5.1
Assessment and Feedback
(results from the 2006 and 2007 NSS)
| Kent 2006 | Sector Avg 2006 | Kent 2007 | Sector Avg 2007 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall satisfaction with Assesment and Feedback | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.6 |
The criteria used in marketing have been clear in advance |
3.8 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 3.7 |
| Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 3.8 |
| Feedback on my work has been prompt | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.3 |
| I received detailed comments on work | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.5 |
| Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.4 |
5.1.1
The last 2 years of NSS results highlight that the University offers an above average service when compared to the rest of the sector, for ensuring that students know what is expected of them in relation to assessment and feedback. Despite such good results, students still raise concern regarding the lack of feedback which helps them improve in future assignments and the timeliness of feedback. Furthermore, certain departments are poor in providing students with information to ensure that they know what is expected of them. The Departments of Philosophy, Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Actuarial Science (IMSAS) and Computer Science scored below the Kent average in most areas in 2007.
2007 NSS results
| Philosophy | Computer Science | IMSAS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall satisfaction with Assesment and Feedback | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.6 |
The criteria used in marketing have been clear in advance |
3.7 | 3.6 | 3.7 |
| Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair | 4.0 | 3.7 | 3.9 |
| Feedback on my work has been prompt | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.6 |
| I received detailed comments on work | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
5.1.2
In response to these figures, the Philosophy Department held an informal meeting with students to collect feedback, which Kent Union commends. From January 2008 the Department introduced a range of methods to enhance current feedback: whole seminars devoted to discussing marking essays, ten minute meetings with students on their essays and extra office hours following assessments being handed back.* A student representative supports the view that measures are being taken to improve the situation:
“Generally, regarding assessment and feedback, there have been a number of measures taken to improve it of late. This includes more use of webCT for in-class assessments, where the results for these are known within days. Use of the 'Turnitin' function on webCT to hand in essays has been trialled as well, with the marked essay and comments available on it.”
5.1.3
During the 2007/08 academic year there has been a lot of confusion amongst the UG population regarding the ‘zero tolerance’ policy for late submission of work. Some students have reported that the department they study in has enforced the policy for the late submission of work whilst others have not. It is important that expectations are clearly communicated to students and there is parity of experience across all academic departments.
An IMSAS student rep praised the Department for dealing with this issue stating:
“There was an inconsistent policy which seemed to support those students who were continuously late. This was pointed out via the SSLC committee and has been dealt with at Department Board”
This is particularly commendable because the IMSAS 2008 Developmental Plan set out to use the SSLC to identify problems that needed to be resolved. However, as well as ensuring that students know what is expected of them relating to submission deadlines, the Department needs to consider other areas of assessment and feedback. A key area for academic departments to consider is whether or not the level of feedback on assessed work helps students clarify what they need to do to improve future work.
*Faculty of Humanities Summary of Responses to the National Student Survey 2007