Skip to content | Change text size

Portfolios and services

 

  

Quality: student experience and teaching feedback

On this page:  

Summary of surveys and resources

Monash surveys

The Centre for Higher Education (CHEQ) manages and/or conducts the following activities to further improve teaching and learning across the university:

Survey and evaluation resourcesSummary information
Unit Evaluation Conducted on-line each semester
Results available on line (see below)
Monash Questionnaire Series on Teaching (MonQueST) On request from CHEQ – check deadlines
11 different questionnaires
Results confidential
Monash Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) Conducted every odd year
Monash Support Experience Questionnaire (MSEQ) Conducted every even year
Postgraduate Research Supervision Survey (PRSS) Last conducted 2007. Conducted every three – four years
Peer evaluation Some proformas and guidelines for conducting peer evaluation of lectures
Self evaluation Self evaluation tools available for use

National surveys

Survey and evaluation resourcesSummary information
Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) Conducted approximately every April by the university coordinated by Graduate Careers Australia
Post Graduate Research Experience (PREQ)
Graduate Destination Survey (GDS)		 Conducted twice per year in association with Graduate Careers Australia

Unit evaluations

It is strongly recommended that each unit leader target one or more of the following strategies for each unit:

  • access the previous results of the unit and ask the ADT for the available comments
  • aim for a score above 4 on each question
  • seek assistance from e-learning designers for creative ideas for MUSO and other technologies
  • Utilise peer evaluation strategies (see above)
  • Undertake and encourage self-evaluation strategies (see above)

Accessing unit evaluation findings

The findings need to be utilized with caution. For instance, keep in mind the number of respondents and other issues when analyzing the responses.

  • Comments are available by emailing Geoff Romeo (Associate Dean Teaching)
  • Results can be accessed from Monash Unit Evaluation page

Interpreting unit evaluation data

CHEQ guidance for interpreting the results includes: “Mean ratings established by the university and set out below may be interpreted as follows:”


Mean Rating 		*Percentage distribution of units Interpretation
20062007
0.00 – 3.09
0.00 – 3.14
0 - 10
 Lowest 10%. Needs immediate attention
Lowest 10%
3.10 – 3.38
3.15 – 3.43
10+ - 20
 Lowest 30%. May need attention especially at the lower end
Down arrow
3.39 – 3.55
3.44 – 3.61
20+ - 30
3.56 – 3.68
3.62 – 3.73
30+ - 40
 Below average to average
3.69 – 3.81
3.74 – 3.85
40+ - 50
3.82 – 3.93
3.86 – 3.99
50+ - 60
 Above average to good
3.94 – 4.04
4.00 – 4.09
60+ - 70
4.05 – 4.17
4.10 – 4.22
70+ - 80
 Top 30%, Very Good
4.18 – 4.35
4.23 – 4.40
80+ - 90
4.36 – 5.00
4.41 – 5.00
90+
 Top 10%, Outstanding
Top 10%

* Percentage distribution based on core item on quality (item 8) – “Overall I was satisfied with the quality of this unit.”

This is how the website displays the responses to each question:

Q8. Overall I was satisfied with the quality of this unit

Response Scale
Responses
Percent
(1) Strongly disagree
0
0.00%
(2) Disagree
0
0.00%
(3) Neutral
2
11.11%
(4) Agree
6
33.33%
(5) Strongly agree
10
55.56%
(6) Not applicable
0
0.00%
(7) Don't know
0
0.00%
Total (N)
18
100.00%
Student satisfaction graph
Median: 4.60
Mean: 4.44

Comments can be sent to you from the ADT. A sample is provided below:

Q19. What were the best aspects of the unit?

  • The creative, student-guided assignments. Give us something we can get interested in, not just the philosophy/psychology stuff!
  • The flexibility of the unit and the staff - thank you!
  • There were a lot of practical exercises which assisted greatly on teaching rounds. A great number of extremely useful resources were provided each lesson which I can take with me into my professional career.
  • The tutor xx bent over backwards to assist with all inquiries, gave excellent feedback and made great efforts to assist with any difficulties faced throughout the unit. She obviously knew her stuff, was very enthusiastic and was also very accessible.

Q20. What aspects of this unit are most in need of improvement?

  • Weekly resources given could be presented slightly more coherently as the volume was a little overwhelming at times. However this is not necessarily a criticism as the resources are very useful - perhaps a summary sheet or brief explanation of each handout would fix this.
  • Clearly 8 weeks is not long enough to cover the content of the course. Expand or give us more class time.
  • We need to do more group work and small-discussions, not whole-group conversations. You know, talk amongst yourselves in small groups to get answers.
  • 3 hours is a bit long to sit in one room, maybe a lecture/tute style approach just to break it up a bit