History, English Studies, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey 2010
Alexandra Cronberg
Series Editor: Jane Gawthrope
Report Series Number 25 • May 2011 ISBN 978-1-905846-32-0
History, English Studies, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey 2010
Alexandra Cronberg Series Editor: Jane Gawthrope
Report Series Number 25 • May 2011 ISBN 978-1-905846-42-9
Copyright Statement a) T he author of the report is Alexandra Cronberg, who should be referenced in any citations of the report and acknowledged in any quotations from it. b) C opyright in the report resides with the publisher, the Higher Education Academy English Subject Centre, from whom permission to reproduce all or part of the report should be obtained. c) If any additional use is made of secondary data the source must be acknowledged.
The Author Alexandra Cronberg is a freelance social researcher who works on a range of health, education and transport topics.
Contents 1. INTRODUCTION
1
2. HISTORY
3
Overall results
3
History versus Humanities
4
History versus the NSS overall
5
Institutional groups
10
Gender
16
Region
20
Summary of results for History
26
Changes compared to NSS 2009
26
3.ENGLISH STUDIES AND IMAGINATIVE WRITING
26
Overall results
26
English Studies versus Imaginative Writing versus Humanities
28
English Studies versus Imaginative Writing versus NSS
30
Institutional groups
32
Gender
43
Region
51
Summary of results for English Studies and Imaginative Writing
58
Changes compared to NSS 2009
59
History versus English Studies and Imaginative Writing
59
Changes compared to NSS 2009
61
1
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
1. Introduction This report presents the results from the National Student Survey (NSS) 2010 for History, English Studies and Imaginative Writing. It was commissioned by the English Subject Centre and the History Subject Centre in December 2010. The results for Humanities and NSS overall are also presented for comparative purposes. The results are presented using bar charts showing average scores by scale and question, which are accompanied by brief commentaries. In addition to showing overall results for each subject and in comparison to Humanities and the NSS overall, the report presents the results broken down by institutional group and region. Further, average scores for each question broken down by gender are also presented. Notable changes compared to the results from the NSS 2009 survey are also mentioned. A summary of the results is provided at the end of each section. It should be noted that the use of the terms ‘English Studies’ and ‘Imaginative Writing’ stem from the disciplinary categories which structure the NSS dataset. For more information about the Joint Academic Coding System (JACS) please see the UCAS website (www.ucas.com/he_staff/courses/jacs).
Scale 3. Academic Support
Q11 Q12 4. Organisation and Management
It should be noted that there are a further six questions which are asked only to NHS funded students which have been excluded from this analysis. The questionnaire also includes open-ended response questions inviting respondents to record ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ features of their university experience which they would like to highlight. The responses from the open-ended questions are not presented in this report. The results presented in this report are based on average scores by course, which have been aggregated. Table 1: Contents of the National Student Survey 2010 Scale
Question
1. Teaching and Learning
Q1 Q2
2. Assessment and Feedback
Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
Staff are good at explaining things Staff have made the subject interesting Staff are enthusiastic Course is intellectually stimulating Criteria used in marking have been clear in advance Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair Feedback has been prompt I have received detailed comments on my work Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
Q13 Q14
Q15 5. Learning Resources
Q16 Q17 Q18
6. Personal Development
Q19 Q20
The National Student Survey The NSS contains 22 questions grouped into seven themes or ‘scales’. Each question presents a statement to which students are asked to what extent they agree or disagree on a five-point scale. Responses are coded numerically, with one representing “definitely disagree” and five representing “definitely agree”. The response option “not applicable” is also offered.
Question Q10
Q21
7. Overall satisfaction
Q22
I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies I have been able to contact staff when I needed to Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively The course is well organised and is running smoothly The library resources and services are good enough for my needs I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to The course has helped me present myself with confidence My communication skills have improved As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
Methodological issues and how to use NSS Data The NSS has been conducted on an annual basis since 2005. It asks final year undergraduates to provide feedback on their courses through completion of the questionnaire presented in Table 1. All eligible students receive an e-mail inviting them to complete the questionnaire online. The independent company (Ipsos MORI) conducting the survey then follow up with those who do not respond to the e-mail in order to ensure the scope and rigor of the research. This takes place through post and then telephone. The results of the survey are published on the website Unistats.com, as well as being made available to relevant organizations via HEFCE (http://unistats.direct.gov.uk) and the Higher Education Academy (HEA). There are three main methodological points to consider when evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the NSS dataset as a tool for quality enhancement: 1. T he data is about student experience of the learning environment. This experience is limited, in the sense that students lack full insight into the objective features of this environment1. Responses may be shaped by a lack of personal understanding of the educational value of a particular aspect of the course or unrealistic estimations of prevailing standards within comparable institutions. Furthermore response will usually reflect partial knowledge of the institution itself e.g. a student may give low scores for scale 1 questions on the basis of having been taught by an unrepresentative series of unenthusiastic staff members in an otherwise exemplary department. +
1 T his claim applies beyond the student population. Staff also lack full insight, albeit in different ways. This reciprocal lack of full penetration into the characteristics of the learning environment is why the NSS stands as a valuable addition to anecdotal evidence and personal experience.
2
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
3. T he experience students have of their learning environment will be shaped by its actual characteristics. So while it is important to recognize the aforementioned limitations of the data, it is important not to lose sight of the objective referents of questionnaire responses. Though responses are mediated through the subjective perception of students, it is still the case that students possess valuable insight into the characteristics of their learning environment. As Prosser (2005)2 puts it, “students on a course experience the same teaching and the same course, but they experience them in different ways. Becoming aware of those differences, and trying to understand them, is the key to improving students’ experiences of learning.” While there are limitations to the data these should not be overstated. The scope of the NSS makes it a uniquely valuable resource for those seeking to enhance the student learning experience. All finalists at participating universities are invited to complete the questionnaire through a multi-stage process (e-mail, post, telephone) which aims to minimise non-response. Furthermore the survey is conducted in a standardised fashion across the UK each year by a hugely experienced market research company. As such the data can be taken to be as rigorous a sample of student opinion as is effectively feasible. Even so, it is imperative that the data be interpreted in a way which is informed by an appreciation of the aforementioned methodological issues. An attempt to understand the data in terms of a single scale of student satisfaction would fall short in this respect: it would presuppose uniformity in respondents and their responses that could not be justified, as well as obscuring the knowledge able to be recovered from responses on the other six scales. Similarly courses should not be ranked hierarchically on the basis of NSS results, as the differences between particular courses are often very small. Furthermore it is a mistake to compare departments directly because of the varying student demographics and institutional characteristics represented on the NSS. Prosser (2005)2 suggests that interpreting NSS results as satisfaction ratings can be counter-productive. He argues that the data is much more productively interpreted as indicators of how students experience their university and department as a context for learning. Such an understanding is best placed to generate practical insights from data in spite of its
methodological weaknesses. Through identification of trends within a learning environment and comparative tendencies across them, it is possible for the NSS to ‘flag up’ relative strengths and weaknesses for particular disciplines, institutions or mission groups. As Williams and Kane (2008)3 argue, “data from such high-level surveys is best used for indicative purposes to identify areas for further investigation”. Through analysis of the NSS it is possible to identify apparent issues which invite further inquiry. While it is possible to construct hypotheses to explain patterning in NSS results, these are best construed as starting points for investigation rather than conclusive insights into student experience.
