.7% 88.5 84.8 84.6 84.8 78.4 85.4 83.6 84.4 85.8 84.7 83.6

Sem 2 2012 40659 37.6% 89.0 85.6 85.4 85.4 79.6 86.2 84.4 85.7 86.5 85.6 84.4

Sem 2 2013 34765 33.6% 88.8 84.8 85.1 85.2 79.1 86.0 84.0 85.1 86.5 85.5 83.6

Sem 2 2014 36909 33.7% 87.8 83.7 84.0 83.7 78.4 85.3 82.7 84.5 85.8 85.0 82.6

Sem 2 2015 36895 34.0% 88.9 84.8 84.8 84.9 79.8 86.5 84.0 85.0 86.0 85.6 83.4

Note: Results are for Semester 2 study period enrolments only.

Table 1 Quantitative results for Curtin Overall

What are students most positive about? Overall eVALUate (quantitative and qualitative data) has elicited the most positive responses at the University level about:

1. The clarity of unit learning outcomes. 2. The quality of teaching (with frequent comment about staff quality and attitude and

accessibility and responsiveness). 3. Students’ perceptions of their workload. 4. The relevance of student assessment (this includes comments that their assessment is

interesting, challenging and helps their achievement of the unit learning outcomes). What are students least positive about? Overall eVALUate (quantitative and qualitative data) has elicited the least positive responses and highest percentage Disagreement (at the University level) about:

1. Feedback. 2. Assessment standards and expectations. 3. Overall satisfaction. 4. The quality of teaching.


8

Semester 2 Unit Survey Results Per Major Faculty Figure 2 shows the eVALUate results for each major faculty for Semester 2 study period only in 2015. As the figure shows, Curtin Business School achieved the highest results in all items except in Items 1 (whether outcomes are clearly identified) and Items 8-10 (student motivation and engagement) in which the Centre for Aboriginal Studies achieved the highest results. The Centre for Aboriginal Studies also achieved the same results as the Curtin Business School in Item 4 (assessment). Curtin Business School achieved agreement of over 80% in all items including feedback (Item 5) and are to be commended on this level of achievement.

Figure 2 eVALUate results per major faculty for Semester 2 study period only for 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

Humanities CBS Sci &Eng Health Sci CAS

Table 2 shows the Semester 2 study period only results for the major faculties and the Centre for Aboriginal Studies from 2011 to 2015. As the table shows, results declined in most items since 2014 for the Faculty of Humanities and the Centre for Aboriginal Studies, with overall satisfaction down 0.4% and 4.5% respectively. Results increased in most items since 2014 for the Curtin Business School, the Faculty of Science and Engineering and the Faculty of Health Sciences. Results for all items in Semester 2 2015 were above 80% with the exception of Item 5 (feedback) which was below 80% in all faculties apart from the Curtin Business School.


9


and engagement

Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

N

um

ber

of

Res

pon

ses

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Sem 2 2011

Hum 6512 34.3% 86.7 83.6 82.6 85.1 79.3 84.9 83.1

83.9 86.3 83.9

81.9

CBS 15368 39.0% 90.6 87.0 87.0 86.6 81.6 87.7 85.3 86.0 86.9 87.0 86.5

Sci &Eng 9193 35.4% 87.4 83.8 82.8 84.2 75.4 84.1 81.0 83.7 85.0 84.2 82.8

Health 10734 42.7% 87.2 82.5 83.3 81.9 75.3 82.9 83.2 82.4 83.8 81.7 80.5

CAS 268 26.0% 85.4 82.5 86.1 84.6 75.2 87.2 80.3 84.0 89.5 89.1 81.5

Sem 2 2012

Hum 6370 34.5% 87.3 84.6 83.9 85.7 80.1 86.1 83.6

84.9 86.0 84.9

83.3

CBS 14078 39.6% 90.4 86.9 87.5 86.1 81.6 88.2 85.6 86.7 87.6 87.1 86.4

Sci &Eng 8809 34.1% 86.9 83.9 81.9 84.0 76.6 83.6 81.3 84.8 85.6 84.9 82.5

Health 11037 41.4% 89.9 85.6 86.2 85.4 79.0 86.0 85.8 85.3 86.2 84.5 83.9

CAS 135 17.9% 88.0 82.1 87.3 80.6 77.6 72.9 82.0 83.5 85.5 83.5 77.9

Sem 2 2013

Hum 6061 31.2% 88.0 85.4 85.0 86.3 80.9 86.9 84.4

84.8 86.7 85.6

83.2

CBS 10157 36.7% 89.4 86.0 86.3 85.8 80.7 86.5 85.0 85.7 87.1 85.9 84.9

Sci &Eng 7909 30.4% 88.2 83.7 82.8 84.4 77.0 85.4 81.7 85.7 87.1 87.0 83.2

Health 10160 36.1% 89.1 84.1 85.5 84.2 77.6 85.2 84.4 84.2 85.2 83.7 82.6

CAS 141 21.3% 84.9 84.3 86.3 85.0 81.4 82.0 77.5 81.4 85.0 87.1 83.5

Sem 2 2014

Hum 6434 32.8% 85.9 84.2 83.3 84.6 79.8 85.3 82.7

84.6 86.4 86.2

81.9

CBS 10354 35.9% 89.1 85.3 86.3 85.4 80.8 86.9 84.7 85.5 87.1 86.5 84.9

Sci &Eng 8622 31.2% 85.5 81.6 80.4 81.4 74.7 82.5 78.6 83.3 84.3 84.4 80.3

Health 10880 35.8% 89.1 83.3 84.7 83.3 78.0 85.6 83.8 83.9 85.1 83.2 82.2

CAS 164 23.7% 86.0 83.5 86.6 84.1 81.1 87.8 83.5 90.2 87.7 87.7 85.4

Sem 2 2015

Hum 6143 32.7% 86.5 83.0 82.2 83.6 78.7 85.5 82.7

83.4 84.7 84.8

81.5

CBS 11066 38.1% 90.0 86.5 86.7 86.0 82.2 87.6 85.4 86.1 87.1 86.9 85.2

Sci &Eng 8575 31.1% 87.6 83.3 82.3 84.1 77.2 84.8 81.3 83.3 84.2 84.9 82.3

Health 10557 35.1% 89.9 84.9 86.1 85.0 79.7 87.1 85.3 85.6 86.8 84.9 83.3

CAS 165 28.3% 90.9 83.6 85.4 86.0 78.2 84.8 81.6 88.3 89.6 88.9 80.9

Note: Results are for Semester 2 study period only. Based on faculty of the owning org of the units.

Table 2 Quantitative results by major faculty


10

Figure 3 shows the results for the Faculty of Humanities in the Semester 2 study period only from 2011 to 2015. As the graph shows, results for most items decreased between 2011 and 2015, most notably in assessment (Item 4; down 1.5%), and whether students make best use of the learning experiences (Item 9; down 1.6%). Results also declined in most items in 2015 compared to 2014. The items with the greatest decline since 2014 were learning experiences (Item 2; down 1.2%), learning resources (Item 3; down 1.1%), assessment (Item 4; down 1.0%), feedback (Item 5; down 1.1%), student motivation (Item 8; down 1.2%), whether students make best use of the learning experiences (Item 9; down 1.7%, and whether students think about how they can learn more effectively (Item 10; down 1.4%).

Figure 3 eVALUate results Faculty of Humanities for Semester 2 study period only 2011 to 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15


11

Figure 4 shows the results for the Curtin Business School in the Semester 2 study period only from 2011 to 2015. As the graph shows, results declined in some items and increased in others since 2011. The most notable declines since 2011 were in overall satisfaction (Item 11; down 1.3%), whether outcomes were clearly identified (Item 1; down 0.6%) and assessment (Item 4; down 0.6%. The most notable increases since 2011 were in feedback (Item 5; up 0.6%). Results increased in most items since 2014, most notably in feedback (Item 5; up 1.4%), learning experiences (Item 2; up 1.2%), workload (Item 6; up 0.7%), and quality of teaching (Item 7; up 0.7%).

Figure 4 eVALUate results Curtin Business School for Semester 2 study period only 2011 to 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15


12

Figure 5 shows the results for the Faculty of Science and Engineering in the Semester 2 study period only from 2011 to 2015. As the graph shows, results increased in some items and decreased in others since 2011. The most notable increases since 2011 were in feedback (Item 5; up 1.8%), workload (Item 6; up 0.7%), and whether students think about how they can learn more effectively (Item 10; up 0.7%) while the most notable declines were in whether students make best use of the learning experiences (Item 9; down 0.8%), learning experiences (Item 2; down 0.5%), learning resources (Item 3, down 0.5%), and overall satisfaction (Item 11; down 0.5%). Results increased in most items since 2015, most notably in assessment (Item 4; up 2.7%), quality of teaching (Item 7; up 2.7%), feedback (Item 5; up 2.5%), workload (Item 6; up 2.3%), whether learning outcomes were clearly identified (Item 1; up 2.1%), and overall satisfaction (Item 11; up 2.0%).

Figure 5 eVALUate results Faculty of Science and Engineering for Semester 2 study period only 2011 to 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15


13

Figure 6 shows the results for the Faculty of Health Sciences in the Semester 2 study period only from 2011 to 2015. As the graph shows, results increased in all items since 2011, most notably in feedback (Item 5; up 4.4%), workload (Item 6; up 4.2%), student motivation (Item 8; up 3.2%), whether students think about how they can learn more effectively (Item 10; up 3.2%), and assessment (Item 4; up 3.1%). Results also increased in all items since 2014. The most notable increases since 2014 were in assessment (Item 4; up 1.7%), feedback (Item 5; up 1.7%), student motivation (Item 8, up 1.7%), whether students make best use of the learning experiences (Item 9, up 1.7%), and whether students think about how they can learn more effectively (Item 10; up 1.7%).

Figure 6 eVALUate results Faculty of Health Sciences for Semester 2 study period only 2011 to 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15


14

Figure 7 shows the results for the Centre for Aboriginal Studies in the Semester 2 study period only from 2011 to 2015. As the graph shows, results increased in some items since 2011 and declined in others. The most notable increases were in whether learning outcomes were clearly identified (Item 1; up 5.5), student motivation (Item 8; up 4.3%), and feedback (Item 5; up 3.0%). The most notable declines were in workload (Item 6; down 2.4%). Results declined in some items since 2014 and increased in others. The most notable declines since 2014 were in overall satisfaction (Item 11; down 4.5%), workload (Item 6; down 3.0%), and feedback (Item 5; down 2.9%).

Figure 7 eVALUate results Centre for Aboriginal Studies for Semester 2 study period only from 2011 to 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15


15

Section 1 eVALUate at Curtin: An overview of trends since implementation in 2005

Key information about the eVALUate unit survey

The eVALUate unit survey focuses on student achievement of unit learning outcomes: it asks students’ level of agreement with three key indicators:

1. what helped their achievement of learning outcomes (Items 1 to 7) 2. their level of motivation and engagement (Items 8 to 10) and 3. their overall satisfaction with the unit (Item 11).

Two qualitative items ask about the most helpful aspects of this unit and how the unit might be improved. The survey items and rating scale have undergone rigorous testing to ensure reliability and validity (face validity with Australian and International students and content validity). Statistical testing shows that the rating scale is sufficiently discriminating to indicate areas of teaching and learning practice that need attention.

1.1 Research on who gives feedback and students’ perceptions

Student participation in eVALUate unit survey Statistical analysis shows that all demographic groups participate in eVALUate. Nevertheless, there is usually greater participation by female students, full-time students and students with a higher semester-weighted average. Part-time students, international students, students in older age groups and students with a higher semester weighted average are more likely to agree with the quantitative items. See http://evaluate.curtin.edu.au/publications/ for research publications.

Student comments in eVALUate About two-thirds of the participating students provide written comments, and their responses are often quite lengthy. Students tend to comment more frequently about the best aspects of a unit than about how the unit can be improved. In the seven things that students say most commonly about the best aspects, three of them are about staff - their quality and attitude, accessibility and responsiveness, and their teaching skills. These findings are stable since 2005. For the majority of students, their experience in fully online units is positive and they frequently comment on the quality and attitudes of their teachers indicating that they are accessible and responsive. Students consistently register lower agreement with the quality of teaching in fully online units. Student comments reveal that their learning is hindered by the teaching when the quality of information in relation to assessments and feedback is confusing and unclear. See http://evaluate.curtin.edu.au/publications/ for research publications.


16

Response rates and validity of results The gathering and reporting of student feedback through systems such as eVALUate is not an exact science in that students' perceptions are not definitive judgements on the worth of a unit or of a teacher's ability. At best, student feedback at the unit level can indicate areas that are likely to be working well, and areas that need further exploration and possibly development. Each individual student response to the unit survey is valid in that each represents one student’s perception and must be taken seriously. The collective responses of students to the unit survey are representative of those who provided feedback. Likewise responses from what may appear to be an unrepresentative minority are still valid - they cannot be disregarded simply because they are few; nor should they be taken as a definitive indication of the quality of the unit. To determine whether eVALUate results are representative of the views of the total student group enrolled in a unit, a minimum response rate is required and that response rate differs according to the number of students enrolled in the unit. Table 3 gives an indication of the response rate required in units of varying sizes to ascertain the representativeness of a sample. If the sample is representative, it means that the opinions of the sample are representative of the opinions of the whole group. Using Table 3, staff can be 95% confident that the actual percent agreement is within 10% (±) of the observed percent agreement for the total student group enrolled in the unit.

