Physical Sciences - Higher Education Academy · NSS Discipline Report – Physical Sciences 5 this...

Physical Sciences Astronomy

Chemistry

Forensic and Archaeological Science

Others in Physical Sciences

Physics

Astronomy

National Student Survey

Discipline Report May 2012

NSS Discipline Report – Physical Sciences

2

Contents

Foreword ________________________________________________________________ 4

1. How to use this report _________________________________________________ 6

2. Astronomy __________________________________________________________ 8

2.1 Comparison with all subjects combined ____________________________________ 8

2.2 Comparison with STEM combined _______________________________________ 9

2.3 Relationships between aspects of the student experience ______________________ 10

2.4 Impact of aspects of the student experience on overall satisfaction _______________ 11

2.5 Comparison by nation _______________________________________________ 12

2.6 Comparison by institution type _________________________________________ 13

2.7 Comparison by full-time/part-time ______________________________________ 14

2.8 Comparison by gender _______________________________________________ 15

2.9 Comparison with selected items from the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey ___ 16

3. Chemistry __________________________________________________________ 18

3.1 Comparison with all subjects combined ___________________________________ 18

3.2 Comparison with STEM combined ______________________________________ 19



3.5 Range of institutional results for overall satisfaction __________________________ 22





3.10 Comparison by domicile ______________________________________________ 29


4. Forensic and Archaeological Science _______________________________________ 32











5. Others in Physical Sciences _____________________________________________ 44







3




6. Physics ____________________________________________________________ 54












7. Comparison between cognate subjects ______________________________________ 67

8. Additional HEA resources ________________________________________________ 69

8.1 Research ___________________________________________________________ 69

8.2 Case studies of enhancement activities _____________________________________ 69

8.3 Postgraduate surveys __________________________________________________ 70

8.4 Consultancy and change programmes ______________________________________ 70

9. Further reading _______________________________________________________ 71

Appendix A: Brief description of analyses ________________________________________ 73

Appendix B: Full list of subjects covered in this report ______________________________ 74

Appendix C: Information about the NSS _________________________________________ 77

Appendix D: NSS items _____________________________________________________ 78


4

Foreword

The National Student Survey (NSS) is an annual survey of higher education students in their final year of study

in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and for some institutions in Scotland. It was introduced in 2005, and

is an important source of information for anyone interested in the quality of an undergraduate degree

programme. It is administered by Ipsos-MORI on behalf of HEFCE, and aims to “gather feedback on the

quality of students‟ courses in order to contribute to public accountability as well as to help inform the

choices of future applicants to higher education”.1

This report covers the discipline of Physical Sciences, which the Higher Education Academy (HEA) defines to

include Astronomy, Chemistry, Forensic and Archaeological Science, and Physics, as well as Others in Physical

Sciences. It is one of a series of 28 NSS discipline-based reports that has been initiated, compiled and written

by the HEA and their survey teams. This report offers a high-level analysis of the discipline of Physical Sciences

and aims to provide the higher education sector with a better understanding of the experience of this student

community. Its general findings can be used as a first step into further qualitative investigation, which can

ultimately lead to a genuine quality enhancement of the students‟ learning experience. The importance of using

the NSS scores only as an instigator for further investigation, however, must be stressed; the true worth of

the NSS is only apparent when the data it provides are used as a benchmark, and/or to compare with like

disciplines and institutions across the sector.

It is important to note at the outset that students in the Physical Sciences are overwhelmingly satisfied with

the quality of their courses. The proportion ranges from 83 to 91%, comparable to or significantly better than

other subjects including others in STEM. There are some interesting variations in the detailed statistics

outlined in this report, and hopefully by investigating these it may be possible to improve the student

experience still further.

In Astronomy, communication skills and confidence building were the only areas where students rated their

experience significantly less well than in the full range of academic subjects. These were comparable to other STEM subjects, but students felt that they were less well provided for in relation to library resources and

services. This was less of an issue in Russell Group institutions. Interestingly, assessment and feedback was the

weakest of those factors that were shown to impact on the overall experience, given that this is often stated

to be a major concern generally. This was the only area where gender differences were significant, with a

higher proportion of males believing that the feedback they had received had clarified their understanding.