2. History Overall results The following section presents the average scores for History by scale and question. The results achieved were generally high, which were also reflected by high overall satisfaction, but there was some variation in average score by scale and question. The scales with the highest average score were Scale 1 “Teaching and Learning” and Scale 7 “Overall Satisfaction” (both 4.3 points), whereas Scale 5 “Learning Resources” scored the lowest (3.8 points). The average scores for individual questions closely reflected those of each scale overall. The questions with the highest average score were Q3 “Staff are enthusiastic” and Q4 “The course is intellectually stimulating” (both 4.4. points). The questions with the lowest average scores were Q7 “Feedback has been prompt” and Q16 “The library resources and services are good enough for my needs” (both 3.7 points). Figure 1: Average score by scale, History 5.0 4.5 Average response score
2. I t is also important to note the potential variability in the learning styles of students and the role this plays in shaping responses. For instance two students with different orientations in relation to feedback (e.g. one prefers clear and concise feedback while the other prefers abundant and thorough feedback) are likely to give different answers to scale 2 (“Assessment and Feedback”) questions in spite of inhabiting the same learning environment. Given the heterogeneity of the student population, it is unavoidable that different respondents interpret the questions in different ways and that these differences may reflect divergent learning needs which educators must be sensitive to.
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
2 Prosser, M. (2005) Why we shouldn’t use student surveys of teaching as satisfaction ratings. York, Higher Education Academy. 3 Kane, D., Williams, J. (2008) Exploring the National Student Survey. Assessment and feedback issues. York, Higher Education Academy.
3
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 2: Average score by question, History
Figure 3: Average score by scale, History versus Humanities History
Assess. and Feedback
4.5 Average response score
Teaching and Learning
5 6 7 8 9
10 Academic 11 Support 12
Org. and Mngmnt
Overall Satifact.
22
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
16 Learning 17 Resources 18 19 20 21
4.0
0
13 14 15
Personal Devel.
Humanities
5.0
1 2 3 4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Average response score
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
With respect to individual questions, History had a higher average score for most of the questions compared to Humanities. The question with the most notable difference was Q15 “The course is well organised and is running smoothly” (4.1 versus 3.7 for Humanities). History had a lower average score than Humanities on only two questions (Q16 “The library resources and services are good enough for my needs” (3.7 versus 3.9 points) and Q17 “I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to” (4.0 versus 4.1 points). Figure 4: Average score by question, History versus Humanities
History versus Humanities The following section presents the average scores for History departments compared to those for Humanities. There is no clearly defined Humanities sub-category on the NSS. For the purposes of this analysis, Humanities were taken to be constituted by the subject and disciplinary categories from the NSS listed below. The first two are included because they shared this category with History, rather than by utilising the general disciplinary category. The following seven are disciplinary categories encompassing a number of distinct subjects.
History
Teaching and Learning
Assess. and Feedback
1. Archaeology 2. Others in Historical and Philosophical Studies 3. English-based studies 4. European Languages and Area studies
7. Art and Design 8. Performing Arts 9. Other Creative Arts The average scores for History departments tended to be marginally higher than the average for Humanities, with the most marked difference for Scale 4 “Organisation and Management” (4.1 versus 3.8 points) and Scale 7 “Overall Satisfaction” (4.3 versus 4.0 points). The exception was Scale 5 “Learning Resources”, for which History had a lower average score although the difference was small (3.8 versus 3.9 points). The pattern of highest and lowest scores with respect to scales was similar for History compared to Humanities.
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 Academic 11 Support 12
5. Other Languages and Area studies 6. Philosophy, Theology and Religious studies
Humanities
Org. and Mngmnt
13 14 15
16 Learning 17 Resources 18 Personal Devel.
19 20 21
Overall Satifact.
22 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Average response score
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
History versus the NSS overall This section compares average results for all History departments with average results for all subjects across the NSS. Comparing History with the NSS overall, History tended to achieve a higher average score, with Scale 1 “Teaching and Learning” (4.3 versus 4.1) and Scale 4 “Organisation and Management” (4.1 versus 3.8) showing the most marked differences. The average score for History was lower than the average for NSS overall on Scale 5 “Learning Resources” (3.8 versus 4.0). Figure 5: Average score by scale, History versus NSS overall History
NSS overall
Figure 6: Average score by question, History versus NSS overall History
Teaching and Learning
Assess. and Feedback
5.0
NSS overall
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Average response score
4.5 4.0
10 Academic 11 Support 12
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0
Org. and Mngmnt
1.5 1.0 0.5 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
13 14 15
16 Learning 17 Resources 18
Personal Devel.
19 20 21
Overall Satifact.
22 0.0
With respect to individual questions, History had a higher average score than the NSS average for all questions except for those in Scale 5 “Learning Resources”. The questions with the most marked differences were Q8 “I have received detailed feedback on my work” (where History scored 4.0 on average compared to 3.6 for NSS) and Q15 “The course is well organised and is running smoothly” (4.1 for History versus 3.8 for NSS). The average History score was lower than that for NSS overall for the questions in Scale 5. In particular, History scored comparatively low for Q16 “The library resources and services are good enough for my needs” (3.7 versus 4.0 points).
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Average response score
Institutional groups The following section compares average scores for History departments broken down by institutional group (Russell group, 1994 group, Million+ group, and University Alliance). Links to mission group websites are available at http://tinyurl.com/5tlwldj. A number of institutions were not represented in the History component of the NSS dataset. These missing institutions spanned all four categories of institutional grouping. In some cases, such as Imperial College London, this was clearly due to the absence of history degrees at a predominately science-based university. However, the reasons for many of the other omissions are unknown. While these numbers were relatively insignificant within the Russell Group, 1994 Group and University Alliance (two, four and two missing respectively) a total of fourteen institutions were missing from the Million+ grouping. There were some differences between the institutional groups when comparing average score by scale, although the differences were generally minor. The 1994 group tended to have the highest average score for each scale, whereas the Million+ group tended to have the lowest. The most marked difference was seen for Scale 4 “Organisation and Management”, for which the 1994 group scored 4.3 on average compared to 3.9 for the Million+ group.
