Evaluation Documents SCOPE home page

SPACER SPACER SPACER

SCOPE Project Report on end-of-semester student questionnaire: Plato and Mind University of St Andrews Autumn 1997

I. Introduction

The questionnaire was prepared to provide quantitative information on the impact of SCOPE packs upon students on the LM2003 Plato and Mind course at the University of St Andrews.

The pack contained materials which were required reading for tutorials. Seven of the extracts were from image-based files: the layout of the Plato text in the book could not be reformatted without subject knowledge. The remaining three extracts were text files. The pack was sold through James Thins bookshop on campus at £3.50 each. An initial print run of 40 packs sold out and another 6 copies were printed and posted to the bookshop.

the initial print run was printed with incorrect bibliographic details in the footnotes throughout the majority of the Plato extracts. This was corrected for the subsequent reprint.

II. Methodology

On the basis of numbers of students registered 50 questionnaires were printed.

45 were distributed to the students in class along with the formal lecture class evaluation questionnaire. 33 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 St Andrews to make it more relevant to the students, generally it was filled in well with very few inconsistencies.

2. Pack Use

76% of respondents had bought a SCOPE pack (Table 2.1), 18% of all respondents had shared their pack (Table 2.2) This translates to four respondents sharing packs without buying one (Table 2.3): one respondent stated that the cost had been shared.

Table 2.1. Q.1. Did you buy a SCOPE pack?

	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	25	75.8
No	8	24.2
Total	33

Table 2.2. Q.2. Did you share a SCOPE pack?

	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	6	18.8
No	26	81.2
Total	32

Table 2.3 Buying against sharing of packs

Buy	Share
	Not answered	Yes	No	Total
Yes	1	2	22	25
No	0	4	4	8

Overall satisfaction with the packs was good, with the majority of respondents being either 'fairly satisfied' or 'completely satisfied' with all aspects of the packs. (Table 2.4) The least satisfactory aspect was the layout of the pack with 13.8% of respondents being fairly dissatisfied. 10.7% were also fairly dissatisfied with value for money. However, these percentages relate to 4 and 3 people respectively, so one should be wary of drawing firm conclusions from such a small number. The price of the pack was less than it would have cost the students to photocopy the material in the library. Content and layout were raised most frequently as areas which could be improved (Table 2.5(b)). This was partly caused by the incorrect footnotes, and it also appears that the order of the pack was not relevant to the order in which the course was taught. There were also complaints about the quality of print on the Plato extracts, and calls for evaluation or commentaries of the readings.

Table 2.4. Q.3. What is your level of satisfaction with the following aspects of the pack

	Completely satisfied		Fairly satisfied		Uncertain		Fairly dissatisfied		Completely dissatisfied		Total
	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count
Usefulness	10	34.5	17	58.6	2	6.9	0	0.0	0	0.0	29
Range	6	20.7	19	65.5	2	6.9	2	6.9	0	0.0	29
Layout	5	17.2	15	51.7	5	17.2	4	13.8	0	0.0	29
Binding	16	55.2	11	37.9	1	3.4	1	3.4	0	0.0	29
Order	12	41.4	14	48.3	2	6.9	1	3.4	0	0.0	29
Appearance	8	28.6	17	60.7	3	10.7	0	0.0	0	0.0	28
Value	9	32.1	14	50.0	2	7.1	3	10.7	0	0.0	28

Table 2.5(a). Q.4. How do you think that the pack could have been improved?

Comments

Make contents more succinct. Remove old page numbers from top of photocopied pages (they're confusing)

In some cases the reading provided was not adequate for complete knowledge of the question. A little more background material would be helpful

Firstly make the format the normal A5 instead of bulky A4, Secondly, make the text more comprehensively written (waste of paper)

By checking the footnotes!

The pack could be improved by making the print quality of some articles better. The articles should be retyped or at the least reorganised so that they read as the department concerned intended. This pack did have several niggling inadequacies in the text, but overall was good and useful

Better labelling of where the text comes from

Cheaper More analysis by academics of text would help those struggling to find a rhythm in the course

Possibly with the additions of notes / comments on the readings contained

Evaluation of texts as well as texts themselves

Section of criticisms of the text included

Improve layout, labelling

Short introductions to accompany the section headings Suggested further reading lists

The only problem was the incorrectness of reference which was very confusing

Possibly more up to date translation

No idea

The texts from Plato could have been better presented

More modern translation of Plato material

Plastic on back

Table 2.5(b). Breakdown:

Category	Number of comments
Content	11
Layout	5
Cost	1
Appearance	1

69% of students used more than 75% of the material in the pack, this is probably largely due to the way that content was tied to tutorials (Table 2.6). Those who bought their packs later will probably not have made as much use of them.