Student enrolment in the unit Response rate in eVALUate No of student responses required 20 85% 17 40 70% 28 60 60% 36 80 52% 42

100 46% 46 200 30% 60 500 15% 73 1500 5% 80

Table 3 Number of student responses and response rate required for representative feedback in the eVALUate unit survey

Study periods and campuses included in eVALUate in 2015 In 2015, six eVALUate events were available for students at all of Curtin's Australian campuses and at the following offshore campuses:

Miri Sarawak campus in Malaysia Limkokwing University of Creative Technology in Malaysia Charles Telfair Institute in Mauritius Curtin Singapore campus in Singapore Dongbei University of Finance and Economics in China Nanjing Audit University in China UHK Space Main campus in China UHK Space Admiralty Centre in China UHK Space CIDP in China

These events were Summer School, Semester 1, Semester 2, and Trimesters 1, 2, and 3. The Semester 2 event included Open Universities Australia Session 2. Additional ‘Special Events’ were held for units and additional study periods as required. The results of these Special Events are not included in this report. Please see https://studentcentral.curtin.edu.au/references/studyperiods.cfm for further information about Curtin University study periods. See http://www.open.edu.au/student-


17

admin-and-support/key-dates/ for further information about Open Universities Australia study periods.

1.2 Overall trends in Curtin’s overall response rates and results

Key information about Curtin’s overall response rate Overall, the response rate to the eVALUate unit survey has declined. Best comparisons about student behaviours are made between ‘like’ semesters, i.e. it is best to compare Semester 1 with that same semester in each year, and Semester 2 is best compared with that same semester in each year. This is because all first semesters have a similar unit load and profile as do second semesters. Therefore, in the section which follows, comparisons are made according to first or second semester. Response rate trends in Semester 2 events Table 4 shows the response rates for Semester 2 events since 2011. The table shows that in Semester 2 (2011 to 2015): the number of surveys submitted has declined by 6,201 (from 43,262 in 2011 to 37,061 in 2015); the percentage of students who participated has decreased from 43.3% in 2011 to 40.5% in 2015; the response rate has declined by 3.7% (from 37.7% in 2011 to 34.0% in 2015); and the number of potential surveys decreased from 114,724 in 2011 to 108,964 in 2015.

Potential survey

submissions

Number of students who

could participate

Number of surveys

submitted


did participate

Overall response rate

(Surveys submitted divided by potential surveys)

% of students who did

participate

Sem 2 2011 114,724 33,875 43,262 14,662 37.7% 43.3%

Sem 2 2012 108,760 32,903 40,813 14,524 37.5% 44.1%

Sem 2 2013 103,965 31,965 34,889 12,454 33.6% 39.6%

Sem 2 2014 112,126 33,785 37,768 13,611 33.7% 40.3%

Sem 2 2015 108,964 32,985 37,056 13,344 34.0% 40.5%

Note: Figures include all student enrolments in the event (e.g. Sem 2 2015 event includes Semester 2 and OpenUnis Session 2).

Table 4 Semester 2 eVALUate response rates from 2010 for all locations and study periods

Figure 8 shows the response rate trends in Semester 2 events since 2011 for the overall response rate (surveys submitted divided by potential surveys) and percentage of students who participated. Since Semester 2, 2014, the overall response rate has increased by 0.3% (from 33.7% in 2014 to 34.0% in 2015).


18

Figure 8 Response rate trends in Semester 2 events from 2011 to 2015 for all locations and study periods

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

S2 11 S2 12 S2 13 S2 14 S2 15

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Semester Event

Overall response rate (Surveyssubmitted divided by potentialsurveys)

% of students who did participate

Response rate trends in Semester 1 events Table 5 shows the response rates for Semester 1 events since 2011. The table shows that in Semester 1 (2011 through to 2015): the number of surveys submitted by students has decreased by 542 (from 50,806 in 2011 to

50,264 in 2015); the percentage of students who participated decreased from 43.7% in 2011 to 43.3% in 2015; the response rate decreased from 38.8% in 2011 to 38.0% in 2015; and the number of potential surveys increased from 131,065 to 132,386 in 2015.

Potential survey

submissions


could participate

Number of surveys

submitted


did participate

Overall response rate

(Surveys submitted divided by potential surveys)

% of students who did

participate

Sem 1 2011 131,065 42,449 50,806 18,561 38.8% 43.7%

Sem 1 2012 129,151 43,443 47,274 17,946 36.6% 41.3%

Sem 1 2013 126,519 42,628 48,466 18,520 38.3% 43.4%

Sem 1 2014 129,942 43,380 48,829 18,617 37.6% 42.9%

Sem 1 2015 132,386 43,683 50,264 19,905 38.0% 43.3%

Note: Figures include all student enrolments in the event (e.g. Sem 1 2015 event includes Semester 1, Study Period 5, Trimester 1A, OpenUnis Session 1 and OpenUnis Study Period 1).

Table 5 Semester 1 eVALUate response rates from 2011 to 2015 for all locations and study periods


19

Figure 9 shows the response rate trends in Semester 1 events since 2011 for the overall response rate (surveys submitted divided by potential surveys) and percentage of students who participated. Since Semester 1 2014, the overall response rate has increased by 0.4%.

Figure 9 Response rate trends in Semester 1 events from 2011 to 2015 for all locations and study periods

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

S1 11 S1 12 S1 13 S1 14 S1 15

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Semester Event

Overall response rate (Surveyssubmitted divided by potentialsurveys)

% of students who didparticipate

TREND

Since 2011 response rates for the eVALUate unit survey in Semester 2 events

have declined.


20

Key information about Curtin’s overall quantitative results Table 6 shows the University-level aggregated results for the eVALUate unit survey since Semester 1 2011 for percentage Agreement, percentage Disagreement and percentage Unable to judge. These results include data from all study periods and locations covered by eVALUate. In this table, highlighted cells indicate where percentage Agreement was less than the University’s target of 80%.


and engagement Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

% Agree

S1 11 88.8 84.4 84.7 84.7 78.4 84.9 82.9 85.0 85.6 84.4 83.4

S2 11 88.5 84.8 84.6 84.8 78.4 85.4 83.6 84.4 85.8 84.8 83.6

S1 12 89.4 84.8 84.9 84.8 78.4 85.7 83.2 85.1 86.2 85.1 83.8

S2 12 89.1 85.6 85.4 85.4 79.6 86.2 84.4 85.7 86.6 85.6 84.4

S1 13 89.2 84.9 85.1 85.2 79.4 86.2 83.5 85.7 86.6 86.0 84.0

S2 13 88.8 84.8 85.1 85.2 79.1 86.0 84.0 85.1 86.5 85.5 83.6

S1 14 89.3 84.9 85.5 85.4 79.2 86.4 83.5 85.5 86.5 85.5 84.0

S2 14 87.8 83.8 84.0 83.8 78.6 85.3 82.7 84.5 85.8 85.1 82.7

S1 15 88.9 84.6 85.2 85.0 79.5 86.1 83.1 85.6 86.2 85.8 83.1

S2 15 88.9 84.8 84.8 84.9 79.8 86.5 84.0 85.0 86.1 85.6 83.4

% Disagree

S1 11 10.4 14.4 14.0 13.8 18.5 13.9 15.3

13.9 13.0 13.7

15.5

S2 11 10.7 14.1 14.2 13.7 18.6 13.3 14.7 14.4 12.8 13.4 15.2

S1 12 9.9 14.2 13.9 13.8 18.5 13.1 15.1 13.8 12.5 13.1 15.1

S2 12 10.2 13.4 13.5 13.2 17.8 12.7 14.0 13.4 12.2 12.6 14.4

S1 13 10.1 14.0 13.8 13.3 18.1 12.7 14.8 13.2 12.1 12.0 14.7

S2 13 10.5 14.0 13.8 13.5 18.4 12.9 14.5 13.9 12.3 12.7 15.1

S1 14 9.9 13.9 13.4 13.1 17.8 12.3 14.9 13.5 12.1 12.5 14.7

S2 14 11.4 15.2 14.9 14.9 18.9 13.6 15.5 14.5 12.9 13.1 16.1

S1 15 10.2 14.2 13.7 13.7 17.7 12.7 15.3 13.3 12.3 12.4 15.5

S2 15 10.2 14.1 14.0 13.7 17.6 12.4 14.3 13.8 12.5 12.7 15.2

% Unable to Judge

S1 11 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.5 3.1 1.2 1.8

1.1 1.4 2.0

1.1

S2 11 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.9 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.4 1.9 1.2

S1 12 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 3.1 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.2

S2 12 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.6 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.2

S1 13 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.5 2.5 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.9 1.3

S2 13 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.3 2.5 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.3

S1 14 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.4 3.0 1.2 1.7 1.0 1.3 2.0 1.3

S2 14 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.5 1.1 1.7 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.2

S1 15 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.3 2.7 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.8 1.4

S2 15 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 2.6 1.1 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.4

Note: Figures include all student enrolments in the event (e.g. Sem 2 2015 event includes OpenUnis Session 2)

Table 6 Aggregated results for the unit survey at the University level for the last ten main semester events (% Agreement, % Disagreement and % Unable to Judge)


21

Table 6 shows that the 80% Agreement target was reached in all items in Semester 2 2015 except Item 5 (feedback). The table shows an increase in percentage Agreement in all items in Semester 2 between 2014 and 2015. The table also shows an increase in most items in Semester 2 between 2011 and 2015. Figure 10 shows a comparison of ‘like’ Semester events (Semester 2 2011 - 2015). The figure shows that the greatest increases in student agreement since 2011 were in feedback (Item 5; up 1.4%), workload (Item 6; up 1.1%) and whether students think about how they can learn more effectively (Item 10; up 0.8%).

Figure 10 Aggregated percentage Agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2011 to 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

reem

ent

(%)

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

TREND

Student’s perceived satisfaction with the quality of their unit teaching and

learning experiences has increased since Semester 2 2014. There have also been increases in most items since Semester 2 2011.


22

Student disagreement with the items is likely to indicate areas for improvement. Figure 11 shows that since 2011, students are less likely to disagree with most items. Student disagreement declined in all items since 2014. This figure shows that the biggest decreases in disagreement since 2011 were in feedback (Item 5; down 1.0%), and workload (Item 6; down 0.9%).

Figure 11 Aggregated percentage Disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2011 to 2015

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dis

agre

emen

t (%

)

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

TREND

Since 2011, students are less likely to disagree with most items about the quality

of their unit teaching and learning experiences.


23

The percentage of students who were Unable to judge has remained relatively stable over the last five years. Figure 11 shows that from 2011 to 2015, students were less likely to report being Unable to judge with some items, more likely to report being Unable to judge with some items and unchanged in others. The most notable declines since 2011 were in feedback (Item 5; down 0.3%), workload (Item 6, down 0.2%), and whether students think about how they can learn more effectively (Item 10; down 0.2%). Since Semester 2 2015, there was a very small increase (of 0.1% or 0.2%) in Unable to judge in most items.

Figure 12 Aggregated percentage Unable to judge for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 event from 2011 to 2015

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Un

able

to

jud

ge

(%)

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15

TREND

The percentage of students reporting that they are Unable to judge the

quality of their teaching and learning experiences is small and relatively stable since 2011.


24

Unit survey results for other study periods The results of OpenUnis Session 2 (the other study period included in the Semester 2 eVALUate event) are shown in Table 7.

What helps achievement of the learning outcomes Student motivation and

engagement

Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

OUA Sess 2 161 38.7% 95.7 90.7 85.7 84.9 83.9 90.1 81.3 88.1 93.8 92.5 86.3

Table 7 Quantitative results for other study periods in Semester 2 2015 event


25

1.3 Closing the feedback loop in the USR

Publication of Unit Summary Reports (USRs) Prior to 2009, publication of USRs was low (ranging from 9% to 21% following a main Semester event). From 2009, all USRs were published by default: unit coordinators were able to opt out of publication at any time prior to or after the event. Table 8 shows the number of USRs published in the last six main semester events.