5
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Table 2: Average score for History by scale and group History overall
1994 group
Million+
Russell group
University Alliance
1: Teaching and Learning
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
2: Assessment and Feedback
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.9
3: Academic Support
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.1
4: Organisation and Management
4.1
4.3
3.9
4.2
4.1
5: Learning Resources
3.8
3.9
3.8
4.1
3.7
6: Personal Development
4.1
Scale
The questions for which the lowest average scores were achieved varied somewhat between the institutional groups. The 1994 group, the Million+ group, and the University Alliance achieved the lowest average score for Q16 “The library resources and services are good enough for my needs” (3.7, 3.6 and 3.5 points, respectively). The Million+ group achieved an equally low average score for Q7 “Feedback has been prompt” (3.6 points). In contrast, the Russell group achieved the lowest average scores for questions relating to assessment and feedback (Q5 “Criteria used in marking have been clear in advance”, Q7 “Feedback has been prompt”, and Q9 “Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand” (all 3.7 points). Table 3: Average score for History by question and institutional group Scale
4.2
4.1
4.1
Question
4.1
1
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
2
4.2
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.2
3
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
4
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.4
4.3
5
3.9
3.9
4.0
3.7
3.9
6
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.0
7
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.6
8
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.1
9
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.8
10
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.0
11
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.3
2.5
12
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.9
2.0
13
4.2
4.4
4.0
4.2
4.2
14
4.0
4.2
3.8
4.1
4.1
15
4.1
4.3
3.9
4.1
4.1
16
3.7
3.7
3.6
4.0
3.5
17
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.2
3.9
18
3.8
3.9
3.8
4.0
3.7
19
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
20
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
21
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.1
22
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.3
7: Overall Satisfaction
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.3
1: Teaching and Learning
Figure 7: Average score for History by scale and group 1994 group
Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
5.0
2: Assessment and Feedback
4.5 4.0 3.5
3: Academic Support
3.0
4: Organisation and Management
1.5 1.0 0.5 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
The average scores for individual questions showed slightly more variation across the institutional groups compared to the results aggregated by scale. The largest difference was seen for Q14 “Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively”, where the 1994 group scored the highest (4.2 points) and the Million+ group the lowest (3.8 points), and Q16 “The library resources and services are good enough for my needs”, where the Russell group scored the highest (4.0 points) and the University Alliance the lowest (3.5 points). Teaching and learning was a comparative strength across all institutional groups (similar to History overall), as reflected in the high average scores for this scale. With respect to individual questions, all four groups achieved the highest score on Q3 “Staff are enthusiastic”. Additionally, both the Russell group and the 1994 group achieved equally high scores for Q4 “Course is intellectually stimulating”.
5: Learning Resources 6: Personal Development 7: Overall Satisfaction
Figure 8: Average score for History by question and institutional group, Scale 1: Teaching and Learning 1994 group
Million +
Russell group
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q1 Staff are good at explaining things
Q2 Staff have made the subject interesting
Q3 Staff are Enthusiastic
Question
6
University Alliance
5.0 Average response score
Average response score
History 1994 Million Russell University overall group + group Alliance
Q4 Course is intellectually stimulating
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 9: Average score for History by question and institutional group, Scale 2: Assessment and Feedback Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
1994 group
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
Average response score
Average response score
1994 group
Figure 12: Average score for History by question and institutional group, Scale 5: Learning Resources
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q8 I have received detailed comments on my work
Question
University Alliance
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
Q9 Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
Figure 10: Average score for History by question and institutional group, Scale 3: Academic Support 1994 group
Million +
Russell group
Q16 The library resources and services are good enough for my needs
Q17 I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to
Q18 I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to
Question
Figure 13: Average score for History by question and institutional group, Scale 6: Personal Development
University Alliance
1994 group
5.0
Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
5.0
4.5
4.5 Average response score
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q10 I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies
Q11 I have been able to contact staff when I needed to
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
Q12 Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices
Q19 The course has helped me present myself with confidence
Q20 My communication skills have improved
Question
1994 group
Million +
Russell group
Q21 As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems
Question
Figure 11: Average score for History by question and institutional group, Scale 4: Organisation and Management
Figure 14: Average score for History by question and institutional group, Scale 7: Overall Satisfaction
University Alliance
1994 group
5.0
Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Average response score
Average response score
Russell group
0 Q5 Criteria Q6 Assessment Q7 Feedback used in marking arrangements has been have been clear and marking prompt in advance have been fair
Average response score
Million +
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q13 The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned
Q14 Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively
Question
Q15 The course is well organised and is running smoothly
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q22 Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
Question
7
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
The responses of males and females were largely very similar for History. Where there was a difference, males tended to give a slightly higher average score compared to females, although the difference was small (no more than 0.1 points). The questions where males gave a higher score than females included questions relating to explanation and feedback (Q1 “Staff are good at explaining things” and Q9 “Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand”). Other questions for which males gave higher average response were Q10 “I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies”, Q12 “Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices”, Q16 “The library resources and services are good enough for my needs”, and Q17 “I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to”. Females gave a higher score than males on the questions Q4 “Course is intellectually stimulating” and Q5 “Criteria used in marking have been clear in advance”, though again, the difference was small. Figure 15: Average score for History by gender, Scale 1: Teaching and Learning Males
Males
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0 Q5 Criteria Q6 Assessment Q7 Feedback used in marking arrangements has been have been clear and marking prompt in advance have been Fair
Q8 I have received detailed comments on my work
Question
Q9 Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
Figure 17: Average score for History by gender, Scale 3: Academic Support Males
Females
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Females
Q10 I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies
5.0
Mean response score
Females
5.0
Mean response score
The following section shows the results for each question broken down by gender. It should be noted that these results have been generated using a slightly different methodology compared to the results shown elsewhere in this report. Whereas other results have been calculated based on average score for each course, the results by gender have been calculated by simply aggregating all individual responses. Consequently there may be minor differences in the results presented in this section compared to those presented elsewhere.
Figure 16: Average score for History by gender, Scale 2: Assessment and Feedback
Mean response score
Gender
Q11 I have been able to contact staff when I needed to
Q12 Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices
Question
4.5
4.0
Figure 18: Average score for History by gender, Scale 4: Organisation and Management
3.5 Males
Females
5.0 Q1 Staff are good at explaining things
Q2 Staff have made the subject interesting
Q3 Staff are Enthusiastic
Question
Q4 Course is intellectually stimulating
Mean response score
3.0 4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0 Q13 The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned
Q14 Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively
Question
8
Q15 The course is well organised and is running smoothly
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 19: Average score for History by gender, Scale 5: Learning Resources Males
Females
Mean response score
5.0
The following section shows the average scores across History departments broken down by geographical region (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). There was some variation in average scores by region, but the differences were generally small (ranging between 0.1 and 0.2 points). While there was no region that consistently achieved the highest score, Northern Ireland tended to achieve the lowest score.