In Chemistry, provision of advance marking criteria was rated less favourably than all subjects and also relative

to other STEM subjects. Receiving detailed comments on work was also less favourable when compared with

all subjects. However, non-EU students did not find this to be an issue, rating this significantly higher than

their UK or EU peers. A significant proportion of non-EU students felt that feedback on their work had been

prompt and that they had been able to access general IT resources. A significant number of international (EU

and non-EU) students also felt that good advice had been available on study choices. Learning resources were

judged to have the least impact on the overall experience, which is interesting in view of the number of recent

initiatives in this area.

Receiving prompt feedback with detailed comments also features in the report for Forensic and

Archaeological Science where these score significantly less favourably than for all other subjects. This is also

true for course organisation, and relative to other STEM subjects the related issues of timetabling and

communication of course changes are less favourably rated, as are library resources and facilities. Perhaps the

most notable feature of these results is that significantly fewer students believe that the course has helped

them to present themselves with confidence, relative to all other courses. However, there is no difference in

1 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/lt/publicinfo/nationalstudentsurvey/ [Accessed 16 May 2012]

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/lt/publicinfo/nationalstudentsurvey/


5

this when compared to other STEM subjects. As in Chemistry, learning resources have the weakest impact on

the overall experience. Given the relative numbers of students in each type of institution, it is interesting that

the pre-1992 universities and the Russell Group in particular score significantly higher on a number of factors.

Relative to all other subjects, significantly fewer Physics students felt that they had received detailed

comments on their work, although the number was higher than in other STEM subjects. This was also true for

presenting with confidence and improving communication skills, where the proportion relative to those in

other STEM subjects was similar. As in the case of Astronomy, assessment and feedback have the weakest impact on the overall experience. Interestingly, there were no significant differences between the pre- and

post-1992 universities. There were, however, some interesting differences between institution types

depending on the question.

I think this gives a flavour of the complex nature of the student experience in the Physical Sciences. I hope

that you find the report of interest and useful in whatever capacity you are considering the results. The data

as presented in this report aim to make it easy to compare any local results with comparable degrees

elsewhere and to start to evaluate your own students‟ experience. However, these comparisons must be

viewed as only one piece of the jigsaw to understand and ultimately improve the student experience. It is

important to stress that results from the NSS and findings from this report for the Physical Sciences discipline

must be included in any quality assurance discussions and must assimilate, not in isolation but together with,

other sources of information. These should include formal reviews and assessments such as accreditation visit

reports, programme reviews, module evaluations, and university-wide reviews, as well as informal reviews

through student-staff panels, focus groups and other mechanisms where student views are expressed.

Dr Paul Yates

Discipline Lead for Physical Sciences at the Higher Education Academy

May 2012


6

1. How to use this report

This report presents data from the 2011 National Student Survey (NSS) for specific subjects, aggregated

across all institutions. By providing information about how subjects are reflected nationally in the NSS, the

charts and tables are designed to help departments, faculties and institutions to contextualise and understand

their own results.

This report includes NSS data for the following subjects, as classified in the Joint Academic Coding System

(JACS) (see Appendix B for a more detailed list)

Astronomy (F500)

Chemistry (F100)

Forensic and Archaeological Science (F400)

Others in Physical Sciences (F900)

Physics (F300)

Note about students studying multiple subjects

Unless otherwise indicated, all students studying a subject at 50% FPE (full-person equivalent) or more will

have their responses allocated to that subject. Students studying two subjects at 50% FPE may therefore have

their responses allocated twice. In addition, students studying multiple courses, all at less than 50% FPE, will

be excluded from the data. These decisions have been taken to ensure that a response is allocated to a

subject when the student has had a significant experience of that subject.

When used with an awareness of the limitations, NSS data can play a useful role in supporting improvements

in learning and teaching. By allowing comparisons and benchmarking, the data can highlight areas that would

reward further investigation, either as areas of apparent success or challenge. NSS results can be a useful

starting point for discussions about learning and teaching, either with colleagues, senior managers, student

representatives or students themselves. It is also advisable to triangulate the data with quantitative and

qualitative information from other sources in order to effectively target, design and evaluate enhancement

activities.