Total units Total with

publishable USR* Number published as of report release date

% published

Sem 1 2013

Humanities 384 354 345 97.5%

CBS 262 251 244 97.2%

Sci & Eng 479 437 434 99.3%

Health Sci 396 374 361 96.5%

CAS 31 26 26 100%

Other 187 163 160 98.2%

Curtin Overall 1739 1605 1570 97.8%

Sem 2 2013

Humanities 428 380 367 96.6%

CBS 259 251 251 100%

Sci & Eng 456 413 411 99.5%

Health Sci 377 365 352 96.4%

CAS 31 28 28 100%

Other 63 44 44 100%

Curtin Overall 1614 1481 1453 98.1%

Sem 1 2014

Humanities 412 382 382 100%

CBS 268 250 250 100%

Sci & Eng 453 421 418 99.3%

Health Sci 385 364 352 96.7%

CAS 28 26 26 100%

Other 193 178 176 98.9%

Curtin Overall 1739 1621 1604 99.0%

Sem 2 2014

Humanities 419 392 389 99.2%

CBS 256 242 242 100%

Sci & Eng 449 417 411 98.6%

Health Sci 392 369 358 97.0%

CAS 25 24 24 100%

Cross Inst Enr 18 7 7 100%

Curtin L & T 44 39 39 100%

Curtin Overall 1603 1490 1470 98.7%

Sem 1 2015

Humanities 425 390 389 99.7%

CBS 259 248 246 99.2%

Sci & Eng 452 430 424 98.6%

Health Sci 389 372 364 97.8%

CAS 31 23 23 100%


Curtin L & T 188 173 169 97.7%

Curtin International 9 6 6 100%

DVC Education 1 1 1 100%

Curtin Overall 1760 1645 1624 98.7%


26

Sem 2 2015

Humanities 427 383 379 99.0%

CBS 243 236 234 99.2%

Sci & Eng 438 408 395 96.8%

Health Sci 374 355 350 98.6%

CAS 25 19 19 100%


Curtin L & T 49 41 41 100%

Curtin International 8 5 5 100%

DVC Education 4 1 1 100%

Curtin Overall 1574 1452 1428 98.3% *Criteria for eligibility for publication is more than one enrolment and one or more responses. Percentages shown are for publishable USRs only.

Table 8 Number and percentage of USRs published

Publication of Unit Summary Reports (USRs) with a response to students Table 9 shows the number of USRs which contain a unit coordinator response to students published in the last six eVALUate main semester events up to Semester 1 2015. Data is not yet available for Semester 2 2015 as staff have not had sufficient opportunity to post a USR response for this survey event as of the time this report was generated.

Number of publishable USRs*

Number published with a response to students

% published with a response to students

Sem 2 2012

Humanities 383 51 13.3%

CBS 263 61 23.2%

Sci & Eng 468 73 15.6%

Health Sci 371 101 27.2%

CAS 26 0 0.0%

Other 35 3 8.6%

Curtin Overall 1546 289 18.7%

Sem 1 2013


CBS 251 62 24.7%

Sci & Eng 437 94 21.5%

Health Sci 374 108 28.9%

CAS 26 0 0.0%

Other 163 21 12.9%


Sem 2 2013


CBS 251 38 15.1%

Sci & Eng 413 54 13.1%

Health Sci 365 87 23.8%

CAS 28 0 0.0%

Other 44 3 6.8%



27

Sem 1 2014


CBS 250 49 19.6%

Sci & Eng 421 70 16.6%

Health Sci 364 72 19.8%

CAS 26 0 0.0%

Other 178 40 22.5%


Sem 2 2014


CBS 242 47 19.4%

Sci & Eng 417 51 12.2%

Health Sci 369 81 22.0%

CAS 24 0 0.0%

Cross Inst Enr 7 0 0.0%

Curtin L & T 39 6 15.4%


Sem 1 2015


CBS 248 65 26.2%

Sci & Eng 430 66 15.3%

Health Sci 372 82 22.0%

CAS 23 0 0.0%

Cross Inst Enr 2 0 0.0%

Curtin L & T 173 25 14.5%

Curtin International 6 0 0.0%

DVC Education 1 0 0.0%

Curtin Overall 1645 291 17.7% *Criteria for eligibility for publication is more than one enrolment and one or more responses. Percentages shown are for publishable USRs only. Data extraction carried out on census date of the next main semester.

Table 9 Number and percentage of USRs published with a response


28

1.4 Overall trends in Teaching evaluation requests and results

Number of Teaching evaluation requests Table 10 shows the number of teaching staff who requested feedback and how many teaching evaluations they requested in the last six eVALUate main semester events.

Number of staff requesting feedback

Number of Teaching evaluation requests

Sem 1 2013

Humanities 181 306

CBS 239 401

Sci & Eng 235 463

Health Sci 257 479

CAS 3 7

Other 85 119

Curtin Overall* 955 1775

Sem 2 2013

Humanities 147 252

CBS 211 354

Sci & Eng 231 448

Health Sci 252 447

CAS 7 14

Other 18 22


Sem 1 2014

Humanities 170 310

CBS 236 408

Sci & Eng 235 447

Health Sci 267 480

CAS 3 3

Other 109 137


Sem 2 2014

Humanities 148 248

CBS 215 369

Sci & Eng 225 385

Health Sci 267 457

CAS 3 5

Cross Inst Enr 0 0

Curtin L & T 36 42


Sem 1 2015

Humanities 184 340

CBS 251 444

Sci & Eng 267 496

Health Sci 258 469

CAS 5 6

Cross Inst Enr 0 0

Curtin L & T 107 139


Sem 2 2015

Humanities 160 289

CBS 208 369

Sci & Eng 264 462

Health Sci 277 460

CAS 5 8

Cross Inst Enr 0 0

Curtin L & T 30 34

Curtin International 1 1

Curtin Overall* 922 1623 *Number of staff requesting feedback for Curtin Overall does not equal the sum of staff per faculty requesting feedback as some staff teach in units in more than one faculty (e.g. Staff teaching in a major faculty as well as in OUA).

Table 10 Number of staff requesting feedback and number of Teaching evaluation requests


29

Aggregated results of Teaching evaluations for Curtin Overall and each Faculty Table 11 shows the percentage Agreement with each of the seven teaching survey items for Curtin Overall and each faculty over the last six major eVALUate events.

TE

R r

equ

ests

No.

TE

Rs

wit

h r

esp

No.

Res

p

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Kn

owle

dge

able

En

thu

sias

tic

Wel

l org

anis

ed

Com

mu

nic

ates

cl

earl

y

Ap

pro

ach

able

Use

ful f

eed

bac

k

Eff

ecti

ve T

each

er

S1 13

Humanities 306 293 2150 97.7 94.4 91.8 90.0 92.7 87.9 91.6

CBS 401 392 4441 94.7 91.0 90.9 88.2 91.5 87.3 90.1

Sci & Eng 463 438 3994 95.5 90.6 89.9 85.3 89.9 83.6 88.4

Hlth Sci 479 446 4119 98.0 95.6 93.7 92.4 93.9 89.9 93.4

CAS 7 6 13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Other 119 102 582 98.1 93.6 91.5 91.6 92.8 88.6 93.1

Curtin Overall 1775 1677 15299 96.4 92.7 91.5 89.0 92.0 87.2 90.9

S2 13

Humanities 252 233 1507 96.6 92.9 90.7 88.7 90.7 85.6 89.2

CBS 354 346 3446 96.4 92.7 92.6 90.2 93.1 88.9 91.4

Sci & Eng 448 418 3236 95.2 92.2 90.3 87.5 90.7 86.2 90.4

Hlth Sci 447 413 3082 97.2 94.6 92.9 92.3 92.1 88.8 92.3

CAS 14 8 15 100 93.3 80.0 93.3 80.0 80.0 93.3

Other 22 17 66 100 93.8 93.8 90.5 92.2 90.6 92.1

Curtin Overall 1537 1435 11352 96.3 93.1 91.8 89.8 91.8 87.7 91.1

S1 14

Humanities 310 293 2108 95.7 92.2 91.7 88.0 91.6 86.2 89.7

CBS 408 394 4507 95.4 91.4 91.2 88.7 91.4 87.0 89.9

Sci & Eng 447 415 3834 95.5 91.2 89.9 85.9 90.6 85.1 88.5

Hlth Sci 480 446 4338 98.5 96.1 94.4 92.8 93.8 90.3 93.7

CAS 3 3 736 100 100 100 100 90.9 100 100

Other 137 125 11 97.0 93.9 94.0 92.2 91.4 88.8 91.8

Curtin Overall 1785 1676 15534 96.4 92.9 91.9 89.3 91.9 87.4 90.7

S2 14

Humanities 248 231 1469 95.3 92.9 90.2 87.8 89.9 86.4 88.5

CBS 369 359 3584 95.3 92.0 91.4 89.3 91.4 86.9 89.8

Sci & Eng 385 352 3028 94.9 90.5 88.9 85.4 89.5 84.0 87.6

Health Sci 457 415 3387 97.3 95.1 93.4 92.0 93.3 89.8 92.9

CAS 5 4 32 90.3 87.1 71.0 83.9 87.1 80.6 83.9

Cross Inst Enr 0 0 0 - - - - - - -

Curtin L & T 42 27 82 96.3 90.2 92.7 86.6 91.5 85.4 87.7

Curtin Overall 1506 1388 11582 95.8 92.6 91.1 88.8 91.3 86.9 89.9

S1 15

Humanities 340 318 2311 95.5 93.4 90.4 88.4 90.9 86.7 89.6

CBS 444 438 5259 95.8 91.9 91.7 89.3 92.2 88.1 90.0

Sci & Eng 496 468 4526 95.5 90.7 89.4 84.9 90.6 84.9 88.1

Health Sci 469 443 4687 97.4 95.0 92.7 91.7 92.2 88.4 92.4

CAS 6 4 19 89.5 73.7 89.5 68.4 84.2 73.7 73.7

Cross Inst Enr 0 0 0 - - - - - - -

Curtin L & T 139 136 755 96.4 92.3 91.1 90.7 90.7 87.4 91.2

Curtin Overall 1894 1807 17557 96.1 92.6 91.2 88.7 91.5 87.1 90.2


30

S2 15

Humanities 289 261 1429 96.7 93.6 91.1 89.3 91.4 86.1 90.1

CBS 369 360 4471 95.2 92.0 91.5 88.6 91.4 87.7 90.5

Sci & Eng 462 436 4160 94.6 90.5 89.1 85.5 90.0 85.2 88.6

Health Sci 460 435 3699 97.4 95.4 93.4 91.6 92.4 89.4 92.4

CAS 8 7 55 98.2 94.5 92.7 92.7 94.5 92.7 96.4

Cross Inst Enr 0 0 0 - - - - - - -

Curtin L & T 34 27 77 96.1 96.1 94.8 93.5 93.5 94.8 93.5

Curtin International 1 1 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Curtin Overall 1623 1527 13893 95.8 92.7 91.3 88.6 91.3 87.3 90.5

Table 11 Teaching evaluation results 2013-2015

TREND

Student satisfaction with the quality of teaching as measured by all items in

the teaching evaluation survey is high and has remained stable.

Number and percentage of Teaching Evaluation Reports with 80%+ in all items Student feedback on the characteristics of the teacher provides an indicator of teaching excellence. Students give feedback on the teacher using the eVALUate teaching evaluation survey. Excellence in teaching is recognised through the achievement of 80 percentage Agreement with each item in the Teaching Evaluation Report. Table 12 shows the number and percentage of surveys with at least 10 student responses who achieved 80 percentage Agreement with each of the seven survey items in the last six eVALUate main semester events.

No. of teaching staff requesting a

Teaching Evaluation Survey

No. of TERS with resp

No. TERs with 10+ resp

No. TERs with 80%+ in all items

No. TERs with 10+ resp & 80%+

in all items

% TERs with 10+ resp & 80%+ in

all items

Sem 1 2013 956 1677 558 1124 392 70.2%

Sem 2 2013 845 1435 434 941 313 72.1%

Sem 1 2014 964 1676 605 1130 428 70.7%

Sem 2 2014 868 1388 438 911 309 70.5%

Sem 1 2015 1014 1807 678 1174 474 69.9%

Sem 2 2015 922 1527 505 1011 362 71.7%

Table 12 Number and percentage of Teaching Evaluation Reports with 80%+ Agreement in all items


31

Section 2 – Quantitative and qualitative results of unit evaluation Semester 2 2015 study period

2.1 Quantitative results This section provides data for student enrolments in Semester 2 study period only to allow accurate trend data with previous reports. Data from the minor study periods or ‘Special Events’ are not included. All percentage values are rounded to the nearest 0.1%. In Semester 2 2015, eVALUate was available (19 October to 6 December) for 1015 undergraduate and 518 postgraduate coursework units at Curtin’s Australian campuses as well as at Limkokwing University of Creative Technology in Malaysia, Miri Sarawak campus in Malaysia and Charles Telfair Institute in Mauritius. There was a total of 108,548 potential survey submissions by 32,693 students enrolled in those units. At the close of data gathering, there were 36,895 surveys submitted by 13,223 students. This is an overall response rate of 34.0% by 40.5% of the eligible students. In the tables presented in this section, highlighted cells indicate where response rates were less than the 35% target set by the Vice-Chancellor. Detailed information about response rates by faculty, mode, gender and many other breakdowns is available in Appendix 2. Appendix 2 also contains details of teaching areas which achieved the target 35% response rate, the number of units with a representative response rate and the large units with a response rate of 50% or higher. In this section, percentage Agreement (that is, the percentage of participating students who Agreed or Strongly Agreed) is reported for each quantitative item for Curtin overall and for each faculty. Percentage Agreement of less than 80% (and Disagreement of greater than 20%) has been highlighted to indicate areas for further investigation. Trend data from Semester 2 2011 onwards is also shown.