4.5
4.0
Table 4: Average score for History by scale and region 3.5
History overall
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
1: Teaching and Learning
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.3
2: Assessment and Feedback
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.8
3: Academic Support
4.1
4.1
3.9
4.0
4.1
4: Organisation and Management
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
5: Learning Resources
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.8
6: Personal Development
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.0
7: Overall Satisfaction
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.3
Scale 3.0 Q16 The library resources and services are good enough for my needs
Q17 I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to
Q18 I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to
Question
Figure 20: Average score for History by gender, Scale 6: Personal Development Males
Females
5.0
Mean response score
Region
4.5
4.0
3.5
Figure 22: Average score for History by scale and region 3.0 Q20 My communication skills have improved
Question
Figure 21: Average score for History by gender, Scale 7: Overall satisfaction Males 5.0
England
Q21 As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems
Females
Mean response score
Scotland
Wales
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
4.5
Northern Ireland
5.0 Average response score
Q19 The course has helped me present myself with confidence
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
4.0
3.5
3.0 Q22 Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
Question
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
There was somewhat more variation between regions when comparing individual questions rather than scales. The most marked difference was seen for Q8 “I have received detailed comments on my work� (3.7 (Northern Ireland) versus 4.1 (both Scotland and Wales)).
9
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Table 5: Average score for History by question and region
1
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.4
4
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.4
4.3
5
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.9
3.8
6
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
7
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.7
3.5
8
4.0
4.0
3.7
4.1
4.1
9
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.8
10
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.9
4.0
11
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
12
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
4.0
13
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.3
14
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.0
15
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.1
16
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.6
3.5
17
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.0
18
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.8
19
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.0
20
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.1
21
4.1
4.1
3.9
4.1
4.0
22
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.3
1: Teaching and Learning
2: Assessment and Feedback
3: Academic Support 4: Organisation and Management
History Northern England Scotland Wales overall Ireland
5: Learning Resources
6: Personal Development 7: Overall Satisfaction
England
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Q8 I have received detailed comments on my work
Q9 Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q5 Criteria Q6 Assessment Q7 Feedback used in marking arrangements has been have been clear and marking prompt in advance have been Fair
Question
Figure 25: Average score for History by question and region, Scale 3: Academic Support England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q10 I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies
Wales
Q11 I have been able to contact staff when I needed to
Q12 Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices
Question
4.5 4.0 3.5
Figure 26: Average score for History by question and region, Scale 4: Organisation and Management
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
5.0
1.0
4.5
0.5
4.0
0 Q1 Staff are good at explaining things
Q2 Staff have made the subject interesting
Q3 Staff are Enthusiastic
Question
Q4 Course is intellectually stimulating
Average response score
Average response score
Scotland
4.5
Figure 23: Average score for History by question and region, Scale 1:
5.0
Northern Ireland
5.0 Average response score
Question
Average response score
Scale
Figure 24: Average score for History by question and region, Scale 2: Assessment and Feedback
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q13 The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned
Q14 Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively
Question
10
Q15 The course is well organised and is running smoothly
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 27: Average score for History by question and region, Scale 5: Learning Resources England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
5.0 Average response score
4.5 3.5
Average scores were higher for History compared to both Humanities and NSS overall for all scales, with the exception of Scale 5.
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
The most marked differences compared to Humanities were seen for Scale 4 “Organisation and Management” and Scale 7 “Overall Satisfaction”.
1.0 0.5 0 Q16 The library resources and services are good enough for my needs
Q17 I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to
Q18 I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to
Question
Figure 28: Average score for History by question and region, Scale 6: Personal Development England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
5.0 4.5 Average response score
The average scores for History were generally fairly high, with teaching and learning and overall satisfaction being areas of particular strength. The area in which History scored comparatively poorly was Scale 5 “Learning Resources”.
4.0
4.0
The most marked differences compared to the NSS overall were seen for Scale 1 “Teaching and learning and Scale 4 “Organisation and Management”. There were some differences between institutional groups. The 1994 group tended to achieve the highest average scores, whereas the Million+ group tended to achieve the lowest. There were some differences in average scores across regions, although there was no region that consistently achieved the highest average score. However, Northern Ireland tended to achieve the lowest average scores. The responses given by males and females were largely very similar.
3.5 3.0 2.5
Changes compared to NSS 2009
2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q19 The course has helped me present myself with confidence
Q20 My communication skills have improved
Q21 As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems
Question
Figure 29: Average score for History by question and region, Scale 7: Overall Satisfaction
5.0
Summary of results for History
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
The results from NSS 2010 were largely similar to those from NSS 2009. History achieved a higher average score compared to Humanities and NSS overall on all scales except Scale 5 “Learning Resources” in both 2009 and 2010. The comparative strength of “Teaching and Learning” and “Overall Satisfaction” remained unchanged from 2009. A largely similar pattern was also seen across institutional groups and regions in 2010 compared to 2009. It is notable, however, that there was a less marked difference in the responses of males and females in 2010 compared to 2009. The differences that did emerge in 2010 were also evident in 2009.
Wales
Average response score
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q22 Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
Question
11
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
3. English Studies and Imaginative Writing
Figure 31: Average score by question, English Studies and Imaginative Writing
Overall results
English Studies
The next sections focus on English Studies and Imaginative Writing. While comparisons are made between the two subject areas, it should be born in mind that English Studies represent a much larger number of institutions and consequently a much larger student population than Imaginative Writing. English Studies departments achieved a slightly higher score than Imaginative Writing departments on all scales, except for Scale 5 “Learning Resources” where the scores were similar. The average score for English Studies by scale ranged between 3.9 and 4.3 points. Scale 1 “Teaching and Learning” achieved the highest score, whereas Scale 2 “ Assessment and Feedback” and Scale 5 “Learning Resources” achieved the lowest. For Imaginative Writing the average score by scale ranged between 3.8 to 4.2 points. Scale 1 “Teaching and Learning” was also a particular strength for Imaginative Writing, but the scales for which Imaginative Writing achieved the lowest average scores were Scale 2 “Assessment and Feedback” and Scale 4 “Organisation and Management” (both 3.8 points). The average scores for individual questions in English Studies showed slightly more variation than the average scores by scale, ranging between 3.7 and 4.4 points. The question that received the highest average score was Q3 “Staff are enthusiastic”, whereas the questions with the lowest average scores were Q7 “Feedback has been prompt” and Q9 “Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand”. For Imaginative Writing, the average scores for individual questions ranged between 3.5 and 4.3 points. Similar to English Studies, the question with the highest average score was Q3 “Staff are enthusiastic” and the question with the lowest average score was Q7 “Feedback has been prompt”. Figure 30: Average score by scale, English Studies and Imaginative Writing English Studies
Imaginative Writing
5.0 Average response score
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
12
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
Teaching and Learning
Assess. and Feedback
Imaginative Writing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 Academic 11 Support 12
Org. and Mngmnt
13 14 15
16 Learning 17 Resources 18
Personal Devel.
