|
|
SPACER SPACER SPACER |
SCOPE Project Report on end-of-semester student questionnaire:
|
I. Introduction
The questionnaire was prepared to provide quantitative information on the impact of SCOPE packs upon students on the Sociology course at the University of Abertay Dundee.
The pack contained materials which were required reading for tutorials. The pack was sold through the Departmental Office at £15. An initial print run of 50 packs sold out and another 48 copies were printed.
II. Methodology
107 questionnaires were distributed to the students in class along with the formal lecture class evaluation questionnaire. 47 completed questionnaires were returned and collected at the end of the lecture. These were manually entered into PinPoint for analysis.
III. Findings
1. General Comments about the Questionnaires
The questionnaire was modified by Abertay to make it more relevant to the students, generally it was filled in well. There were a few inconsistencies - for example, students who indicated that they had bought a pack (Question 2) occasionally failed to indicate that they had used it as reading material for the course (Question 9).
2. Background
All students were studying full time (Table 2.1); 11% had not started at Abertay within three years of leaving school/college and are therefore classified as mature students (Table 2.2); All bar one student were in their second year. The other was in their third year: this may be due to changing course (Table 2.3). The question should probably be changed to ask which year of study students are in for the degree they are pursuing.
Table 2.1. Q.1a Are you a full time or part time student?
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Full time | 47 | 100 |
| Part time | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 47 |
Table 2.2. Q.1b. Have you started at this university within three years of leaving school/college?
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes | 42 | 89.4 |
| No | 5 | 10.6 |
| Total | 47 |
Table 2.3. Q.1c. What year are you in at Abertay Dundee?
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| First | 0 | 0 |
| Second | 46 | 97.9 |
| Third | 1 | 2.1 |
| Other | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 47 |
3. Pack Use
92% of respondents had bought a pack (Table 3.1), this reflects the strong recommendation of the lecturer, and the use of the pack's contents during tutorials. 27% shared a pack with friends (Table 3.2), all those who indicated that they had not bought a pack themselves, shared one with friends (Table 3.3).
Table 3.1. Q.2. Did you buy a SCOPE pack?
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes | 43 | 91.5 |
| No | 4 | 8.5 |
| Total | 47 |
Table 3.2. Q.3. Did you share a SCOPE pack?
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes | 12 | 27.3 |
| No | 32 | 72.7 |
| Total | 44 |
Table 3.3. Buying against sharing packs
| Buy | Share | |||
| counts %columns |
Not answered | Yes | No | Total |
| Yes | 3 | 8 | 32 | 43 |
| 100% | 67% | 100% | 91% | |
| No | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| 0% | 33% | 0% | 9% | |
| Total | 3 | 12 | 32 | 47 |
Levels of satisfaction were very good overall, with two-thirds of respondents satisfied with all aspects. (Table3.4) Usefulness of material and the range of material included were the most successful. Binding was rated surprisingly high (79% of respondents were satisfied with it) considering the number of complaints about it (Table 3.5a and 3.5b). Appearance was rated satisfactory by 77%. Order came in for some criticism with suggestions that the items be arranged in the order they were taught. Students were least satisfied with the value for money of the pack, which raised four complaints from students (Table3.5a). One respondent wrote that the pack was 'fine' and another could not think of any improvements to be made. There were some complaints about factors outwith SCOPE's control, such as the length of the items, as well as conflicting calls for both more and less information to be included.
Table 3.4. Q.4. What is your level of satisfaction with the following aspects of the pack
| Completely satisfied | Fairly satisfied | Total Satisfied | Uncertain | Total Dissatisfied | Fairly dissatisfied | Completely dissatisfied | Total count | ||||||||
| count | % | count | % | count | % | count | % | count | % | count | % | count | % | Count | |
| Usefulness | 21 | 44.7 | 25 | 53.2 | 46 | 97.87 | 1 | 2.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 47 |
| Range | 16 | 34 | 29 | 61.8 | 45 | 97.83 | 1 | 2.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 46 |
| Layout | 13 | 27.7 | 22 | 46.8 | 35 | 74.47 | 6 | 12.8 | 6 | 12.77 | 5 | 10.6 | 1 | 2.1 | 47 |
| Binding | 16 | 34 | 21 | 44.7 | 37 | 78.72 | 3 | 6.4 | 7 | 14.89 | 4 | 8.5 | 3 | 6.4 | 47 |
| Order | 14 | 29.8 | 17 | 36.2 | 31 | 68.89 | 11 | 23.4 | 3 | 6.67 | 3 | 6.4 | 0 | 0 | 45 |
| Appearance | 14 | 29.8 | 22 | 46.8 | 36 | 76.6 | 5 | 10.6 | 6 | 12.77 | 5 | 10.6 | 1 | 2.1 | 47 |
| Value | 7 | 14.9 | 24 | 51.1 | 31 | 65.96 | 5 | 10.6 | 11 | 23.4 | 10 | 21.3 | 1 | 2.1 | 47 |
Table 3.5a. Summary Q.5. suggested improvements:
| Category | No. Comments |
| More information | 6 |
| Binding | 5 |
| Shorter articles | 5 |
| Cost | 4 |
| Contents order | 4 |
| Layout | 2 |
| Appearance | 2 |
| Cover | 2 |
| Illustrations | 2 |
| no improvement necessary | 2 |
Table 3.5b. Q.5. How do you think that the pack could have been improved?