Quantitative results for Curtin overall Table 13 shows the percentage of responses in each category for each quantitative item at University level. The table shows a general trend of improvement in the category of Strongly Agree with a corresponding decline in the category of Agree. See Appendix 1 for further analysis and graphical representation of these results.


32


engagement

Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

S2 11

% SA 33.3 31.9 31.0 31.0 30.1 30.0 36.5

34.0 31.4 31.1

32.0

% A 55.2 52.9 53.6 53.8 48.3 55.4 47.1 50.4 54.3 53.6 51.6

% D 8.0 10.2 10.5 9.9 13.2 9.4 9.6 10.7 10.3 10.7 10.6

% SD 2.7 3.9 3.7 3.8 5.5 3.9 5.2 3.8 2.6 2.7 4.6

% UJ 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.9 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.4 1.9 1.2

S2 12

% SA 34.5 33.3 32.2 32.6 31.8 31.2 37.8

35.4 32.3 32.1

33.1

% A 54.5 52.3 53.2 52.9 47.8 55.0 46.6 50.3 54.2 53.5 51.3

% D 7.5 9.8 10.0 9.5 12.6 8.9 9.1 9.9 9.8 10.2 10.0

% SD 2.7 3.6 3.4 3.7 5.2 3.8 4.8 3.5 2.4 2.5 4.5

% UJ 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.6 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.2

S2 13

% SA 36.4 34.4 33.7 33.8 33.1 33.2 39.2

37.1 34.3 34.1

34.5

% A 52.4 50.5 51.4 51.4 46.0 52.8 44.8 48.1 52.2 51.4 49.2

% D 7.9 10.2 10.2 9.7 12.6 8.9 9.3 10.1 9.9 10.2 10.5

% SD 2.6 3.9 3.6 3.8 5.9 4.0 5.1 3.8 2.4 2.5 4.7

% UJ 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.3 2.5 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.3

S2 14

% SA 36.6 34.7 33.9 33.9 33.7 33.3 39.5

37.5 34.1 34.2

34.7

% A 51.1 49.1 50.0 49.9 44.7 51.9 43.2 47.0 51.7 50.8 47.9

% D 8.3 10.7 10.6 10.4 12.7 9.3 9.8 10.5 10.3 10.3 10.7

% SD 3.2 4.6 4.3 4.5 6.4 4.3 5.8 4.1 2.7 2.8 5.5

% UJ 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.5 1.1 1.7 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.2

S1 15

% SA 37.7 35.8 35.2 35.3 34.4 34.8 40.2

38.4 35.6 35.6

35.6

% A 51.2 49.0 49.6 49.6 45.5 51.6 43.8 46.6 50.4 50.0 47.8

% D 7.4 10.1 10.2 9.6 11.9 8.4 8.9 10.1 10.1 10.2 10.2

% SD 2.9 4.1 3.7 4.1 5.6 4.0 5.3 3.8 2.5 2.5 5.0

% UJ 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 2.6 1.1 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.4

Table 13 Percentage of responses in each category for each quantitative item in the unit survey

Table 14 shows percentage Agreement (that is the sum of the Strongly Agree and Agree responses) and percentage Disagreement (that is the sum of the Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses) at overall University level. For Semester 2 2015, the percentage Agreement for all items is greater than 80% with the exception of Item 5 (feedback). Since Semester 2 2011, percentage Agreement has generally increased.


33

What helps achievement of the learning outcomes

Student motivation and engagement

Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

S2 11 % SA + A 88.5 84.8 84.6 84.8 78.4 85.4 83.6

84.4 85.8 84.7

83.6

% D + SD 10.8 14.2 14.2 13.7 18.7 13.3 14.7 14.4 12.8 13.4 15.2

S2 12 % SA + A 89.0 85.6 85.4 85.4 79.6 86.2 84.4

85.7 86.5 85.6

84.4

% D + SD 10.2 13.4 13.4 13.3 17.8 12.7 14.0 13.4 12.2 12.6 14.4

S2 13 % SA + A 88.8 84.8 85.1 85.2 79.1 86.0 84.0

85.1 86.5 85.5

83.6

% D + SD 10.5 14.0 13.8 13.5 18.4 12.9 14.5 13.9 12.3 12.7 15.1

S2 14 % SA + A 87.8 83.7 84.0 83.7 78.4 85.3 82.7

84.5 85.8 85.0

82.6

% D + SD 11.5 15.3 14.9 14.9 19.1 13.6 15.6 14.6 12.9 13.2 16.2

S2 15 % SA + A 88.9 84.8 84.8 84.9 79.8 86.5 84.0

85.0 86.0 85.6

83.4

% D + SD 10.2 14.1 14.0 13.7 17.6 12.4 14.3 13.9 12.6 12.7 15.2

Table 14 Percentage of agreement and disagreement combined for each quantitative item in the unit survey

TREND

Since 2011, students have indicated they are more satisfied with the quality of

their unit teaching and learning experiences in Semester 2.

Quantitative results by Faculty Table 15 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item for Curtin overall, and for each faculty. Overall trends show a decline in percentage Agreement in most items. The table shows that in 2015, Item 5 (feedback) continues to register the lowest percentage Agreement (and less than the target 80% in all major faculties except the Curtin Business School). The highest percentage Agreement amongst the major faculties was achieved by the Curtin Business School.


34



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

S2 11

Humanities 6512 34.3% 86.7 83.6 82.6 85.1 79.3 84.9 83.1

83.9 86.3 83.9

81.9

CBS 15368 39.0% 90.6 87.0 87.0 86.6 81.6 87.7 85.3 86.0 86.9 87.0 86.5

Sci &Eng 9193 35.4% 87.4 83.8 82.8 84.2 75.4 84.1 81.0 83.7 85.0 84.2 82.8

Health Sci 10734 42.7% 87.2 82.5 83.3 81.9 75.3 82.9 83.2 82.4 83.8 81.7 80.5

CAS 268 26.0% 85.4 82.5 86.1 84.6 75.2 87.2 80.3 84.0 89.5 89.1 81.5

Other 1051 27.7% 92.5 90.8 88.7 90.7 85.5 91.4 87.6 89.7 91.2 90.7 90.3

Curtin Overall 43126 37.7% 88.5 84.8 84.6 84.8 78.4 85.4 83.6 84.4 85.8 84.7 83.6

S2 12

Humanities 6370 34.5% 87.3 84.6 83.9 85.7 80.1 86.1 83.6

84.9 86.0 84.9

83.3

CBS 14078 39.6% 90.4 86.9 87.5 86.1 81.6 88.2 85.6 86.7 87.6 87.1 86.4

Sci &Eng 8809 34.1% 86.9 83.9 81.9 84.0 76.6 83.6 81.3 84.8 85.6 84.9 82.5

Health Sci 11037 41.4% 89.9 85.6 86.2 85.4 79.0 86.0 85.8 85.3 86.2 84.5 83.9

CAS 135 17.9% 88.0 82.1 87.3 80.6 77.6 72.9 82.0 83.5 85.5 83.5 77.9

Other 230 24.7% 96.9 93.5 93.9 94.8 85.5 88.6 91.3 90.9 94.3 91.7 95.5

Curtin Overall 40659 37.6% 89.0 85.6 85.4 85.4 79.6 86.2 84.4 85.7 86.5 85.6 84.4

S2 13

Humanities 6061 31.2% 88.0 85.4 85.0 86.3 80.9 86.9 84.4

84.8 86.7 85.6

83.2

CBS 10157 36.7% 89.4 86.0 86.3 85.8 80.7 86.5 85.0 85.7 87.1 85.9 84.9

Sci &Eng 7909 30.4% 88.2 83.7 82.8 84.4 77.0 85.4 81.7 85.7 87.1 87.0 83.2

Health Sci 10160 36.1% 89.1 84.1 85.5 84.2 77.6 85.2 84.4 84.2 85.2 83.7 82.6

CAS 141 21.3% 84.9 84.3 86.3 85.0 81.4 82.0 77.5 81.4 85.0 87.1 83.5

Other 337 21.3% 92.6 89.3 92.9 92.8 88.4 90.1 89.5 89.6 91.4 92.9 91.9

Curtin Overall 34765 33.6% 88.8 84.8 85.1 85.2 79.1 86.0 84.0 85.1 86.5 85.5 83.6

S2 14

Humanities 6434 32.8% 85.9 84.2 83.3 84.6 79.8 85.3 82.7

84.6 86.4 86.2

81.9

CBS 10354 35.9% 89.1 85.3 86.3 85.4 80.8 86.9 84.7 85.5 87.1 86.5 84.9

Sci &Eng 8622 31.2% 85.5 81.6 80.4 81.4 74.7 82.5 78.6 83.3 84.3 84.4 80.3

Health Sci 10880 35.8% 89.1 83.3 84.7 83.3 78.0 85.6 83.8 83.9 85.1 83.2 82.2

CAS 164 23.7% 86.0 83.5 86.6 84.1 81.1 87.8 83.5 90.2 87.7 87.7 85.4

Cross Inst Enr 20 12.5% 85.0 80.0 80.0 85.0 75.0 70.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 95.0 85.0

Curtin L & T 435 20.0% 94.5 91.2 89.9 91.0 88.9 91.7 86.9 90.7 89.8 90.4 91.3

Curtin Overall 36909 33.7% 87.8 83.7 84.0 83.7 78.4 85.3 82.7 84.5 85.8 85.0 82.6

S2 15

Humanities 6143 32.7% 86.5 83.0 82.2 83.6 78.7 85.5 82.7

83.4 84.7 84.8

81.5

CBS 11066 38.1% 90.0 86.5 86.7 86.0 82.2 87.6 85.4 86.1 87.1 86.9 85.2

Sci &Eng 8575 31.1% 87.6 83.3 82.3 84.1 77.2 84.8 81.3 83.3 84.2 84.9 82.3

Health Sci 10557 35.1% 89.9 84.9 86.1 85.0 79.7 87.1 85.3 85.6 86.8 84.9 83.3

CAS 165 28.3% 90.9 83.6 85.4 86.0 78.2 84.8 81.6 88.3 89.6 88.9 80.9

Curtin L & T 364 16.0% 95.9 92.0 92.8 91.2 91.7 92.2 88.9 96.4 92.0 92.0 92.7

Curtin Intern’l 17 15.3% 68.8 75.0 75.0 73.3 75.0 81.3 75.0 93.8 93.8 93.8 100

Curtin Overall 36895 34.0% 88.9 84.8 84.8 84.9 79.8 86.5 84.0 85.0 86.0 85.6 83.4

Note: Based on faculty of the owning org of the units. Results not reported for Cross Institutional Enrolments or DVC Education owned units due to the very low number of enrolments/responses.

Table 15 Quantitative results by faculty


35

TREND

Since 2011, student satisfaction with the quality of their unit teaching and learning

experiences has increased overall. Students consistently register their lowest agreement with Item 5 (feedback).

Quantitative results by gender Table 16 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item for male and female students. In 2015, females registered higher levels of agreement in all items.



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Male 15519 37.9% 88.0 84.2 83.4 83.9 78.7 85.7 83.2 83.9 84.3 84.4 82.7

Female 21376 29.8% 89.5 85.2 85.8 85.6 80.6 87.1 84.5 85.7 87.3 86.4 84.0

Table 16 Quantitative results by gender

Quantitative results by age group Table 17 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by age group. Students aged 20 years or less consistently register lower agreement with all items. Percentage agreement with each quantitative item generally increases as age group increases.



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

20 yrs & less 14060 31.8% 86.7 82.9 83.0 83.5 77.5 85.8 82.1 80.5 82.0 81.1 81.5

21-25 yrs 14218 31.8% 89.4 85.3 85.3 85.2 81.0 86.4 84.9 86.4 87.3 87.2 84.4

26-35 yrs 5868 40.6% 90.4 85.9 85.6 85.8 80.3 87.2 84.5 88.0 89.1 88.9 83.8

36-45 yrs 1902 50.8% 93.6 88.9 89.2 88.6 84.2 88.6 87.6 93.3 93.9 93.1 87.7

46+ yrs 847 59.4% 95.1 90.2 90.6 90.1 83.9 90.8 87.6 94.8 93.9 93.3 87.0

Table 17 Quantitative results by age group


36

Quantitative results by undergraduate and postgraduate unit level Table 18 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item for undergraduate and postgraduate units. Students in undergraduate units consistently register lower agreement with all items and in particular with student motivation and engagements (Items 8-10), and learning resources (Item 3).



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

UG 31999 32.9% 88.5 84.4 84.3 84.6 79.4 86.3 83.9 84.1 85.3 84.8 83.1

PG 4896 43.5% 91.5 87.3 87.7 87.0 82.4 87.7 84.6 90.4 90.8 90.4 85.7

Table 18 Quantitative results by undergraduate and postgraduate unit level

Quantitative results by undergraduate unit year level Table 19 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by undergraduate unit year level. Undergraduate students in first, second and third year units registered lower agreement with Item 5 (feedback). Students in first year units registered lower higher agreement in all items.