This report presents a high-level picture of the discipline through the lens of NSS data, broken down and

analysed in a number of different ways. It does not provide a detailed picture of students‟ learning

experiences, nor does it dictate specific areas for intervention. However, it can be used in conjunction with

local NSS data to gain an overview of the views of a group of students, which can provide an excellent starting

point for further investigation and discussion.

As with all uses of quantitative data, caution should be exercised when interpreting small differences between

respondent groups. Small differences may be due to random variations in response, demographic

characteristics of the respondents, method of response and many other factors, and small numerical

differences may not in fact correspond to genuine differences in experience. A further reason for caution is

that for those comparisons involving institutional-level characteristics (UK nation, institution type and mission


7

group) where small numbers of respondents are reported these may represent a cohort from one single

institution, rather than respondents from a range of institutions.

A standard method of evaluating whether patterns in the survey sample are likely to reflect patterns in the

wider population is to use tests of statistical significance. Methods of analysis used in this report are detailed in

Appendix A. Significance levels are included in the tables, but for ease of use significance levels of 0.05 or

lower have been highlighted in bold – this is the level at which results are standardly taken to be significant,

and suggests that there is a 95% or greater probability that the patterns found in the survey sample are reflective of the final-year undergraduate population as a whole. Unless otherwise stated, where differences

are significant (at the 0.05 level) the higher score is in bold text. Where there are more than two scores being

compared and the significance level is 0.05 or lower, the significance level itself is in bold text, and indicates

that there is at least one significant different between two of the scores.

It should be noted, however, that significance testing assumes that the survey has been conducted using a

random sample, or a design that approximates this. In fact, the NSS attempts to survey the whole final-year

undergraduate population and, while all surveys may experience non-response bias, it can be more difficult to

correct for this in a „census‟ type survey. A review by Paula Surridge for the HEA described tests for non-

response bias that found no significant effect2 and the overall profile of NSS respondents is broadly

representative of the wider student body. However, it is not possible to say whether each subgroup explored

in this report (such as part-time students, or the results for HEI „mission groups‟) is similarly representative.

For this reason, the significance levels included in this report should only be taken as indications of confidence

in the survey results and we recommend that caution be exercised when interpreting, using or relying on

small differences. Similarly, the error bars placed around institutional scores may, if anything, be too narrow

where non-response bias is substantial.

In order to present the data in a more complete manner, tables rather than charts have been used for the

majority of this report3. Because there are different response rates for each item in the NSS, no single number

of responses can be included for each group in a table. Instead, the range between the lowest and the highest

number of responses is shown.

The percentage values included in the tables correspond to the proportion of students who agreed with the

relevant statement (survey item), i.e. selected either „definitely agree‟ or „mostly agree‟. The number of

responses to each item includes all of the responses (including those who disagreed).

This report contains high-level analyses involving institutional and demographic characteristics. Other than

The Open University, no institutions are identified anywhere in the report – in the section on part-time

students, the OU‟s results have been separated out as they constitute such a large proportion of the part-time

student responses. No group smaller than 23 students is reported, and every care has been taken to ensure

that no student can be identified either directly or through implication.

The analyses included in this report were carried out by Mrs Gosia Turner. The HEA acknowledges the

assistance of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in providing the NSS dataset used in

this report.

2 The National Student Survey three years on: What have we learned (Surridge, 2009). 3 The data contained in the tables can be used to create charts, if desired, by copying the entire table into a Microsoft Word

document, and then copying the required data from that document into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.


8

2. Astronomy

There are 338 students in the NSS dataset who study Astronomy at 50% FPE or more. 26% of students who

responded are women, 96.7% are from the UK, and 47% study full-time. Please note: due to insufficient

student population in this subject, the range of institutional results, and the comparison by student domile,

cannot be displayed.

2.1 Comparison with all subjects combined

This table compares the experiences of students across the UK responding to the NSS in Astronomy with the

experience of all other students responding to the NSS.

All (excl.

Astronomy)

Astronomy Sig.