| It needs to be checked more carefully before it is bound together. Some of the texts have been put in the wrong place. e.g. Half of the McRobbie article is mixed in with the Orbach article and vice versa |
| The articles could have been in the correct order as the course |
| It just looked like a pile of lectures put together - it didn't look good for the money |
| Pack may have been fuller |
| More general information about topics as well as the articles |
| Articles were sometimes too long - could be made shorter |
| Length of articles reduced Wider range of articles |
| Make it cheaper |
| It would be nice with pictures in it |
| Binding and layout |
| The Binding could have been improved |
| Decent binding, no spelling mistakes |
| The cover not very good it is a bit flimsy |
| Better binding |
| Binding - pack fell apart Some of the topics were a bit long |
| Perhaps have a section after each chapter for definitions or difficult terminology as sometimes language used was slightly complex e.g. Article on food (Psychological part) |
| Pictures The way text is printed is a waste of paper |
| Better appearance |
| It should be made cheaper |
| Summary of topics may be helpful at the end of each reading |
| Less Money |
| More interestingly designed cover Can never be cheap enough |
| Fine |
| Article were too long and often tedious to read |
| I'm not sure it could |
| The articles were far too long and very repetitive |
| The layout of materials could have been made more clear |
| Making it stronger - maybe ideas surrounding each article - main themes, issues to think about (questions) Other useful journals or book in relation to each article |
89% of respondents used over 50% of the material in the pack, with 63% using more than 75% (Table3.6). The amount of material (Table3.6) used does not seem to be related to perceptions of the pack's value for money (Table3.7). Only 11% of respondents intend to sell their packs on to students. This may reflect the absence of an organised second-hand book market.
Table 3.6. Q.6. What percentage of the material in the pack did you use?
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| <10% | 0 | 0.0 |
| 11-25% | 1 | 2.2 |
| 26-50% | 4 | 8.7 |
| 51-75% | 12 | 26.1 |
| >75% | 29 | 63.0 |
| Total | 46 |
Table 3.7 Value for money against percentage used
| Value for money | Percentage of pack used | |||||
| counts % columns |
Not answered | 11-25% | 26-50% | 51-75% | >75% | Total |
| Not answered | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 2% | |
| Completely satisfied | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 |
| 0% | 0% | 25% | 8% | 17% | 15% | |
| Fairly satisfied | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 12 | 23 |
| 100% | 100% | 25% | 67% | 41% | 49% | |
| Uncertain | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| 0% | 0% | 25% | 8% | 10% | 11% | |
| Fairly dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 10 |
| 0% | 0% | 25% | 17% | 24% | 21% | |
| Completely dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 2% | |
| Total | 1 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 29 | 47 |
Table 3.8. Q.7. Do you intend to sell your pack to next year's students?
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes | 5 | 11.4 |
| No | 9 | 20.5 |
| Don't know | 30 | 68.2 |
| Total | 44 |
4. Student reading
The most popular method of obtaining reading material for the course was from the library (Table 4.1). 98% of respondents used at least one library collection (the most popular being the main collection with 895 usage): only one student did not use the library and indicated that they had relied solely on the SCOPE pack. As has been mentioned, fewer students indicated that they had used that SCOPE pack for reading materials, than indicated that they had bought it, so the 89% figure is likely to be lower than the real usage. 30% had bought books for the course.