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Pre-tertiary

388 16.5% 96.1 92.2 93.0 91.5 92.0 91.9 89.6 96.1 92.2 91.5 93.2

Year 1 12056 35.3% 88.0 83.6 83.9 84.2 78.8 85.1 83.1 80.7 82.4 81.2 81.8

Year 2 9699 32.8% 88.8 84.7 84.6 84.7 79.8 86.8 84.4 85.5 86.0 86.5 83.6

Year 3 8091 33.5% 88.2 84.4 84.0 84.6 78.9 87.3 83.7 86.2 87.6 87.4 83.3

Year 4 1765 25.0% 89.3 85.8 85.1 85.4 80.6 86.0 85.3 87.9 89.3 87.7 85.3

Table 19 Quantitative results by undergraduate unit year level


37

Quantitative results by student load category Table 20 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by student load category. Part-time students registered higher agreement with all items, most notably in student motivation (Item 8).



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Full-time 32745 33.7% 88.5 84.5 84.6 84.7 79.8 86.4 83.8 84.4 85.7 85.2 83.2

Part-time 4150 36.4% 91.6 86.8 86.1 86.4 80.0 87.3 84.9 89.2 88.7 88.5 85.4

Table 20 Quantitative results by load category

Quantitative results by attendance mode Table 21 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by attendance mode with two categories of mode only. External students registered lower agreement in most items, and particularly lower agreement with quality of teaching (Item 7).



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Internal 33864 33.8% 88.7 84.8 84.8 84.9 79.9 86.4 84.3 85.0 86.1 85.5 83.6

External 3031 36.0% 91.2 83.8 84.5 85.6 79.0 87.7 80.4 85.1 85.6 86.0 81.6

Table 21 Quantitative results by attendance mode (combined range of modes)


38

Table 22 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by attendance mode for the full range of attendance modes. Fully Online and Area External students registered lower agreement than Internal students in most items.



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Area External

10 23.8% 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 70.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 70.0 80.0

Fully Online

3021 36.0% 91.2 83.8 84.5 85.7 79.1 87.7 80.4 85.1 85.6 86.1 81.6

Internal 33864 33.8% 88.7 84.8 84.8 84.9 79.9 86.4 84.3 85.0 86.1 85.5 83.6

Table 22 Quantitative results by attendance mode (full range of modes)

Quantitative results by residency Table 23 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by residency. Australian students consistently register a markedly lower level of agreement with all items and in particular with Item 5 (feedback).



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Australian 23824 32.1% 87.8 82.9 83.3 83.5 76.9 86.1 82.6 83.9 84.4 83.8 81.3

International 13071 38.0% 90.8 88.2 87.4 87.6 85.1 87.3 86.5 87.0 89.0 88.7 87.2

Table 23 Quantitative results by residency


39

Quantitative results by domestic and international (onshore-offshore) Table 24 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item for Australian, International onshore and International offshore students. Domestic Australian students consistently register a markedly lower level of agreement with all items and in particular Item 5 (feedback). Offshore International students registered lower agreement than Onshore International students in all items. What helps achievement of the learning outcomes


Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

No.

Res

pon

ses

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

S2 11

Domestic Australian 24349 36.9% 86.2 81.6 81.9 82.1 73.5 83.3 81.1

81.5 83.0 81.0

79.6

Onshore International 10993 41.0% 91.4 88.8 88.4 88.0 85.0 88.3 87.0 88.8 89.6 89.8 88.6

Offshore International 7784 36.0% 91.5 89.1 87.5 88.7 84.5 87.8 86.5 87.3 89.1 89.1 89.0

S2 12


83.9 84.5 82.9

81.7



S2 13


83.5 84.7 83.3

81.2



S2 14

Domestic Australian

25159 32.9% 86.5 81.9 82.5 82.1 75.6 84.5 81.2

83.0 84.2 82.9

80.2

Onshore International

7035 37.8% 91.2 87.9 88.2 88.0 84.7 88.5 86.4 88.9 89.5 90.3 88.0

Offshore International

4715 32.9% 89.3 87.2 85.6 86.3 84.4 84.4 84.9 85.7 88.7 88.6 86.9

S2 15

Domestic Australian

23824 32.1% 87.8 82.9 83.3 83.5 76.9 86.1 82.6

83.9 84.4 83.8

81.3

Onshore International

6516 34.4% 91.6 89.2 88.2 87.9 85.5 88.2 87.3 88.4 89.4 89.7 87.9

Offshore International

6555 42.5% 90.0 87.1 86.6 87.3 84.8 86.3 85.7 85.5 88.5 87.8 86.5

Table 24 Quantitative results for domestic and International (onshore-offshore)


40

Quantitative results by unit enrolment Table 25 shows percentage Agreement with each quantitative item by unit enrolment. Students register a lower level of agreement with Item 5 (feedback) in units with more than 100 students.



Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

onse

s

Res

pon

se R

ate

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

10 stu or fewer 599 38.2% 91.8 88.1 87.1 88.8 85.6 90.3 84.5 91.1 92.0 92.4 85.7

11-25 stu 2425 39.0% 92.1 89.5 88.5 89.2 83.4 90.0 86.4 92.3 92.9 92.4 88.5

26-50 stu 4252 35.3% 89.1 85.7 85.3 85.6 80.5 86.5 84.0 88.1 88.8 88.6 84.2

51-100 stu 5991 32.8% 88.5 84.6 85.6 85.9 80.5 87.4 84.2 86.7 86.8 86.9 83.4

101-200 stu 8112 32.4% 89.3 85.4 84.8 85.1 79.8 87.7 85.3 85.9 86.8 86.8 84.1

201-500 stu 7259 31.7% 87.8 83.3 83.3 83.5 78.2 85.9 82.8 83.7 85.1 84.5 82.7

501-1000 stu 4307 35.9% 89.9 84.7 84.4 84.8 80.0 83.9 83.5

82.4 84.0 83.9

83.2

1001-1500 stu 2222 38.9% 90.8 88.3 89.0 87.9 82.7 89.0 86.4 84.5 85.4 84.0 86.9

1501+ stu 1728 35.4% 81.3 74.3 75.8 74.5 71.5 77.0 75.8 66.8 70.3 66.1 69.4

Table 25 Quantitative results by unit enrolment


41

Themes in quantitative results Table 26 summarises which specific student subgroups registered less than 80% agreement with the quantitative items. The table shows lower agreement with Item 5 (feedback) in all main Faculties except Curtin Business School, in the Centre for Aboriginal Studies, in undergraduate first, second and third year units, in male students, in Australian students, in full-time students, in both internal and external students, and in units with enrolments of between 101 and 200 students, 201 and 500 students, and more than 1500 students.


engagement Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ou

tcom

es

Exp

erie

nce

s

Res

ourc

es

Ass

essm

ent

Fee

db

ack

Wor

klo

ad

Tea

chin

g

Mot

ivat

ion

Bes

t u

se

Th

ink

ab

out

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Faculty

Humanities

CBS

Sci & Eng

Health

CAS

Curtin L & T

Undergraduate

Pre-tertiary

Unit year 1

Unit year 2

Unit year 3

Unit year 4

Postgraduate

Gender Males

Females

Citizenship Australian

International

Age group

20 yrs or less

21-25 years

26-35 years

36-45 years

46+ years

Attendance Full-time

Part-time

Study mode Internal

External

Unit enrolment

10 or fewer

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-200

201-500

501-1000

1001-1500

1501+

Table 26 Themes in quantitative results


42

2.2 Qualitative results

This section reports students’ feedback in the two qualitative items, namely: 12. What are the most helpful aspects of this unit? 13. How do you think this unit might be improved?

The proportion of students providing comment Out of 36895 survey responses, 24729 (67.0%) contained data in response to at least one qualitative item. Table 27 shows the number and proportion of surveys with at least one comment in Curtin overall and in each faculty. The table shows that overall, more than two thirds of the surveys contained a comment. The major faculty with the highest percentage of surveys containing a comment was Health Sciences (73.1%). The major faculty with the lowest percentage of surveys containing a comment was Curtin Business School (60.8%).

Hum CBS

Sci & Eng

Health CAS Cross Inst

CLT Curtin

Int DVC Ed

Curtin Overall

Total surveys submitted

6143 11066 8575 10557 165 7 364 17 1 36895

No. with comment(s)

4340 6724 5590 7720 119 2 222 11 1 24729

% with comment(s) 70.6% 60.8% 65.2% 73.1% 72.1% 28.6% 61.0% 64.7% 100% 67.0%

Table 27 Number and percentage of responses with comments for each faculty and for Curtin overall

The characteristics of students providing comment Table 28 shows the number and percentage of students in various subgroups that provided comment. The table shows that the following demographic groups were more likely to comment:

female students students aged 36 years or more and students aged 20 years and under undergraduate students external students Australian students part-time students.

These student subgroups were the same as in previous events.


43

Total surveys submitted No. with comment(s) % with comment(s)

Gender Female 21376 14764 69.1%

Male 15519 9965 64.2%

Age group

20 yrs & under 14060 9767 69.5%

21-25 yrs 14218 8982 63.2%

26-35 yrs 5868 3952 67.3%

36-45 yrs 1902 1352 71.1%

46+ yrs 847 676 79.8%

Study level Undergraduate 31999 21587 67.5%

Postgraduate 4896 3142 64.2%

Study mode Internal 33864 22617 66.8%

External 3031 2112 69.7%

Residency Australian 23824 17647 74.1%

International 13071 7082 54.2%

Attendance type Full-time 32745 21700 66.3%

Part-time 4150 3029 73.0%

Table 28 Number and percentage of students who provided qualitative comment

Aspects of units commented on most frequently Table 29 shows the number and percentage of responses in Most helpful aspects and How units might be improved in each faculty and in Curtin overall. The table shows that in the major faculties, students in Curtin Business School consistently provide fewer comments on the Most helpful aspects of units and fewer comments on the How units might be improved.

Most helpful aspects of unit How unit might be improved

No. resp with comment % of resp with comment No. resp with comment % of resp with comment

Hum 3879 63.1% 3608 58.7%

CBS 5726 51.7% 5253 47.5%

Sci & Eng 4878 56.9% 4746 55.3%

Health 6842 64.8% 6241 59.1%

CAS 108 65.5% 89 53.9%

Cross Inst Enr 1 14.3% 2 28.6%

Curtin L & T 202 55.5% 177 48.6%

Curtin International 11 64.7% 11 64.7%

DVC Ed 1 100.0% 1 100.0%

Curtin Overall 21648 58.7% 20128 54.6%

Table 29 Number and percentage of responses about Most helpful aspects and How units might be improved


44

The following analysis of qualitative feedback was performed using CEQuery which automatically classifies comments into 5 domains (Outcomes, Staff, Unit Design, Assessment, and Support) and 26 sub-domains using a custom-tailored dictionary (as shown in Table 30)1. Outcomes Staff Unit design Assessment Support

Intellectual

Work application /career

Further learning

Personal

Interpersonal

Knowledge/skills

Accessibility & responsiveness

Teaching skills

Practical experience (current)

Quality & attitude

Practical-theory links

Relevance (to work/life/discipline)

Flexibility/responsiveness

Methods of learning & teaching

Structure & expectations

Relevance

Marking

Expectations

Feedback/return

Standards

Library

Learning resources

Infrastructure/environment

Student administration

Student services

Social affinity/support

Table 30 The domains and sub-domains within CEQuery

Table 31 shows the results of the CEQuery analysis: the number and percentage and ranking of hits in each sub-domain. The top 10 ranked sub-domains are bolded. The table shows that students commented most frequently about:

Rank 1: Unit design: Methods of teaching and learning Rank 2: Support: Learning resources Rank 3: Staff: Quality and attitude Rank 4: Staff: Accessibility and responsiveness Rank 5: Assessment: Standards

These top 5 sub-domains were the same in the Semester 2 2013 event except that Assessment: Standards has replaced Unit Design: Structure and Expectations as the 5th highest ranked sub-domain.

1 For further information about CEQuery, see Accessing the student voice: Using CEQuery to identify what retains students and promotes engagement in productive learning in Australian higher education at http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/63955/HEIPCEQueryFinal_v2_1st_Feb_06.pdf


45

Domain results Sub-domain results

Domain No. hits Rank Sub-domain No. hits % hits Rank

ASSESSMENT 9709 2nd Expectations 2285 3.5 12th

Feedback 2197 3.4 13th

Marking 1493 2.3 17th

Relevance 3838 5.9 7th

Standards 4140 6.4 5th

Unspecified 82 0.1 27th

UNIT_DESIGN 15720 1st Flexibility 3205 5.0 9th

Methods 10009 15.5 1st

Practical_theory_links 558 0.9 19th

Relevance 2942 4.5 10th

Structure 4155 6.4 4th


OUTCOMES 5680 5th Further_learning 76 0.1 28th

Intellectual 1888 2.9 14th

Inter_personal 325 0.5 20th

Knowledge_skills 2634 4.1 11th

Personal 232 0.4 21st


Work_application 1547 2.4 15th

STAFF 8711 3rd Accessibility 4118 6.4 6th

Practical_experience 117 0.2 26th

Quality 5717 8.8 3rd

Teaching_skills 3637 5.6 8th

Unspecified 24 0.0 31st

SUPPORT 8698 4th Infrastructure 1237 1.9 18th

Learning_resources 5965 9.2 2nd

Library 55 0.1 29th

Social_affinity 1522 2.4 16th

Student_administration 126 0.2 25th

Student_services 212 0.3 23th

Timetabling 219 0.3 22nd

Unspecified 4 0.0 32nd

Table 31 The number, percentage and rank of comments in each sub-domain.