19 20 21
Overall Satifact.
22 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Average response score
English Studies versus Imaginative Writing versus Humanities This next section compares the average results for English Studies departments, Imaginative Writing departments and Humanities overall. The subject areas included in Humanities for the purposes of this report are given in “History versus Humanities” on page 4. English Studies achieved marginally higher average scores on all scales compared to Humanities, with the exception of Scale 5 “Learning Resources” which achieved a similar score. The differences between English Studies and Humanities tended to be small, however, with Scale 4 “Organisation and Management” (4.0 versus 3.8 points) and Scale 7 “Overall Satisfaction” (4.2 versus 4.0 points) showing the most marked differences. The average scores for Imaginative Writing broken down by scale were no different to Humanities overall. The only scale for which Imaginative Writing achieved a marginally different score compared to Humanities was Scale 7 “Overall Satisfaction” (4.1 versus 4.0 points, respectively).
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 32: Average score by scale, English Studies and Imaginative Writing versus Humanities English Studies
Imaginative Writing
Figure 33: Average score by question, English Studies and Imaginative Writing versus Humanities English Studies
Humanities
Imaginative Writing
Humanities
5.0 Average response score
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0
Teaching and Learning
1 2 3 4
Assess. and Feedback
5 6 7 8 9
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
With respect to individual questions, English Studies achieved a higher average score than Humanities for almost all questions. The differences were generally small, however, with the most marked difference seen for Q15 “The course is well organised and is running smoothly” (4.0 versus 3.7 points.). The only question for which English Studies achieved a lower average score than Humanities was for Q16 “The library resources and services are good enough for my needs” (3.8 versus 3.9 points). The scores for individual questions were largely very similar for Imaginative Writing compared to Humanities, with no difference exceeding 0.1 points.
10 Academic 11 Support 12 Org. and Mngmnt
13 14 15
16 Learning 17 Resources 18 Personal Devel.
19 20 21
Overall Satifact.
22 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Average response score
English Studies versus Imaginative Writing versus NSS The following section compares the average scores for English Studies and Imaginative Writing with the averages for NSS overall. The scores for English Studies by scale tended to be higher than those for NSS overall, although the difference was generally small. The exceptions were Scale 5 “Learning Resources”, which achieved a marginally lower score (3.9 versus 4.0 points) and Scale 6 “Personal Development”, which had a similar score (both 4.1 points). Similarly, the average scores for individual questions tended to be higher than those for NSS overall, but again the difference was small. The exceptions were the questions in Scale 5 “Learning Resources” and in Scale 6 “Personal Development”. The results for Imaginative Writing compared to NSS overall were more varied. The average scores for Scale 1 “Teaching and Learning” and Scale 2 “Assessment and Feedback” were marginally higher than those for NSS overall, whereas the scores for Scale 4 “Organisation and Management”, Scale 5 “Learning Resources” and Scale 6 “Personal Development” were marginally lower. The remaining scales had similar scores. The average scores for individual questions closely reflected this pattern.
13
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 34: Average score by scale, English Studies and Imaginative Writing versus NSS overall English Studies
Imaginative Writing
English Studies
NSS overall
5.0 Average response score
4.5 4.0 3.5
The differences were generally slight, however, with the most marked difference seen for Scale 4 “Organisation and Management� (4.2 points for the 1994 group versus 3.9 points for the Million+ group). The differences for the remaining scales ranged between 0.1 points and 0.3 points.
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
There was slight variation across the institutional groups in the average scores achieved by scale and question for English Studies. The 1994 group generally achieved the highest average scores. The pattern was less clear with respect to the group with the lowest average scores.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 6: Average score for English Studies by scale and institutional group
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
Figure 35: Average score by question, English Studies and Imaginative Writing versus NSS overall English Studies
Teaching and Learning
1 2 3 4
Assess. and Feedback
5 6 7 8 9
Imaginative Writing
NSS overall
10 Academic 11 Support 12
Million+
Russell group
University Alliance
1: Teaching and Learning
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.3
2: Assessment and Feedback
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.9
3: Academic Support
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.0
4.0
4: Organisation and Management
4.0
4.2
3.9
4.1
4.1
5: Learning Resources
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
6: Personal Development
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.1
7: Overall Satisfaction
4.2
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.2
Figure 36: Average score for English Studies by scale and institutional group 1994 group
13 14 15
Personal Devel.
19 20 21
Overall Satifact.
22
Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
5.0 4.5
16 Learning 17 Resources 18
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Average response score
Institutional groups The next sections show the results for English Studies departments by institutional group (1994 group, Million+ group, Russell group, and University Alliance), followed by the equivalent results for Imaginative Writing.
14
1994 group
Average response score
Org. and Mngmnt
English Studies overall
Scale
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Table 7: Average score for English Studies by question and institutional group English 1994 Million Russell University Question overall group + group Alliance
Scale
Figure 38: Average score for English Studies by question and institutional group, Scale 2: Assessment and Feedback 1994 group
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
2
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.2
3
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.3
4
4.3
4.5
4.2
4.4
4.3
5
3.9
3.9
4.0
3.5
3.9
6
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.9
4.0
7
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.7
3.7
8
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.8
4.0
9
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.8
10
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.0
11
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.2
12
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.9
3.9
4.5
13
4.1
4.3
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.0
14
4.0
4.2
3.7
4.1
4.1
15
4.0
4.2
3.8
4.1
4.1
16
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.0
3.9
17
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.1
18
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.0
3.9
6: Personal Development
19
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.1
20
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
21
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.1
7: Overall Satisfaction
22
4.2
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.2
4: Organisation and Management 5: Learning Resources
Figure 37: Average score for English Studies by question and institutional group, Scale 1: Teaching and Learning Million +
Russell group
0.5 Q5 Criteria Q6 Assessment Q7 Feedback used in marking arrangements has been have been clear and marking prompt in advance have been fair
1994 group
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q10 I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies
1994 group
4.0
0.5
Q12 Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices
Figure 40: Average score for English Studies by question and institutional group, Scale 4: Organisation and Management
4.0
1.0
Q11 I have been able to contact staff when I needed to
Question
4.5
1.5
University Alliance
3.0
4.5
2.0
Russell group
3.5
5.0
2.5
Million +
5.0
University Alliance
3.0
Q9 Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
Figure 39: Average score for English Studies by question and institutional group, Scale 3: Academic Support
5.0
3.5
Q8 I have received detailed comments on my work
Question
Average response score
Average response score
1994 group
1.0 0
Average response score
3: Academic Support
University Alliance
4.0
4.2
2: Assessment and Feedback
Russell group
4.5
1 1: Teaching and Learning
Million +
5.0 Average response score
The differences between institutional groups were of a similar magnitude for individual questions as for the scales. The questions in Scale 4 “Management and organisation” accounted for the largest differences, whereas the questions in Scale 6 “Personal Development” accounted for the smallest.
Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
0 Q1 Staff are good at explaining things
Q2 Staff have made the subject interesting
Q3 Staff are Enthusiastic
Question
Q4 Course is intellectually stimulating
Q13 The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned
Q14 Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively
Q15 The course is well organised and is running smoothly
Question
15
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 41: Average score for English Studies by question and institutional group, Scale 5: Learning Resources 1994 group
Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
5.0 Average response score
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q16 The library resources and services are good enough for my needs
Q17 I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to
Q18 I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to
Imaginative Writing There was slightly more variation between institutional groups for Imaginative Writing than for English Studies, with the difference ranging between 0.1 and 0.5 points in average score by scale. There was no clear pattern with respect to the institutional groups that achieved the highest and lowest scores. The largest difference was seen for Scale 4 “Organisation and Management” and Scale 5 “Learning Resources”, whereas the smallest difference was seen for Scale 2 “Assessment and Feedback”. The 1994 group and the University Alliance achieved the highest scores on Scale 4 and Scale 5, respectively. The Million+ group and the Russell group achieved the lowest scores, respectively. Table 8: Average score for Imaginative Writing by scale and institutional group Imaginative Writing overall
1994 group
Million+
Russell group
University Alliance
1: Teaching and Learning
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.3
4.2
2: Assessment and Feedback
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.8
3: Academic Support
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.8
4.0
4: Organisation and Management
3.8
4.1
3.6
4.0
3.8
5: Learning Resources
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.6
4.0
6: Personal Development
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.1
7: Overall Satisfaction
4.1
4.2
3.9
4.2
4.1
Question
Scale
Figure 42: Average score for English Studies by question and institutional group, Scale 6: Personal Development 1994 group
Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
5.0 Average response score
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q19 The course has helped me present myself with confidence
Q20 My communication skills have improved
Q21 As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems
Question
Figure 43: Average score for English Studies by question and institutional group, Scale 7: Overall Satisfaction Million +
Russell group
1994 group 5.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
Question
Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
Q22 Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
16
University Alliance
5.0 Average response score
Average response score
1994 group
Figure 44: Average score for Imaginative Writing by scale and institutional group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Table 9: Average score for Imaginative Writing by question and institutional group Imagin1994 Million Russell University ative Question + group Alliance Writing group overall
Scale
Figure 46: Average score for Imaginative Writing by question and group, Scale 2: Assessment and Feedback 1994 group
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
4.3
4.0
4.2
4.1
2
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.1
3
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.3
4
4.1
4.3
3.9
4.3
4.2
5
3.8
3.9
3.8
3.3
3.7
6
3.9
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
7
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.7
3.6
8
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.9
4.0
9
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.7
10
3.9
4.0
3.7
3.8
4.0
11
4.1
4.2
4.0
3.9
4.2
12
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.7
3.8
4.5
13
4.0
4.2
3.8
4.2
3.9
4.0
14
3.7
3.9
3.4
4.0
3.6
15
3.7
4.0
3.5
3.9
3.7
16
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.6
4.0
17
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.4
4.2
18
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.8
6: Personal Development
19
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.9
4.0
20
4.1
4.2
4.1
3.9
4.2
21
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.8
4.0
7: Overall Satisfaction
22
4.1
4.2
3.9
4.2
4.1
4: Organisation and Management 5: Learning Resources
Figure 45: Average score for Imaginative Writing by question and group, Scale 1: Teaching and Learning Million +
Russell group
0.5 Q5 Criteria Q6 Assessment Q7 Feedback used in marking arrangements has been have been clear and marking prompt in advance have been Fair
1994 group
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q10 I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies
1994 group
4.0
0.5
Q12 Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices
Figure 48: Average score for Imaginative Writing by question and group, Scale 4: Organisation and Management
4.0
1.0
Q11 I have been able to contact staff when I needed to
Question
4.5
1.5
University Alliance
3.0
4.5
2.0
Russell group
3.5
5.0
2.5
Million +
5.0
University Alliance
3.0
Q9 Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
Figure 47: Average score for Imaginative Writing by question and group, Scale 3: Academic Support
5.0
3.5
Q8 I have received detailed comments on my work
Question
Average response score
Average response score
1994 group
1.0 0
Average response score
3: Academic Support
University Alliance
4.0
4.1
2: Assessment and Feedback
Russell group
4.5
1 1: Teaching and Learning
Million +
5.0 Average response score
There was more marked variation in average scores by individual question, ranging between 0.2 points and 0.7 points. The question with the largest difference was Q17 “I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to�.
Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
0 Q1 Staff are good at explaining things
Q2 Staff have made the subject interesting
Q3 Staff are Enthusiastic
Question
Q4 Course is intellectually stimulating
Q13 The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned
Q14 Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively
Q15 The course is well organised and is running smoothly
Question
17
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 49: Average score for Imaginative Writing by question and group, Scale 5: Learning Resources 1994 group
Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
5.0 Average response score
4.5 4.0 3.5
Gender The following sections show the average scores broken down by gender for English Studies, followed by Imaginative Writing. As mentioned above on page 8, the methodology for calculating average scores by gender differs slightly compared to the results presented elsewhere in this report.
English Studies
3.0
There were few differences in the scores given by males and females for English Studies. It may however be noted that males gave a slightly higher average score compared to females for all questions in Scale 5 “Learning Resources�, though the difference was small (0.1 points for all questions).