Table 4.1. Q.8. How are you obtaining reading materials for this course
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Bought new books | 12 | 25.5 |
| Bought second-hand books | 4 | 8.5 |
| Borrowed from main library collection | 42 | 89.4 |
| Photocopied items from Short Loan | 28 | 59.6 |
| Borrowed Short Loan items, did not photocopy | 22 | 46.8 |
| SCOPE materials | 42 | 89.4 |
| Did not do any reading | 0 | 0.0 |
| Other | 2 | 4.3 |
57.5% of students stated that they had spent money on reading other than the SCOPE pack (Table 4.2), this is more the 30% indicating that they had bought books in their answers to Q.8, so either one of the questions was not answered correctly, or the questions need to be modified to take account of another source of reading/ spending. 63.8% seem willing to pay the price at which the pack was sold. The cost groupings on this question were badly designed, since the actual cost of the pack fell midway between two groups. Unsurprisingly, the lower the students' perception of the pack's value for money, the less they were willing to pay for it (Table 4.4)
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Nil | 20 | 42.5 |
| £1-10 | 3 | 6.4 |
| £10-30 | 17 | 36.2 |
| £30-50 | 5 | 10.6 |
| £50-100 | 2 | 4.3 |
| >£100 | ||
| Total | 47 |
Table 4.3. Q.10. Realistically, how much would you be willing to pay for a course pack
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Nil | 1 | 2.1 |
| <£5 | 1 | 2.1 |
| £5-£10 | 15 | 31.9 |
| £10-£15 | 20 | 42.6 |
| £15-£20 | 9 | 19.1 |
| >£20 | 1 | 2.1 |
| Total | 47 |
Table 4.4 Perceived value of pack against willingness to pay for SCOPE pack
| Value of Pack | How much would you be willing to pay for a SCOPE pack? | ||||||
| counts %columns |
Nil | <£5 | £5-£10 | £10-£15 | £15-£20 | >£20 | Total |
| Not answered | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2% | |
| Completely satisfied | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 7 |
| 0% | 0% | 7% | 10% | 44% | 0% | 15% | |
| Fairly satisfied | 0 | 0 | 8 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 23 |
| 0% | 0% | 53% | 55% | 44% | 0% | 49% | |
| Uncertain | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 0% | 100% | 13% | 10% | 0% | 0% | 11% | |
| Fairly dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
| 0% | 0% | 27% | 25% | 11% | 0% | 21% | |
| Completely dissatisfied | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | |
| Total | 1 | 1 | 15 | 20 | 9 | 1 | 47 |
5. Electronic Delivery
Only 42% stated that they would prefer electronic delivery to course packs (Table 5.1). The main reasons for this fall into three broad groups (Table 5.2.b). The most common reason was problems with access to computers, followed by the perception that packs are more convenient to use, and a small number felt that computer access would be more expensive. Although the questionnaire asked for reasons why students did not want computer access, some wrote why they did, or simply stated that it was a good idea. In future it might be useful to ask students the reason for their answer to question 11, whether they think computer access is a good idea or not.
Table 5.1. Q.11a. Would you prefer to receive the course pack over the University network?
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes | 19 | 42.2 |
| No | 26 | 57.8 |
| Total | 45 |
Table 5.2.a. Summary: Why would you not want computer access?
| Category | No. Comments |
| Problems with computer access | 15 |
| Convenience of packs | 10 |
| Cost | 3 |
| Good idea | 4 |
Table 5.2.b. Q.11b. Why would you not want computer access?
| More convenient to buy it |
| Getting access to the computers and printers can be very time consuming at the university |
| In the pack you can highlight/underline etc. and it keeps everything together. Also terminals are not easily obtained |
| A pack should be delivered at a realistic price |
| Good to have it at hand when needed! |
| It would only be accessible during university hours |
| Difficult to gain access to computer plus printouts now cost money - just as well buying it |
| Current print out service a nightmare |
| What a good idea! But there needs to be more print-out terminals for that to work |
| It's not always easy to access the computers - there always busy |
| There is not that easy access to computers |
| Prefer to have access whenever without the hassle of computers |
| Because there is never any spaces at a computer to be able to print out |
| Sometimes difficult to get access |
| Easier to refer back to if it's in a book, in front of you |
| Would it be better to sell each article individually to a) save money b) better use of materials as use what need |
| All the text is in one handy booklet |
| All text is in one booklet |
| The terminal would always be busy so only a minimum amount of people would be able to use it |
| It would be easier having information in a booklet form rather than trying to get access to a computer terminal |
| Hard to find vacant terminals / library is fine |
| Preferred the pack as all articles were interesting and cheaper long term than printing |
| Borrowing library books is cheaper |
| Because sometimes it is difficult to obtain a computer and it is more time-consuming |
| It is time-consuming and probably wouldn't get all the correct material |
| Whatever would be the most practical and economical |
| I would prefer to own my own copy but it is still a good idea |
6. Conclusions
The students profile is fairly traditional, with all being full time and most of them school-leavers. All those who responded to the questionnaire had used a SCOPE pack, and the majority were satisfied with it. Main complaints were about the binding and the cost. The latter is also reflected in the lecturer's report, where he states that the price is quite high for the student profile. The fact that the content of the pack was integral to the course meant that students found the material useful. Most students stated that they were willing to pay the £15 price of the pack. Other reading was obtained from the library, with a minority buying books. The idea of electronic delivery was not favourably received by either the majority of students or the lecturer.