|
|
SPACER SPACER SPACER |
SCOPE ProjectStage 4 User Satisfaction Survey Report
|
1. Introduction
The evaluation exercise consisted of:
- questionnaires to full-time students - focus group - questionnaire and discussion with course co-ordinator - questionnaire and discussion with library representative - sales figures from the campus bookshops
Also relevant is the focus group report, which although primarily concerned with a course previously supplied with a SCOPE pack, interviewed students who had moved on to the Sociology(a) course and had the opportunity to buy packs once again. The students were able to contrast their experience over the two semesters.
We had expected to undertake further studies; however the representatives were unable to have questionnaires circulated to evening degree students. Library staff felt that the impact of the Sociology(b) packs on the library was unmeasurable, although they commented on the great deal of time to liaise with academics, particularly in the pre-production phase. We were also disappointed that no students attended the focus group, although academic, library, bookshop and SCOPE staff all participated.
2. Courses
| Sociology(a) | pack | University A |
| Sociology(b) | pack | University B |
3. Summary of main conclusions
3.1 Sales did not reach our expectations and there was significant wastage at both universities.
3.2 The price (£20.50) was the principal factor.
3.3 Campus bookshop sales figures of commercially published texts relevant to the course shared a considerable drop as compared to the previous year at University A where it dropped by 60%. The total value of sales of copyright material however rose almost threefold.
Complete sales figures are not available at University B and further, it is not possible to take into account sales at other city bookshops. Almost one third of students on the Sociology(b) course claimed to have bought new text books other than SCOPE packs.
3.4 While publishers are likely to assume that the drop in sales was a result of the availability of packs, there were undoubtedly other factors: the bookshop did not receive the lecturer's reading list until after the beginning of semester and the books were not available in early semester. (It is not known at what stage the list was received in Spring '95.) Yet three were recommended for pre and early semester reading. The course handouts the previous year had given recommended reading under the title of each essay option, whereas no specific commendations were given in 1996. Two of the titles recommended only in 1995 showed a drop in sales in 1996. Another factor may have been greater availability of texts on the second-hand market (though it would be unwise to place too much weight on this).
At University B, the SCOPE pack and another (cheaper) commercially published reader were both recommended equally by the lecturer (a fact we did not pick up until well into the semester). The lecturer had not notified the bookshop that the other text was recommended, and students had to order them after the beginning of semester.
3.5 The Retail Branches Manager commented that in any case 'sales of books were pathetic and that anything which encourages sales of copyright material is to be welcomed'.
3.6 The attitude of the lecturers is clearly crucial. The course handout stated: "...while this Reader collects together some of the key articles for this Unit purchasing it is not a requirement of the Unit. All of the items in the Reader are also available in the photocopy collection of the RBR. If there is any difficulty in using this RBR material please let SB know immediately". This contrasts with the very much stronger recommendation of the lecturer responsible for the autumn course, although we should take into account that the price of the pack was three pounds more.
3.7 For each reader, SCOPE had to negotiate with the lecturers to reduce the number of extracts required, in order to keep the price down. The University A lecturer commented: 'the benefits of SCOPE in its current format are limited - it enables some students to have material on their desk rather than in RBR, but it serves to focus attention heavily on the SCOPE material at the expense of material which could not be included. This encourages poor reading habits'. The University B lecturer appeared satisfied - but recommended a second reader.
3.8 On the other hand, at each institution, a majority of respondents used half or less of the material included, although 60% at University A and 18% at University B wished more articles had been included. This suggests that students have a very clear idea of what reading they wish to do for a course, and want it all in the one place. (At University A many extracts additional to those in the SCOPE pack were available in the library).
3.9 At University B roughly 50% of respondents were willing to pay less than £10 while 40% were willing to pay over that. While at University A 36% quoted £10, while 34% were prepared to pay more. It is striking that at University A those who did not buy the pack did not buy other texts - and did not even spend money on photocopying.