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q16 The library resources and services are good enough for my needs
Q17 I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to
Q18 I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to
Figure 52: Average score for English Studies by gender, Scale 1: Teaching and Learning Males
Question
Million +
Russell group
University Alliance
5.0 Average response score
4.5 4.0
Mean response score
Figure 50: Average score for Imaginative Writing by question and group, Scale 6: Personal Development 1994 group
3.0
4.0
3.5
3.0 Q1 Staff are good at explaining things
2.5 2.0 1.5
Q2 Staff have made the subject interesting
Q3 Staff are Enthusiastic
Q4 Course is intellectually stimulating
Question
1.0 0.5 Q19 The course has helped me present myself with confidence
Q20 My communication skills have improved
Q21 As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems
Figure 53: Average score for English Studies by gender, Scale 2: Assessment and Feedback Males
Question
Million +
Russell group
4.5 4.0
University Alliance
Mean response score
1994 group 5.0
Females
5.0
Figure 51: Average score for Imaginative Writing by question and group, Scale 7: Overall Satisfaction
Average response score
4.5
3.5
0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.5 3.0
3.0
1.5
Q5 Criteria Q6 Assessment Q7 Feedback used in marking arrangements has been have been clear and marking prompt in advance have been fair
1.0
Question
2.5 2.0
0.5 0 Q22 Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
Question
18
Females
5.0
Q8 I have received detailed comments on my work
Q9 Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 54: Average score for English Studies by gender, Scale 3: Academic Support Females
Males
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
Mean response score
Mean response score
Males
Figure 57: Average score for English Studies by gender, Scale 6: Personal Development
4.0
3.5
3.0
4.0
3.5
3.0 Q10 I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies
Q11 I have been able to contact staff when I needed to
Q12 Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices
Q19 The course has helped me present myself with confidence
Question
Males
Q21 As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems
Figure 58: Average score for English Studies by gender, Scale 7: Overall Satisfaction
Females
Males
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
Mean response score
Mean response score
Q20 My communication skills have improved
Question
Figure 55: Average score for English Studies by gender, Scale 4: Organisation and Management
4.0
3.5
3.0
Females
4.0
3.5
3.0 Q13 The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned
Q14 Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively
Q22 Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
Q15 The course is well organised and is running smoothly
Question
Question
Figure 56: Average score for English Studies by gender, Scale 5: Learning Resources Males
Females
5.0
Mean response score
Females
4.5
4.0
3.5
Imaginative Writing There were few differences in the responses of males and females for the majority of questions for Imaginative Writing. It may be noted, however, that males gave a consistently higher score to all questions in Scale 3 “Academic Support” and Scale 5 “Learning Resources”, although the differences were small. In contrast, females were slightly more likely to agree that, for example, the course was intellectually stimulating (Q4), that criteria used in marking were clear in advance (Q5), and that any changes in the course or teaching were communicated effectively (Q14).
3.0 Q16 The library resources and services are good enough for my needs
Q17 I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to
Q18 I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to
Question
19
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 59: Average score for Imaginative Writing by gender, Scale 1: Teaching and Learning Females
Males
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
Mean response score
Mean response score
Males
Figure 62: Average score for Imaginative Writing by gender, Scale 4: Organisation and Management
4.0
3.5
3.0
4.0
3.5
3.0 Q1 Staff are good at explaining things
Q2 Staff have made the subject interesting
Q3 Staff are Enthusiastic
Q4 Course is intellectually stimulating
Q13 The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned
Question
Q15 The course is well organised and is running smoothly
Figure 63: Average score for Imaginative Writing by gender, Scale 5: Learning Resources
Females
Males
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
Mean response score
Mean response score
Males
4.0
3.5
3.0
Females
4.0
3.5
3.0 Q5 Criteria Q6 Assessment Q7 Feedback used in marking arrangements has been have been clear and marking prompt in advance have been Fair
Q8 I have received detailed comments on my work
Question
Q9 Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
Figure 61: Average score for Imaginative Writing by gender, Scale 3: Academic Support Males
Q16 The library resources and services are good enough for my needs
Q17 I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to
Figure 64: Average score for Imaginative Writing by gender, Scale 6: Personal Development
Females
Males
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Q18 I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to
Question
Mean response score
Mean response score
Q14 Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively
Question
Figure 60: Average score for Imaginative Writing by gender, Scale 2: Assessment and Feedback
Females
4.0
3.5
3.0 Q10 I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies
Q11 I have been able to contact staff when I needed to
Question
20
Females
Q12 Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices
Q19 The course has helped me present myself with confidence
Q20 My communication skills have improved
Question
Q21 As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 65: Average score for Imaginative Writing by gender, Scale 7: Overall Satisfaction Males
Figure 66: Average score for English Studies by scale and region England
Females
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
5.0
5.0 Average response score
Mean response score
4.5 4.5
4.0
3.5
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
3.0 Q22 Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
Question
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
Region The following sections show the results broken down by region for English Studies departments followed by the equivalent results for Imaginative Writing departments. It may be noted that there are 92 departments in England, whereas the equivalent number is nine in Wales, seven in Scotland, and one in Northern Ireland.
English Studies The difference in average score by region ranged between 0.2 and 0.3 points for each scale. Scotland tended to achieve the highest scores, though this region had the lowest score on Scale 5 “Learning Resources”. There was no region that consistently achieved the lowest average score by scale. Table 10: Average score for English Studies by scale and region English overall
England
1: Teaching and Learning
4.3
2: Assessment and Feedback
3.9
Scale
3: Academic Support 4: Organisation and Management 5: Learning Resources 6: Personal Development 7: Overall Satisfaction
4.0
4.0
3.9 4.1 4.2
Scotland
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.8
4.0
3.9 4.1 4.2
3.9
4.2
4.0 4.0 4.2
4.1
4.1
3.8 4.1 4.4
Table 11: Average score for English Studies by question and region Scale
1: Teaching and Learning
Northern Ireland
4.0
There was greater variation in average scores when looking at individual questions, with the difference ranging between 0.1 and 0.6 points. The questions with the largest differences were Q8 “I have received detailed comments on my work” (3.4 (Northern Ireland) versus 4.0 for the remaining regions) and Q16 “The library resources and services are good enough for my needs” (3.5 (Scotland) versus 4.0 (Northern Ireland)).
Wales
4.1
2: Assessment and Feedback
3: Academic Support
4.0
3.9 4.1
4: Organisation and Management 5: Learning Resources
4.2 6: Personal Development 7: Overall Satisfaction
Question
English Northern England Scotland Wales overall Ireland
1
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.2
2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.1
3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.4
4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.2
5
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.8
6
4.0
4.0
3.8
4.1
4.0
7
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.5
8
4.0
4.0
3.4
4.0
4.0
9
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.8
10
4.0
4.0
3.7
4.0
4.0
11
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
12
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.9
4.0
13
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.2
14
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.9
15
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.0
16
3.8
3.8
4.0
3.5
3.8
17
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.1
18
3.9
3.9
4.0
3.9
4.0
19
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.0
20
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.2
21
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.0
22
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.2
21
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 67: Average score for English Studies by question and region, Scale 1: Teaching and Learning 5.0
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Average response score
4.5 4.0 3.5
Figure 70: Average score for English Studies by question and region, Scale 4: Organisation and Management
5.0
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
4.5 Average response score
There was somewhat more variation between regions when comparing individual questions rather than scales. The most marked difference was seen for Q8 “I have received detailed comments on my work� (3.7 (Northern Ireland) versus 4.1 (both Scotland and Wales).