The majority of students did not intend to sell packs on to next year's students (Table 2.7)

Table 2.6. Q.5. What percentage of the material in the pack did you use?

	Frequency	Percentage
<10%	0	0.0
11-25%	1	3.4
26-50%	3	10.3
51-75%	5	17.2
>75%	20	69.0
Total	29

Table 2.7. Q.6. Do you intend to sell your pack to next year's students?

	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	2	7.7
No	18	69.2
Don't know	6	23.1
Total	26

3. Student reading

The most popular method for obtaining reading materials for this course was from the main collection of the library (74%) closely followed by SCOPE (71%), followed by borrowing from the Short loan collection, and then buying new books. (Table 3.1) The sample is too small to draw any conclusions about the effect of SCOPE on use of Reading materials or spending. (Tables 3.2 and 3.4)

Table 3.1. Q.7. How are you obtaining reading materials for this course

	Frequency	Percentage
Bought new books	14	45.2
Bought second-hand books	8	25.8
Borrowed from main library collection	23	74.2
Photocopied items from Short Loan	16	51.6
Borrowed Short Loan items, did not photocopy	14	45.2
SCOPE materials	22	71.0
Did not do any reading	0	0.0
Other	4	12.9

Table 3.2. Pack use against reading sources

Pack usage	Reading Sources
counts %columns	Not answered	Bought new books	Bought second-hand books	Borrowed from main library collection	Photocopied items from short loan	Borrowed short loan items, did not photocopy	Scope materials	Other	Total
Used	0	13	8	21	16	13	22	2	29
	0%	93%	100%	91%	100%	93%	100%	50%	88%
Not used	2	1	0	2	0	1	0	2	4
	100%	7%	0%	9%	0%	7%	0%	50%	12%
Total	2	14	8	23	16	14	22	4	33

67.7% had bought books other than the SCOPE pack. (Table 3.3). The majority of respondents (35.5%) had spent between £10-£30,

Table 3.3. Q.8. How much money have you spent on text books for this course (excluding SCOPE materials)

	Frequency	Percentage
Nil	10	32.3
£1-10	7	22.6
£10-30	11	35.5
£30-50	0	0.0
£50-100	1	3.2
£100	2	6.5
Total	31

Table 3.4. Pack Use against Spending

Pack Use	Spending
counts %columns	Not answered	Nil	£1-10	£10-30	£50-100	>£100	Total
Used	0	9	6	11	1	2	29
	0%	90%	86%	100%	100%	100%	88%
Not used	2	1	1	0	0	0	4
	100%	10%	14%	0%	0%	0%	12%
Total	2	10	7	11	1	2	33

77% students appear to be satisfied with the price of the SCOPE pack, indicating that they would not pay more than £5. However, 23% indicated that they would have been willing to pay more than £5. (Table 3.5).

Table 3.5. Q.9. Realistically, how much would you be willing to pay for a course pack

	Frequency	Percentage
Nil	0	0.0
<£5	24	77.4
£5-£10	7	22.6
£10-£15	0	0.0
£15-£20	0	0.0
>£20	0	0.0
Total	31

Only 44% of respondents would have preferred to access the material from the pack via computers (Table 3.6). The main objections to this method of access were lack of computer literacy and fear of computers; the convenience of having the material collected together in a pack, and lack of access to computers themselves (Table 3.7b).

Table 3.6. Q.10. Would you prefer to receive the course pack over the University network?

	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	14	43.8
No	18	56.2
Total	32

Table 3.7(a). Q.10b. Why would you not want computer access?

Comments

Computers not always accessible, easier to have the actual book

It saves trouble to have it all ready and bound up

Extra time and effort selecting what you need

Technical imbecile

Technophobic

I'm not exceedingly computer literate

Would prefer to have all the information at the beginning, then choose what's relevant from all of it

I don't like terminals

Dislike of electronic network

Read books, not computer screens

It is useful to be able to buy a pack in the knowledge that you had the complete tutorial reading in one book

If you buy a pack you have all the time in a book for therefore you don't have to go to a computer terminal

Not everyone has access to the university network

More convenient to use a book at any time

I'm bad with computers

Prefer to have book as more cost effective

Table 3.7(b). Summary:

Category	Number of comments
Access	2
Convenience	7
Technophobia/ computer literacy	7

IV. Conclusions

The packs were generally popular with the students and well used. The error in the footnotes caused some dissatisfaction and confusion, but was pointed out to the students by the lecturer concerned, so they were aware of the problem. SCOPE will look into implementing suggestions into future packs.