Top ten sub-domains in ‘Most helpful aspects’ Table 32 shows the frequency of hits in the top 10 sub-domains in comments about the Most helpful aspects of units. The table also shows the odds of a sub-domain being identified as a Most helpful aspect (BA) or an aspect which Needs Improvement (NI). As an example, BA:NI odds of 3.0 in the Most helpful aspects means that the sub-domain is 3 times more likely to have been mentioned as a Most helpful aspect than as an aspect which Needs Improvement. The table shows that students commented most frequently on methods of learning and teaching in unit design, the quality and attitude of staff, staff accessibility and responsiveness, learning resources, relevance of assessment, staff teaching skills, relevance in unit design, intellectual and knowledge/skills in aspects of outcomes and flexibility and responsiveness in unit design. It is particularly notable that three of the six most frequently commented on ‘most helpful’ sub-domains refer to staff. These top 10 sub-domains were the same as Semester 2 2014 and in the same rank order (1-10).


46

The table also shows that students were 8.8 times more likely to make a positive (Most helpful aspect) comment than a negative (Needs improvement) comment about Outcomes: Intellectual and around 3 times more likely to make positive comments than negative comments about both Staff: Quality and attitude and Staff: Accessibility and responsiveness.

Sub-domain Rank Total hits BA:NI odds

Unit design: Methods of learning & teaching 1 6094 1.6

Staff: Quality & attitude 2 4215 2.8

Staff: Accessibility & responsiveness 3 3064 2.9

Support: Learning resources 4 2782 0.9

Assessment: Relevance 5 2395 1.7

Staff: Teaching skills 6 2096 1.4

Unit design: Relevance 7 1870 1.7

Outcomes: Intellectual 8 1696 8.8

Unit design: Flexibility/responsiveness 9 1525 0.9

Outcomes: Knowledge/skills 10 1507 1.3

Table 32 Top ten sub-domains in ‘Most helpful aspects’

Top ten sub-domains in ‘How unit might be improved’ Table 33 shows the frequency of hits in the top 10 sub-domains in comments about How units might be improved. The table also shows the odds of a sub-domain being identified as a Needs Improvement (NI) than a Most helpful aspect (BA). As an example, NI:BA odds of 3.0 in the Needs Improvement means that the sub-domain is 3 times more likely to have been mentioned as an area needing improvement than as a best aspect. The table shows that students commented most frequently on methods of learning and teaching in unit design, learning resources, assessment standards, expectations, feedback and relevance, structure and expectations of unit design, flexibility/responsiveness of unit design, staff teaching skills, staff quality and attitude, and assessment relevance. These top 10 sub-domains were the same in Semester 2 2014 except 2nd (support: learning resources) and 4th (unit design: structure and expectations) highest ranking sub-domains in 2015 were in reverse order (4th and 2nd respectively) in 2014, the 5th (unit design: flexibility/responsiveness) and 6th (assessment: expectations) highest ranking sub-domains in 2015 were in reverse order (6th and 5th respectively) in 2014 and the 8th (staff quality and attitude) and 9th (staff teaching skills) highest ranking sub-domains in 2015 were in reverse order (9th and 8th respectively) in 2014. The table also shows that students were around 3 times more likely to make a negative (Needs improvement) comment than a positive (Most Helpful Aspect) comment about Assessment: Standards, Unit design: Structure and expectations, Assessment: Expectations and Assessment: Feedback.


47

Sub-domain Rank Total hits NI/BA odds

Unit design: Methods of learning & teaching 1 3915 0.6

Support: Learning resources 2 3183 1.1

Assessment: Standards 3 3122 3.1

Unit design: Structure & expectations 4 3102 2.9

Assessment: Expectations 5 1720 3.0

Unit design: Flexibility/responsiveness 6 1680 1.1

Assessment: Feedback 7 1605 2.7

Staff: Teaching skills 8 1541 0.7

Staff: Quality & attitude 9 1502 0.4

Assessment: Relevance 10 1443 0.6

Table 33 Top ten sub-domains in ‘How unit might be improved’

Themes in qualitative results The analysis reported above suggests that while there are many units in which students are positive about teaching and learning methods, learning resources, unit design, assessment relevance and the quality of staff, there are many others where these same things need improvement. Closer analysis can be performed by using SPSS Text Analytics for Surveys within each CEQuery sub-domain to explore not only what students comment about most frequently, but what they actually say2. Specific reports on unit or course or school/department groups showing this level of analysis can be requested from Beatrice Tucker ([email protected]).

2 Using this method, no ‘raw’ comments appear, only themes and common words.


48

2.3 Improving student perceptions of teaching and learning

Heads of Schools and Departments are urged to embrace Transforming Learning at Curtin (TL@C), a strategic program designed to position Curtin competitively in the global higher education market. Transformed courses will provide an innovative, richly interactive, personalised learning experience for students resulting in highly satisfied students and employers. TL@C will enable teaching and learning in the converged mode that best supports the learning outcomes of the course. The transformation of learning within the curriculum will be achieved through the ART 2015 Project, a unifying project which has three major elements: Assessment, curriculum Review and learning Transformation that is designed to transform learning through a whole of curriculum approach (see http://www.curtin.edu.au/learningfortomorrow). Suggestions for improving student perceptions of teaching and learning as measured by eVALUate:

Unit coordinators and Heads of Schools and Departments or Faculties are urged to read and act on student feedback through eVALUate as follows: 1. plan improvements to units in consultation with unit teams and academic colleagues - for

specialist advice contact a. the Faculty Dean of Teaching and Learning b. the Teaching Support staff in Curtin Teaching and Learning

2. where teaching staff need development opportunities, encourage them to participate in professional learning programs run by the Curtin Learning Institute (see http://www.curtin.edu.au/cli/professional_learning/programs.cfm) including the Foundations of Learning and Teaching Program which is an intensive course in teaching and learning.

3. respond to student feedback by a. including information in the unit outline for each unit - the unit outline template has an

introductory section specifically for this purpose (see http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/course_quality/unit_outline_builder/unit_outline_builder.cfm for a downloadable template), and b. including a response to students in the eVALUate Unit Summary Report (see

https://evaluate.curtin.edu.au/staff/faqs.cfm?sid=361).

4. scrutinise the assessment and feedback of all units across semesters and within courses. Please contact your Dean of Teaching and Learning or Director of Teaching and Learning for assistance. All assessments are also reviewed during the ART 2015 process. Further resources and information are available at http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning_practice/assessment/

5. make use of Curtin’s resources for improving teaching and learning, particularly a. Teaching and Learning at Curtin

http://www.curtin.edu.au/cli/professional_learning/index.cfm b. resources for Assessment, Review and Design and Transformed Engagement (available

soon at http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning_practice/art_new.cfm#) c. resources for teachers (available at http://www.curtin.edu.au/cli/resources/index.cfm) d. resources focussed on improving performance in relation to the eVALUate quantitative

items (see https://evaluate.curtin.edu.au/staff/improve_results_resources.cfm).

6. encourage teachers to participate in Curtin’s new Peer-based Professional Learning Pilot Program which includes developmental and evaluative peer review of teaching activities to enhance and assure teaching excellence (see www.curtin.edu.au/cli/peer_review_teaching/index.cfm).

7. encourage teachers to use the Teaching Excellence at Curtin criteria (at http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning_practice/) which provide dimensions of teaching


49

excellence for each academic level (A-D) and evidence of achievement for each dimension. The Teaching Excellence criteria are designed to assist in clarifying expectations for individual academic staff, to identify career objectives and development needs and to inform professional learning needs and recognition of teaching excellence for promotion and awards.


50

Appendix 1 – Trends of aggregated percentage of responses for each category for Semester 2 study period only This Appendix includes graphs that show the overall percentage of responses in each category (that is, Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree and Unable to Judge) for each quantitative item in each Semester 2 study period in the last five years. In the Strongly agree category, there has been an increase in the percentage in almost every item in each successive Semester 2. This means that students are increasingly likely to register a Strongly agree response to all the quantitative items. The items showing the greatest amount of change (that is, an improvement of 4.4% or more) are: workload (Item 6; up 4.8%), whether students think about how they can learn more effectively (Item 10; up 4.5%), whether learning outcomes were clearly identified (Item 1; up 4.4%), and student motivation (Item 8; up 4.4%).

Figure 13 Percentage Strong agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

(%)

Item

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15


51

In the Agree category, the trend is less clear. For all items, percentage Agree has declined since 2011 and given the increase in Strong Agreement, it is possible that some students who were inclined to register an Agree response in previous years are now choosing the Strongly Agree.

Figure 14 Percentage Agreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ag

ree

(%)

Item

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15


52

In the Disagree category, there has been a decrease in the percentage response in all items since 2011. The items showing the greatest decrease in disagreement are feedback (Item 5; down 1.3%), workload (Item 6; down 1.0%) and quality of teaching (Item 7; down 0.7%).

Figure 15 Percentage Disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Dis

agre

e (%

)

Item

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15


53

In the Strongly disagree category, there has been a small increase in the percentage Agreement since 2011 in most items, a small decline in some items and no change in others. The most notable increase in strong disagreement was in overall satisfaction (Item 11; up 0.4%).

Figure 16 Percentage Strong disagreement for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period from 2011 to 2015

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Str

on

gly

dis

agre

e (%

)

Item

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15


54

In the Unable to judge category, all percentages are very small. Since 2011, there has been a very small increase in the percentage Unable to judge in some items, a small decrease in some items and no change in others. The most notable change since 2011 is in feedback (Item 5; down 0.3%).

Figure 17 Percentage Unable to Judge for the unit survey at the University level for Semester 2 study period over the last five years

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Un

able

to

jud

ge

(%)

Item

S2 11

S2 12

S2 13

S2 14

S2 15


55

Appendix 2 – Response rates This section provides data for student enrolments in Semester 2 study period only to allow accurate trend data with previous reports. Data from the minor study periods or ‘Special Events’ are not included. All percentage values are rounded to the nearest 0.1%. Table 34 shows response rates based on the number of potential surveys by faculty and for Curtin Overall. Trend data is shown for Semester 2 in each year. The table shows that in 2015, Curtin Business School and the Faculty of Health Sciences achieved the target 35% survey response rate while the other major faculties were below the target response rate. The highest overall survey response rate at the major faculty level was achieved by Curtin Business School (11,066 surveys; 38.1%). Curtin Business School achieved the highest response rate at the undergraduate level (9492 surveys; 37.5%). The Faculty of Health Sciences achieved the highest response rate at the postgraduate level (1538 surveys; 46.6%).

All Units UG Units PG Units

No.

Un

its

No.

E

nro

lmen

t

No.

R

esp

onse

s

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

No.

Un

its

No.

E

nro

lmen

t

No.

R

esp

onse

s

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

No.

Un

its

No.

E

nro

lmen

t

No.