3.0
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
2.5
Q13 The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned
2.0 1.5 1.0
Q14 Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively
Q15 The course is well organised and is running smoothly
Question
0.5 0 Q1 Staff are good at explaining things
Q2 Staff have made the subject interesting
Q3 Staff are Enthusiastic
Q4 Course is intellectually stimulating
Figure 71: Average score for English Studies by question and region, Scale 5: Learning Resources
Question
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
5.0
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
5.0 Average response score
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0
4.5 Average response score
Figure 68: Average score for English Studies by question and region, Scale 2: Assessment and Feedback
2.5
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q16 The library resources and services are good enough for my needs
2.0 1.5 1.0
Q17 I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to
Q18 I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to
Question
0.5 0 Q5 Criteria Q6 Assessment Q7 Feedback used in marking arrangements has been have been clear and marking prompt in advance have been fair
Q8 I have received detailed comments on my work
Question
Q9 Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand
Figure 72: Average score for English Studies by question and region, Scale 6: Personal Development England
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
5.0 Average response score
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
2.0
0 Q19 The course has helped me present myself with confidence
0.5
Q20 My communication skills have improved
Question
0 Q10 I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies
Q11 I have been able to contact staff when I needed to
Question
22
3.5
0.5
1.0
Q12 Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices
Wales
4.0
2.5 1.5
Scotland
4.5 Average response score
Figure 69: Average score for English Studies by question and region, Scale 3: Academic Support
Northern Ireland
5.0
Q21 As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
Figure 73: Average score for English Studies by question and region, Scale 7: Overall Satisfaction
5.0
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Figure 75: Average score for Imaginative Writing by question and region
Wales
England
Average response score
4.5 4.0
Teaching and Learning
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0
Assess. and Feedback
1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Q22 Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course
Wales
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 Academic 11 Support 12
Question Org. and Mngmnt
Imaginative Writing
13 14 15
NSS data for Imaginative Writing is only available from institutions in England and Wales. It may be noted that there are 36 departments in England, and only one department in Wales. The average scores were consistently higher for the Imaginative Writing department in Wales compared to England, with a difference ranging between 0.1 and 0.5 points for each scale.
16 Learning 17 Resources 18 Personal Devel.
19 20 21
Figure 74: Average score for Imaginative Writing by scale and region
Overall Satifact.
22
England
Wales
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Average response score
5.0 Average response score
4.5
Summary of results for English Studies and Imaginative Writing
4.0 3.5 3.0
• English Studies generally achieved higher average scores than Imaginative Writing.
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
There was notably greater variation with respect to individual questions, with departments in Wales achieving between 0.1 and 0.9 points higher compared to departments in England. The questions with the largest differences were Q9 “Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand” (0.9 point difference) and Q7 “Feedback has been prompt” (0.8 point difference).
• Teaching and learning was a comparative strength for both English Studies and Imaginative Writing. Learning resources were a comparative weakness for English Studies, whereas Imaginative Writing achieved the lowest scores for assessment and feedback and organisation and management. • The average scores for English Studies were generally slightly higher than those for Humanities and also compared to NSS overall, which was also reflected in overall satisfaction. However, the scores for the questions relating to learning resources were marginally lower for English Studies compared to both Humanities and NSS overall. The difference between English Studies and Humanities was most marked with respect to organisation and management and overall satisfaction. The magnitude of the difference when comparing English Studies with NSS overall was fairly consistent across the scales and questions. • The average scores for departments offering Imaginative Writing were generally the same as those for Humanities overall. There was no consistent pattern compared to the NSS overall. • There were few differences in the responses of males and females for English Studies.
23
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
• Comparing average scores for institutional groups, the 1994 group tended to achieve the highest scores for English Studies. There was no consistent pattern with respect to the region that achieved the lowest scores. • There was no consistent pattern for Imaginative Writing with respect to the groups achieving the highest and lowest scores. • Comparing the average scores across the regions with respect to English Studies, Scotland tended to achieve the highest average scores on all scales with the exception of that relating to learning resources for which it had the lowest score. There was no consistent pattern with the respect to the region that achieved the lowest score.
Changes compared to NSS 2009 The results for English Studies and Imaginative Writing were largely similar to those from NSS 2009. It may be noted, however, that for English Studies there was a marginal improvement in the average score for Scale 2 “Assessment and Feedback”, which was one of the scales achieving the lowest scores in 2009 (3.9 in 2010 versus 3.8 in 2009). The results for English Studies by region were largely similar in 2010 compared to 2009 in that Scotland tended to achieve the highest average score. However, in 2009, Wales tended to achieve the lowest average score. The equivalent results for Imaginative Writing are not readily available for 2009, so no comparisons can be made. Nor are the results by institutional group readily available for English Studies nor Imaginative Writing.
History versus English Studies and Imaginative Writing The following section compares the results from English Studies and Imaginative Writing departments with those from History departments. History achieved similar or higher average scores compared to both English Studies and Imaginative Writing on all scales, except Scale 5 “Learning Resources”, for which History achieved a marginally lower score. The differences between History and English Studies were small, however. The difference between History and Imaginative writing was slightly more notable, with the most marked difference seen for Scale 4 “Organisation and Management” (4.1 versus 3.8 points). The difference for individual questions was similarly small, with History achieving 0.1 points higher score on about half of all questions. The only question for which English Studies achieved a higher score than History was Q16 “The library resources and services are good enough for my needs”. The magnitude of the difference was similarly small, however. There was no difference with respect to the remaining questions. History achieved a higher score than Imaginative Writing on all questions, with the difference ranging between 0.1 and 0.4 points, except for Q16 “The library resources and services are good enough for my needs” and Q17 “I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to“, for which Imaginative Writing achieved the higher score. 24
Figure 76: Average score by scale, English Studies, Imaginative Writing and History English Studies
Imaginative Writing
History
5.0 4.5 Average response score
• There were small differences in the responses of males and females for Imaginative Writing, with males giving a slightly higher score on the questions relating to learning resources and academic support.
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scale Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Teaching and Assessment Academic Organisation Learning Learning and Support and Resources Management Feedback
Scale 6 Personal
Scale 7 Overall Development Satisfaction
Figure 77: Average score by question, English Studies, Imaginative Writing and History English Studies
Teaching and Learning
Assess. and Feedback
Imaginative Writing
History
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 Academic 11 Support 12
Org. and Mngmnt
13 14 15
16 Learning 17 Resources 18 Personal Devel.
19 20 21
Overall Satifact.
22 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Average response score
Changes compared to NSS 2009 A largely similar pattern was seen in NSS 2009 when comparing History, English Studies and Imaginative Writing.
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
25
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
26
History, English, Imaginative Writing and the National Student Survey
27
The English Subject Centre supports all aspects of the teaching and learning of English Literature, English Language and Creative Writing in higher education in the UK. It is a Subject Centre of the Higher Education Academy. As one of its activities, the Subject Centre gathers and disseminates information to the subject community. This report series publishes the outcomes of substantial projects undertaken or commissioned by the Subject Centre. For a full list of our reports, see www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/explore/ publications/reports.php. The English Subject Centre Royal Holloway, University of London Egham TW20 0EX T 01784 443221 • esc@rhul.ac.uk www.english.heacademy.ac.uk