|
|
SPACER SPACER SPACER |
SCOPE Project Report on end-of-semester student questionnaires:
|
Introduction
The questionnaire was issued as part of the department's standard course evaluation exercise. It was distributed to students attending the last class of the session. 114 completed questionnaires were returned, which represents 38% of the class. Amongst those we have feedback from, 44% bought packs.
Content and Quality
Generally respondents were satisfied with the quality and content of the pack. Less than 20% had not found it useful, though a clear majority (68%) had used half or less of the material included. This contrasts with the desire expressed for more articles to be included (59%). This would seem to reinforce the case for the database, to allow students to pick and choose from a wider variety of references. Of this sample over half would prefer this approach, though over a third said they would not - it is not clear to what extent this represents anticipated access problems, computer phobia or an unwillingness to take the responsibility for making choices. A majority also favoured including material such as course handouts and past exam papers. IT is worrying, however, that of the 29 respondents who had bought a pack and who answered question 15, almost half said that in retrospect they would not now buy.
Use of other sources
Purchase of the pack seems to have made little difference to use of the library. Presumable those who used packs also read more widely. The proportion who used books from the main collection, and who photocopied from Reserve Book Room (RBR) material, was almost exactly the same in both groups. What we don't know is how much use they made. Only one respondent mentioned making use if other libraries. 50% of those who bought packs also bough books, while only 6% of those who didn't buy packs did so. It would appear that the packs made no difference to students' willingness to buy books.
Cost
this was clearly a major concern. It was the most favoured improvement to be made (81% of respondents) and 88% of those who didn't buy quoted the price or the perceived value as the reason. When asked what they would be prepared to pay, over a third quoted £10.00 while over 50% quoted £15.00 or less. Only 5% quoted a price of over £20.00. There is a clear difference ere between those who bought the packs and those who didn't, as might be expected. Of those who didn't buy, 70% quoted prices of £15.00 or less, with almost half prepared to pay only £10.00. None quoted a price over £20.00.
It appear that money was a major concern for a significant proportion of students. Over 50% of the class did not buy a pack. We have responses from 17% of the class who didn't buy - we can only assume they are representative. Those who didn't buy packs didn't buy books either. This pattern also appears in their use of the library. Although the majority of both groups borrowed from both RBR and the main collections, the proportion of those who borrowed from RBR without making photocopies was significantly higher in the group who had not bough packs. There was clearly many students who don't, and presumably in many cases can't afford to, spend money on their course materials. This makes a significant reduction in the pack price a major priority for the future.