R

esp

onse

s

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

Sem 2 2011

Hum 444 18991 6512 34.3% 320 17376 5740 33.0% 124 1615 772 47.8%

CBS 287 39437 15368 39.0% 149 34511 13115 38.0% 138 4926 2253 45.7%

S&E 562 25986 9193 35.4% 371 24321 8334 34.3% 191 1666 859 51.6%

Health 404 25145 10734 42.7% 231 22023 9154 41.6% 173 3121 1580 50.6%

CAS 31 1031 268 26.0% 29 984 246 25.0% 2 47 22 46.8%

Other 49 3796 1051 27.7% 45 3792 1051 27.7% 4 4 0 0.0%

Curtin Overall

1777 114386 43126 37.7% 1145 103007 37640 36.5% 632 11379 5486 48.2%

Sem 2 2012

Hum 415 18471 6370 34.5% 299 16731 5470 32.7% 116 1740 900 51.7%

CBS 278 35573 14078 39.6% 153 31433 12010 38.2% 126 4140 2068 50.0%

S&E 510 25869 8809 34.1% 339 24213 7946 32.8% 171 1656 863 52.1%

Health 394 26674 11037 41.4% 229 23276 9128 39.2% 165 3398 1909 56.2%

CAS 34 754 135 17.9% 31 691 101 14.6% 3 63 34 54.0%

Other 18 930 230 24.7% 17 929 230 24.8% 1 1 0 0.0%

Curtin Overall

1649 108271 40659 37.6% 1067 97273 34885 35.9% 582 10998 5774 52.5%

Sem 2 2013

Hum 428 19431 6061 31.2% 324 17355 5223 30.1% 104 2076 838 40.4%

CBS 259 27702 10157 36.7% 141 24551 8711 35.5% 118 3151 1446 45.9%

S&E 456 25993 7909 30.4% 325 24661 7254 29.4% 131 1332 655 49.2%

Health 377 28181 10160 36.1% 218 24767 8476 34.2% 159 3414 1684 49.3%

CAS 31 661 141 21.3% 29 572 117 20.5% 2 89 24 27.0%

Other 24 1585 337 21.3% 22 1583 337 21.3% 2 2 0 0.0%

Curtin Overall

1575 103553 34765 33.6% 1059 93489 30118 32.2% 516 10064 4647 46.2%


56

Sem 2 2014

Hum 415 19606 6434 32.8% 309 17341 5345 30.8% 106 2265 1089 48.1%

CBS 254 28829 10354 35.9% 140 25238 8531 33.8% 114 3591 1823 50.8%

S&E 449 27609 8622 31.2% 316 25934 7840 30.2% 133 1675 782 46.7%

Health 392 30366 10880 35.8% 228 26890 8977 33.4% 164 3476 1903 54.7%

CAS 25 693 164 23.7% 24 588 127 21.6% 1 105 37 35.2%

Cross Inst 18 160 20 12.5% 16 158 19 12.0% 2 2 1 50.0%

CLT 6 2175 435 20.0% 6 2175 435 20.0% 0 0 0 -

Curtin Overall

1559 109438 36909 33.7% 1039 98324 31274 31.8% 520 11114 5635 50.7%

Sem 2 2015

Hum 427 18797 6143 32.7% 306 16407 5131 31.3% 121 2390 1012 42.3%

CBS 243 29013 11066 38.1% 129 25301 9492 37.5% 114 3712 1574 42.4%

Sci & Eng 438 27602 8575 31.1% 310 25868 7856 30.4% 128 1734 719 41.5%

Health Sci 374 30110 10557 35.1% 221 26807 9019 33.6% 153 3303 1538 46.6%

CAS 25 583 165 28.3% 24 464 112 24.1% 1 119 53 44.5%

Cross Inst 6 30 7 23.3% 6 30 7 23.3% 0 0 0 -

CLT 8 2275 364 16.0% 8 2275 364 16.0% 0 0 0 -

Curtin Int 8 111 17 15.3% 7 110 17 15.5% 1 1 0 0.0%

DVC Ed 4 27 1 3.7% 4 27 1 3.7% 0 0 0 -

Curtin Overall

1533 108548 36895 34.0% 1015 97289 31999 32.9% 518 11259 4896 43.5%

Table 34 Response rate based on potential survey responses

Response rates by potential number of students Table 35 shows response rates based on the potential number of students. The table shows that in 2014, the highest student response rate (i.e. student participation) was achieved by the Curtin Business School (3677 students; 44.4%). At the undergraduate level the highest student response rate was in the Curtin Business School (3089 students; 43.8%). At the postgraduate level, the Faculty of Health Sciences achieved the highest rate of student participation (716 students; 51.4%).


57

All Students UG Students PG Students

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

espo

nse

R

ate

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

espo

nse

R

ate

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

espo

nse

R

ate

Sem 2 2011

Humanities 6060 2417 39.9% 5247 1997 38.1% 813 420 51.7%

CBS 11391 4946 43.4% 9575 4086 42.7% 1816 860 47.4%

Sci & Eng 7034 2926 41.6% 6327 2553 40.4% 707 373 52.8%

Health Sci 7926 3847 48.5% 6443 3068 47.6% 1483 779 52.5%

CAS 245 59 24.1% 244 58 23.8% 1 1 100%

Other 1010 378 37.4% 948 350 36.9% 62 28 45.2%

Curtin Overall 33666 14573 43.3% 28784 12112 42.1% 4882 2461 50.4%

Sem 2 2012

Humanities 5916 2426 41.0% 5071 1959 38.6% 845 467 55.3%

CBS 10390 4643 44.7% 8888 3863 43.5% 1502 780 51.9%

Sci & Eng 7196 2962 41.2% 6481 2570 39.7% 715 392 54.8%

Health Sci 8367 4192 50.1% 6834 3249 47.5% 1533 943 61.5%

CAS 177 23 13.0% 176 23 13.1% 1 0 0.0%

Other 501 173 34.5% 465 156 33.5% 36 17 47.2%

Curtin Overall 32547 14419 44.3% 27915 11820 42.3% 4632 2599 56.1%

Sem 2 2013

Humanities 6363 2349 36.9% 5383 1887 35.1% 980 462 47.1%

CBS 7951 3377 42.5% 6835 2828 41.4% 1116 549 49.2%

Sci & Eng 7393 2697 36.5% 6702 2358 35.2% 691 339 49.1%

Health Sci 8636 3708 42.9% 7123 2896 40.7% 1513 812 53.7%

CAS 145 37 25.5% 145 37 25.5% 0 0 -

Other 701 199 28.4% 648 173 26.7% 53 26 49.1%

Curtin Overall 31189 12367 39.7% 26836 10179 37.9% 4353 2188 50.3%

Sem 2 2014

Humanities 6393 2557 40.0% 5356 2003 37.4% 1037 554 53.4%

CBS 8205 3435 41.9% 6983 2790 40.0% 1222 645 52.8%

Sci & Eng 7698 2976 38.7% 6917 2579 37.3% 781 397 50.8%

Health Sci 9128 3974 43.5% 7631 3083 40.4% 1498 892 59.5%

CAS 129 19 14.7% 129 19 14.7% 0 0 -

Cross Inst Enr 252 97 38.5% 207 78 37.7% 45 19 42.2%

Curtin L & T 682 154 22.6% 682 154 22.6% 0 0 -

DVC International 302 66 21.9% 302 66 21.9% 0 0 -

Curtin Overall 32774 13273 40.5% 28196 10768 38.2% 4582 2506 54.7%

Sem 2 2015

Humanities 6224 2478 39.8% 5161 1976 38.3% 1063 502 47.2%

CBS 8275 3677 44.4% 7056 3089 43.8% 1219 588 48.2%

Sci & Eng 7650 2878 37.6% 6888 2536 36.8% 762 342 44.9%

Health Sci 9206 3810 41.4% 7813 3094 39.6% 1393 716 51.4%

CAS 92 16 17.4% 92 16 17.4% 0 0 -

Cross Inst Enr 160 68 42.5% 119 46 38.7% 41 22 53.7%

Curtin L & T 753 146 19.4% 753 146 19.4% 0 0 -

Curtin Internat’l 333 150 45.0% 329 147 44.7% 4 3 75.0%

DVC Education 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 -

Curtin Overall 32693 13223 40.5% 28211 11050 39.2% 4482 2173 48.5% Note: Prior to Sem 2 2014, students not enrolled in a major faculty or CAS (e.g. cross-institutional students) were assigned to a faculty based on the owning org which owns the majority of their units. From Semester 2 2014 onwards, to ensure reporting methodology matches the BI Tool, student faculty is derived directly from Student 1 (e.g. Faculty = Cross Institutional Enrolments Office for exchange students).

Table 35 Response rate based on potential number of students


58

TREND

Curtin’s overall student response rate has declined over the last five years. The overall response rate decreased from 37.7% in Semester 2 2011 to 34.0% in Semester 2 2015.

The overall response rate increased from 33.7% in Semester 2 2014 to 34.0% in Semester 2 2015. In Semester 2 2015, all major faculties achieved the target response rate of 35%

except for the Faculty of Humanities and the Faculty of Science and Engineering.

Achieving the target response rate of 35% During the first implementation of the unit survey system, it was agreed that faculties would strive to attain an overall response rate of at least 35%. In Semester 2, 2015, a 35% response rate was also achieved by the following 20 larger departments and schools (i.e. with 100+ enrolments) in the Semester 2 study period:

1 Department of Information Studies 49.5% * 2 Department of Applied Geology 46.9% * 3 Department of Planning and Geography 41.7% * 4 Engineering Foundation Year 40.8%5 School of Management 40.1% * 6 School of Information Systems 39.3% * 7 School of Accounting 39.3% * 8 School of Economics and Finance 38.2% * 9 School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine 37.9% *

10 Department of Dental Hygiene and Therapy 37.7% * 11 School of Occupational Therapy and Social Work 37.3%12 Mining Engineering 37.2% * 13 School of Marketing 36.3%14 School of Design and Art (School owned units) 36.2%15 School of Pharmacy 35.8% * 16 School of Education 35.6%17 Faculty of Humanities (Faculty owned units) 35.3% * 18 School of Public Health 35.3% * 19 Department of Social Work 35.1%20 Curtin Law School 35.0%

*Denotes teaching areas that also achieved the target response rate in Semester 2 2014

TREND

The number of larger departments and schools which achieved the target response

rate decreased to 20 in Semester 2 2015 (from 21 in Semester 2 2014).


59

Table 36 shows the number of units that achieved the representative response rate based on enrolments and responses for the Semester 2 study period only. A high response rate was achieved in many large units (i.e. with more than 100 enrolments).

Hum CBS Sci & Eng


CLT Curtin Int

DVC Ed

Curtin Overall

No. units with enrolment ≥ 10 and ≤ 100

287 155 249 256 14 1 2 3 1 968

No. of units with representative response rate (enrolment ≥ 10 and ≤ 100)

1 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 11

No. units with enrolment > 100 50 61 81 81 2 0 6 0 0 281

No. of units with representative response rate (enrolment > 100)

14 44 30 49 1 0 2 0 0 140

Table 36 Number of units with at least 10 ten students and a representative response rate

Table 37 lists the 10 large units (units with an enrolment of 100 or more students) which achieved a response rate of at least 50% (well in excess of the representative response rate) based on enrolments and responses for Semester 2 study period only. The number of large units with a response rate of 50% or higher decreased in Semester 2 2015 from 15 in Semester 2 2014. Students and staff in these units are to be congratulated on achieving this level of participation.

Unit Name Unit Owning Org Enr Resp Resp Rate

Accounting Computer Packages School of Accounting 161 119 73.9%

Health Research Methods School of Public Health 122 62 50.8%

Design For The Future Department of Design 141 98 69.5%

Small Business Planning School of Management 122 68 55.7%

Neuroscience Physiotherapy Rehabilitation School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science 163 87 53.4%

Integrated Neuroscience for Occupational Therapy School of Occupational Therapy and Social Work 153 78 51.0%

Environmental Geoscience Department of Applied Geology 109 59 54.1%

Business Systems Selection School of Information Systems 107 59 55.1%

Metamorphic Petrology Department of Applied Geology 136 70 51.5%

Tectonics and the Dynamic Earth Department of Applied Geology 100 51 51.0%

Accounting Computer Packages School of Accounting 161 119 73.9%

Health Research Methods School of Public Health 122 62 50.8%

Design For The Future Department of Design 141 98 69.5%

Small Business Planning School of Management 122 68 55.7%

Neuroscience Physiotherapy Rehabilitation School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science 163 87 53.4%

Table 37 Units with an enrolment of at least 100 students and a response of 50% or greater

TREND

The number of large units (with 100 or more students) which achieved a response

rate of 50% or higher decreased to 10 in Semester 2 2015 (from 15 in Semester 2 2014)


60

Response rates by gender

Table 38 shows response rates by gender. The table shows that overall a higher percentage of females than males participated (44.2% versus 36.2%), and that this was the case in each major faculty. Since the introduction of eVALUate, males have consistently participated less and should be targeted for greater participation in future events.

Males Females

Students No. Respondents % Response rate Students No. Respondents % Response rate

Humanities 2591 873 33.7% 3633 1605 44.2%

CBS 4085 1633 40.0% 4190 2044 48.8%

Sci & Eng 5927 2176 36.7% 1723 702 40.7%

Health Sci 2120 707 33.3% 7086 3103 43.8%

CAS 31 6 19.4% 61 10 16.4%

Cross Inst Enr 93 34 36.6% 67 34 50.7%

Curtin L & T 344 46 13.4% 409 100 24.4%

DVC International 211 102 48.3% 122 48 39.3%

Curtin Overall 15402 5577 36.2% 17291 7646 44.2%

Table 38 Response rates by gender

Response rates by age group Table 39 shows response rates by age group. Since the introduction of eVALUate, students aged 25 years and younger have consistently participated at a lower rate than students in older age groups and should be targeted for greater participation in future events. 20 yrs & under 21-25 yrs 26-35 yrs 36-45 yrs 46+ yrs

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

Hum 2270 866 38.1% 2470 837 33.9% 938 449 47.9% 339 187 55.2% 207 139 67.1%

CBS 2910 1327 45.6% 3769 1598 42.4% 1215 546 44.9% 285 148 51.9% 96 58 60.4%

Sci & Eng

2913 1117 38.3% 3485 1249 35.8% 986 371 37.6% 207 104 50.2% 59 37 62.7%

Health 3138 1168 37.2% 3194 1179 36.9% 1895 898 47.4% 713 392 55.0% 266 173 65.0%

CAS 10 0 0.0% 13 0 0.0% 33 4 12.1% 18 7 38.9% 18 5 27.8%

Cross Inst

29 13 44.8% 70 21 30.0% 39 21 53.8% 15 7 46.7% 7 6 85.7%

CLT 438 66 15.1% 176 32 18.2% 87 25 28.7% 31 15 48.4% 21 8 38.1%

Curtin Int

177 78 44.1% 137 66 48.2% 18 6 33.3% 1 0 0.0% 0 0 -

Curtin Overall

11885 4635 39.0% 13314 4982 37.4% 5211 2320 44.5% 1609 860 53.4% 674 426 63.2%

Table 39 Response rates by age group


61

Response rates by undergraduate student year of study Table 40 shows response rates by undergraduate student year of study. The table shows that overall a lower percentage of fourth year (30.6%) undergraduate students participated. These students should be targeted for greater participation in future events. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

Res

pon

den

ts

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

Hum 2038 774 38.0% 1573 579 36.8% 1244 516 41.5% 305 107 35.1% 1 0 0.0%

CBS 2973 1307 44.0% 2466 1128 45.7% 1581 647 40.9% 36 7 19.4% 0 0 -

Sci &Eng

2433 966 39.7% 1860 622 33.4% 1586 614 38.7% 963 312 32.4% 46 22 47.8%

Health 2941 1237 42.1% 2194 862 39.3% 1859 769 41.4% 807 220 27.3% 12 6 50.0%

CAS 46 8 17.4% 26 6 23.1% 19 2 10.5% 1 0 0.0% 0 0 -

Cross Inst

117 45 38.5% 2 1 50.0% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -

CLT 753 146 19.4% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -

DVC Int 329 147 44.7% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -

Curtin Overall

11630 4630 39.8% 8121 3198 39.4% 6289 2548 40.5% 2112 646 30.6% 59 28 47.5%

Note: Student year level calculated based on credit points completed within course.

