School of Psychological Science
Quality Assurance of Units Report 2006

The School of Psychological Science is committed to providing a student-focussed learning environment. As part of this commitment, we conduct regular meetings with student representatives via a Staff-Student Consultative Committee. The purpose of this committee is to respond in a timely fashion to student concerns including issues raised on WebCT bulletin boards or directed to unit coordinators. We also conduct evaluations of each unit we offer, each semester in every year.

Semester 1 [semester 2]
This report is a summary of the formal unit evaluations we conducted in Semester 1, 2006. Each respondent was asked to provide ratings for each of a series of key objectives regarding the unit they were studying. The items reported here are a subset of those used to conduct the evaluations:

• The aims of the subject were clear
• The workload was manageable
• The amount and type of assessment was appropriate for this subject
• Overall the quality of the teaching was high
• All things considered, how would you rate this unit?

Respondents were asked to use the following response categories: 5=True all of the time; 4=True most of the time; 3=True half of the time; 2=True little of the time; 1=True none of the time.

The chart below shows the average responses of students enrolled in each of the undergraduate units offered by the School during Semester 1 2006.

Semester 2 [semester 1]
This report is a summary of the formal unit evaluations we conducted in Semester 2, 2006. Each respondent was asked to provide ratings for each of a series of key objectives regarding the unit they were studying. The items reported here are a subset of those used to conduct the evaluations:

• The aims of the subject were clear
• The workload was manageable
• The amount of assessment was appropriate for this subject
• The teaching staff gave me helpful feedback on how I was going
• Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of this unit

Respondents were asked to use the following response categories: 5=Strongly agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly disagree.

The charts below show the average responses to these five items of students enrolled in each of the undergraduate units offered by the School during semester 2 of 2006.

Fourth Year Units
This report is a summary of the formal unit evaluations we conducted for 4th year units in 2006. As for the reports presented above, respondents were asked to rate the units they undertook. Average scores for the following items are presented by unit:

• The aims of the subject were clear
• The workload was manageable
• The amount of assessment was appropriate for this unit
• The teaching staff gave me helpful feedback on how I was going
• Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of this unit

Respondents were asked to use the following response categories: 5=Strongly agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly disagree.

The data obtained are set out in the chart below for each 4th year unit in 2006.

The School is always striving to improve its performance and the feedback shown in the charts above forms the basis for curricula review at the end of each year in preparation for the next teaching period.