|
|
SPACER SPACER SPACER |
SCOPE Project Report on end-of-semester student questionnaire:
|
Introduction
4711 Social Differentiation is an introductory course in sociology and social policy taught principally by Dr Alison Bowes, Department of Applied Social Sciences, at the University of Stirling. The Evening Degree equivalent, 4791, is taught principally by Professor Chris Turner. By the end of the semester, 252 students were registered on the 4711 course. The course is divided into nine themes, each with associated reading materials.
This is the second year that SCOPE has provided resources for this course. These have taken the form of printed course packs, comprising three course readers each of which contains journal articles or textbook chapters from the course reading list, relevant to the entire course.
The material in the readers was digitised from clean original copies at the SCOPE Production Unit at Napier University. They were sold through the John Smith & Son Bookshop on the Stirling University campus for £15.00 each.
Methodology
There were two strands to the evaluation.
(1) Quantitative methods
(a) Two questionnaires were circulated to students on the 4711 course, one at mid-semester and another at the semester's end.
(b) Sales figures for SCOPE packs and recommended texts were obtained from the Bookshop.
(2) Qualitative methods
(a) Focus groups were held with students from the course.
(b) A formal discussion was held with the principal lecturer.
Findings
(1) Response rates
The first questionnaire had a response rate of 58.3%, while the second attracted a response rate of 73.9%. Focus groups, which attracted 42 students, explored issues around printed packs and electronic delivery, and informed the development of the second questionnaire.
(2) Sales
(a) Volume
In the first year that SCOPE produced packs for 4711/4791, in autumn 1995, copies additional to the 300 initially printed were required. As a result, 300 copies (100 of each pack) were produced for the 1996 4711/4791 course.
Sales were disappointing: some 134 packs (44.7%) were sold. Text sales for this course were also down by 13.8% compared with 1995.
Of the majority of the students who had at least considered purchasing readers, fewer than half went on to actually buy one. Cost of the packs was cited as the main reason, although the ready availability of the readings in the Library's short loan collection was also a significant factor.
(b) Distribution
Some 40% of respondents purchased one or more packs: the "typical" profile of a purchaser was a "mature" first-year student living off-campus. Some 68% of students who had bought packs bought a single pack. Only 3% of students bought two packs, and 29% purchased all three packs. It had not been the intention of Dr Bowes, or of SCOPE, that students should buy more than one pack.
(c) Second-hand market
An initial consideration was that sales of packs from the previous year might have been impacting upon sales. Among those that had purchased packs, only 7% represented second-hand purchases.
(3) Packs
(a) Composition
In 1995 the packs consisted of photocopies, authorised through CLARCS, of the original documents. In 1996, the material in the packs had been digitised from the source documents and printed in a double-column format. The original articles also tended to be shorter in length than those included in 1995. Consequently, the packs were substantially slimmer than those produced in 1995.
Students who purchased course packs were generally satisfied with the usefulness and range of material included, the layout of the text and the sequence of the articles, though nearly half did not consider that the packs represented good value for money. Respondents indicated that the packs could be improved by including more material / reducing the price, or by increasing the 'relevance' of the material.
(b) Cost
Among students who did not purchase a reader, cost was the major factor for 54%. When asked how the packs could be improved, 32% of those who had bought packs suggested that they could be made cheaper. Some 56.5% of respondents thought that £5-£10 was a reasonable price, and a further 26% would pay £10-£15.
(c) Binding
Packs were perfect bound in 1996. Although most students found this to be satisfactory, 26.8% were dissatisfied: several students complained that the packs fell apart with use.
(d) Effect on alternative provision
There was some evidence that students who bought course packs made less use of the RBR than students who had not bought packs, and that those who bought SCOPE packs were more likely to buy texts as well.
(e) Use of the packs
82% of respondents used fewer than half of the articles in the pack. This included 46% of respondents who used 25% or less of the contents, and 28% who used less than 10% of the material. Despite this, those who bought the packs found them useful, particularly for tutorials or revision. Having the readings in one place was particularly helpful for those just starting their studies at the University.
(f) Relevance
Students sought focussed packs, built around the themes of the course or the essay and workshop topics: they felt that the packs were expensive when only very few articles from each pack were needed for workshops or essays.
Dr Bowes indicated that packs were never intended to be used for specific essays or workshops. Each pack was carefully designed to provide students with a range of reading across the course: such provision was intended to encourage wider reading rather than narrower. The Department believes that producing more focussed packs would be spoon-feeding.
There appears to be an irreconcilable conflict in the provision of resources for this course. Given the limited sales of course packs during this semester, such provision is not economically viable. It would appear that online provision offers the best delivery mechanism, or true on-demand provision, with students selecting materials that they would like included in a tailored reader that could be produced quite quickly in response.
(4) Electronic delivery
The idea of electronic delivery was welcomed by 94% of respondents, although there was particular concern about access to terminals (notably among part-time students) and some concern about using computers. Problems had been experienced by students in obtaining access to the campus computer network.
Students would be unwilling to pay more per page for online access than they currently pay for photocopying.
Dr Bowes had definite concerns about the level of computer provision within the University, and therefore about student access to online resources, as well as students' level of computer literacy. Only 64% of students on 4711 regularly used the library catalogue, while 24% regularly used email and only 14% regularly used Internet facilities. The Department is quite clear that central provision of computer facilities must be improved.
Clearly, in order for electronic access to material to be viable, there must be adequate numbers of terminals for students to access and they must have adequate knowledge to make use of such access.