Table 40 Response rates by undergraduate student year of study

Response rates by postgraduate student year of study Table 41 shows response rates by postgraduate student year of study. When compared with previous semester results, postgraduate students from all Faculties are increasingly participating in eVALUate.

Year 1 Year 2


Humanities 850 416 48.9% 213 86 40.4%

CBS 788 380 48.2% 431 208 48.3%

Sci &Eng 618 276 44.7% 144 66 45.8%

Health Sci 1024 539 52.6% 369 177 48.0%

CAS 0 0 - 0 0 -

Cross Inst Enr 41 22 53.7% 0 0 -

Curtin L & T 0 0 - 0 0 -

DVC Int 4 3 75.0% 0 0 -

Curtin Overall 3325 1636 49.2% 1157 537 46.4%

Note: Student year level calculated based on credit points completed within course.

Table 41 Response rates by postgraduate student year of study


62

Response rates by student load category Table 42 shows response rates by student load category. The table shows that overall, part-time students participated at lower rates than full-time students.

Full-time Part-time


Humanities 4719 1838 38.9% 1505 640 42.5%

CBS 6777 3106 45.8% 1498 571 38.1%

Sci &Eng 6497 2513 38.7% 1153 365 31.7%

Health Sci 6926 2871 41.5% 2280 939 41.2%

CAS 89 15 16.9% 3 1 33.3%

Cross Inst Enr 11 3 27.3% 149 65 43.6%

Curtin L & T 462 86 18.6% 291 60 20.6%

DVC Int 94 39 41.5% 239 111 46.4%

Curtin Overall 25575 10471 40.9% 7118 2752 38.7%

Table 42 Response rates by student load category

Response rates by unit enrolment Table 43 shows response rates by unit enrolment size category. The table shows that overall a lower percentage of students in units with between 50 and 500 enrolments participated. These students should be targeted for greater participation in future events.


63

Hum CBS S & E Hlth Sc CAS Cross Inst

Curtin Int

CLT DVC Ed

Curtin

10 or less stu

Potential surveys 498 144 646 204 35 19 17 0 6 1569

No. Responses 188 74 247 81 3 4 2 0 0 599

% Response Rate 37.8% 51.4% 38.2% 39.7% 8.6% 21.1% 11.8% - 0.0% 38.2%

11-25 stu


No. Responses 625 416 550 779 47 3 3 1 1 2425

% Response Rate 34.8% 42.4% 35.8% 48.8% 19.9% 27.3% 23.1% 4.5% 4.8% 39.0%

26-50 stu


No. Responses 1317 723 963 1227 15 0 7 0 0 4252

% Response Rate 34.1% 38.2% 31.9% 38.7% 24.6% - 25.0% - - 35.3%

51-100 stu


No. Responses 1699 1397 1365 1525 0 0 5 0 0 5991

% Response Rate 33.0% 38.6% 31.4% 30.0% - - 9.4% - - 32.8%

101-200 stu


No. Responses 1536 1278 2147 3051 100 0 0 0 0 8112

% Response Rate 30.2% 36.6% 29.2% 34.6% 39.8% - - - - 32.4%

201-500 stu


No. Responses 778 2784 2072 1460 0 0 0 165 0 7259

% Response Rate 32.4% 37.6% 27.6% 32.8% - - - 15.1% - 31.7%

501-1000 stu


No. Responses 0 2172 1231 706 0 0 0 198 0 4307

% Response Rate 37.8% 38.6% 37.4% - - - 17.1% - 35.9%

1001-1500 stu


No. Responses 0 2222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2222

% Response Rate - 38.9% - - - - - - - 38.9%

1501+ stu


No. Responses 0 0 0 1728 0 0 0 0 0 1728

% Response Rate - - - 35.4% - - - - - 35.4%

Note: Based on number of potential surveys (i.e. enrolments) and responses rather than number of students as students are enrolled in units of varying sizes.

Table 43 Response rates by unit enrolment

Response rates by attendance mode Tables 44 and 45 show response rates by attendance mode (aggregated and all categories). Table 44 shows that overall a higher percentage of external students participated. Table 45 shows that overall a higher percentage of fully online students participated in eVALUate.


64

Internal External

Potential surveys No. Responses % Response rate Potential surveys No. Responses % Response rate

Humanities 16891 5357 31.7% 1906 786 41.2%

CBS 27101 10490 38.7% 1912 576 30.1%

Sci &Eng 27155 8412 31.0% 447 163 36.5%

Health Sci 26685 9173 34.4% 3425 1384 40.4%

CAS 558 158 28.3% 25 7 28.0%

Cross Inst Enr 30 7 23.3% 0 0 -

Curtin L & T 1559 249 16.0% 716 115 16.1%

Curtin Int 111 17 15.3% 0 0 -

DVC Ed 97 1 1.0% 0 0 -

Curtin Overall 100117 33864 33.8% 8431 3031 36.0%

Note: Based on unit owning faculty a11nd reported based on number of potential surveys (i.e. enrolments) and responses rather than number of students as students can be studying different units of different mod106393es simultaneously.

Table 44 Response rates by attendance mode

Area External Fully Online Internal

Pot

enti

al S

urv

eys

No.

Res

pon

ses

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

Pot

enti

al S

urv

eys

No.

Res

pon

ses

% R

esp

onse

rat

e

Pot

enti

al S

urv

eys

No.

Res

pon

ses

% R

esp

onse

rat

e Humanities 14 0 0.0% 1892 786 41.5% 16891 5357 31.7%

CBS 0 0 - 1912 576 30.1% 27101 10490 38.7%

Sci &Eng 26 9 34.6% 421 154 36.6% 27155 8412 31.0%

Health Sci 2 1 50.0% 3423 1383 40.4% 26685 9173 34.4%

CAS 0 0 - 25 7 28.0% 558 158 28.3%

Cross Inst Enr 0 0 - 0 0 - 30 7 23.3%

Curtin L & T 0 0 - 716 115 16.1% 1559 249 16.0%

Curtin International 0 0 - 0 0 - 111 17 15.3%

DVC Education 0 0 - 0 0 - 27 1 3.7%

Curtin Overall 42 10 23.8% 8389 3021 36.0% 100117 33864 33.8%

Note: Based on unit owning faculty and reported based on number of potential surveys (i.e. enrolments) and responses rather than number of students as students can be studying different units of different modes simultaneously.

Table 45 Response rates by attendance mode (all categories)


65

Response rates by residency Tables 46 and 47 show response rates by residency (aggregated and by location). Table 46 shows that overall, International students participated at a higher rate than Australian students. Table 47 shows that International offshore students participated at a higher rate than International onshore students.

Australian students International students


Humanities 5153 2082 40.4% 1071 396 37.0%

CBS 4380 1728 39.5% 3895 1949 50.0%

Sci &Eng 4591 1635 35.6% 3059 1243 40.6%

Health Sci 8182 3431 41.9% 1024 379 37.0%

CAS 92 16 17.4% 0 0 -

Cross Inst Enr 110 49 44.5% 50 19 38.0%

Curtin L & T 753 146 19.4% 0 0 -

DVC Int 58 28 48.3% 275 122 44.4%

Curtin Overall 23319 9115 39.1% 9374 4108 43.8%

Note: Australian students are those with Australian Citizenship or Permanent Residency or NZ Citizenship; International students are those without Australian Citizenship or Permanent Residency or NZ Citizenship.

Table 46 Response rates by residency

Domestic International Onshore International Offshore

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

No.

Stu

den

ts

No.

R

esp

ond

ents

% R

esp

onse

R

ate

Hum 5153 2082 40.4% 655 253 38.6% 416 143 34.4%

CBS 4380 1728 39.5% 1954 879 45.0% 1941 1070 55.1%

S&E 4591 1635 35.6% 1428 516 36.1% 1631 727 44.6%

Health 8182 3431 41.9% 1024 379 37.0% 0 0 -

CAS 92 16 17.4% 0 0 - 0 0 -

Cross Inst 110 49 44.5% 43 16 37.2% 7 3 42.9%

CLT 753 146 19.4% 0 0 - 0 0 -

DVC Int 58 28 48.3% 275 122 44.4% 0 0 -

Curtin Overall

23319 9115 39.1% 5379 2165 40.2% 3995 1943 48.6%

Table 47 Response rates by residency (with onshore/offshore breakdown)


66

Response rates by campus Table 48 shows response rates by campus. Highlighted cells indicate where the target response rate of 35% was not achieved.

Hum CBS Sci & Eng


Curtin Int

CLT DVC Ed

Campus Overall

Albany: Great Southern TAFE

Potential Surveys 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 31

No. Responses 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11

% Response rate - - - 35.5% - - - - - 35.5%

Albany: UWA Centre


No. Responses 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27

% Response rate 67.5% - - - - - - - - 67.5%

Bentley


No. Responses 5644 7133 5732 10546 160 7 14 364 1 29601

% Response rate 32.6% 34.0% 28.9% 35.1% 28.0% 23.3% 14.3% 16.0% 3.7% 32.4%

Kalgoorlie


No. Responses 95 0 397 0 5 0 0 0 0 497

% Response rate 47.3% - 38.2% - 41.7% - - - - 39.7%

Malaysia: Limkokwing


No. Responses 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31

% Response rate 10.8% - - - - - - - - 10.8%

Malaysia: Miri Campus


No. Responses 44 2022 2418 0 0 0 3 0 0 4487

% Response rate 33.3% 48.2% 36.6% - - - 23.1% - - 41.0%

Margaret River


No. Responses 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28

% Response rate - - 29.8% - - - - - - 29.8%

Mauritius: Charles Telfair Institute


No. Responses 302 1739 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2041

% Response rate 37.0% 51.2% - - - - - - - 48.4%

Perth City


No. Responses 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20

% Response rate - 57.1% - - - - - - - 57.1%

Sydney


No. Responses 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152

% Response rate - 35.8% - - - - - - - 35.8%

Table 48 Response rates by campus


67

Recommendations for improving response rates Consistent with previous eVALUate main semesters, response rates are higher in female students, postgraduate students and external students. The following student subgroups are less likely to give feedback on units using eVALUate and need to be targeted to improve their participation.

Students enrolled in all Faculties except for CBS and Health Sciences Male students Students aged 21 to 25 years Students enrolled in Internal and Area External mode of study Undergraduate students in their fourth year of study Students enrolled in units with an enrolment between 51 and 500 students Students enrolled in Australia at Bentley campus and Margaret River campus Students enrolled in Malaysia at Limkokwing Uni of Creative Technology.


68

Appendix 3 – Survey instruments

Unit survey The eVALUate unit survey items are designed to be meaningful to students across a wide range of disciplines in all Curtin’s varied learning contexts (on- or off-campus, locally and internationally). The survey has 11 quantitative items and 2 qualitative items. Each quantitative item has a brief explanatory for clarification. Students can hide the explanatory text online if they wish. The items ask students to indicate their level of agreement. Students may indicate Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree or Unable to Judge for each item. Items one to seven ask students to report on what helped and hindered their achievement of unit learning outcomes.

The remaining four items ask students to report on their motivation, enthusiasm and commitment in the learning experiences and their overall satisfaction with the unit.


69

The qualitative items invite students to answer two questions in a constructive and professional manner (each text answer is limited to 600 characters):

Teaching survey The eVALUate teaching evaluation survey asks students to report on aspects of teaching performance. It has 7 quantitative and 2 qualitative items. Each quantitative item has a brief explanatory for clarification. Students can hide the explanatory text online if they wish. The items ask students to indicate their level of agreement. Students may indicate Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly disagree or Unable to Judge for each item. The survey appears as follows:

eVALUate University Aggregated ReporteVALUate University Aggregated Report Participation rates,...

Documents

Transcript of eVALUate University Aggregated ReporteVALUate University Aggregated Report Participation rates,...