Q1. Staff are good at explaining things 88.0% 90.2% .363

Q2. Staff have made the subject interesting 80.9% 85.3% .007

Q3. Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching 85.3% 90.3% .006

Q4. The course is intellectually stimulating 83.7% 97.3% .000

Q5. The criteria used in marking have been made clear in advance 73.1% 82.8% .000

Q6. Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair 74.4% 88.7% .000

Q7. Feedback on my work has been prompt 62.6% 76.6% .000

Q8. I have received detailed comments on my work 66.9% 79.8% .000

Q9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand 61.4% 78.0% .000

Q10. I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies 74.9% 82.4% .005

Q11. I have been able to contact staff when I needed to 82.9% 91.1% .000

Q12. Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices 72.1% 77.6% .073

Q13. The timetable works effectively as far as my activities are concerned 78.4% 82.7% .014

Q14. Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated

effectively

73.4% 82.5% .001

Q15. The course is well organised and is running smoothly 72.4% 88.5% .000

Q16. The library resources and services are good enough for my needs 81.0% 81.3% .002

Q17. I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to 83.4% 90.1% .005

Q18. I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities, or rooms when

I needed to

75.6% 80.8% .093

Q19. The course has helped me to present myself with confidence 79.0% 73.8% .013

Q20. My communication skills have improved 81.9% 75.8% .016

Q21. As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems 79.2% 78.7% .753

Q22. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course 83.1% 91.1% .000

Number of responses to each item (range lowest – highest) 240583 - 263983 239 - 338


9

2.2 Comparison with STEM combined

This table compares the experience of students across the UK responding to the NSS in Astronomy with the

experience of all other students in the wider subject area of STEM responding to the NSS.

STEM (excl.

Astronomy)

Astronomy Sig.















effectively

76.7% 82.5% .045





I needed to

78.2% 80.8% .257







10

2.3 Relationships between aspects of the student experience

21 items in the NSS are grouped into 6 scales, each measuring a different aspect of the student experience

(see Appendix D), while item 22 examines overall satisfaction. This table shows the extent to which these

different scales are correlated with one another. In other words, it gives an indication of the strength of the

relationship between different aspects of the student experience. Values nearer 1 indicate a stronger

relationship. However, due to the fact that this analysis shows correlations rather than causal relationships, it

is not possible to conclude that improving one aspect of the student experience will automatically lead to

improvements in another aspect, even where the relationship appears strong.

Q22. Overall,

I am satisfied

with the

quality of the

course

Quality of

Learning

and

Teaching

scale

Assessment

and Feedback

scale

Academic

Support

scale

Organisation

and

Management

scale

Learning

Resources

scale

Personal

Development

scale

Q22. Overall, I am satisfied

with the quality of the course

1 .686 .564 .602 .561 .426 .599

Quality of Learning and

Teaching scale

1 .522 .558 .531 .451 .589

Assessment and Feedback

scale

1 .483 .511 .346 .417

Academic Support scale 1 .576 .518 .518

Organisation and

Management scale

1 .555 .512

Learning resources scale 1 .548

Personal Development scale 1

All correlations are statistically significant at 0.01 level. The strongest relationship appears to be between

overall satisfaction and quality of learning and teaching.


11

2.4 Impact of aspects of the student experience on overall satisfaction

The different aspects of the student experience, as measured by the 6 item scales in the NSS, are likely to

impact upon students‟ overall satisfaction with their course, as measured by question 22. To test this, a

multiple regression has been performed, examining the extent to which the results for different item scales

explain or predict overall satisfaction. In the table below, the higher the size of the standardised coefficient,

the greater the influence of that aspect of the student experience on overall satisfaction.

All scales combined explain 61% (Adjusted R2 = 0.612) of the variability of the overall satisfaction item. This is

a strong effect but nevertheless suggests the existence of other factors affecting the overall experience but

not measured by the NSS survey.

Unstandardised

Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) -.186 .273 -.681 .497

Quality of Learning and Teaching scale .438 .086 .311 5.106 .000

Assessment and Feedback scale .180 .059 .162 3.034 .003

Academic Support scale .253 .060 .249 4.228 .000

Organisation and Management scale .058 .063 .055 .922 .357

Learning resources scale -.053 .058 -.051 -.923 .357

Personal Development scale .215 .056 .227 3.831 .000

This analysis shows that the quality of learning and teaching is the most important factor affecting the overall

experience while the assessment and feedback have the weakest impact. The organisation and management

scale as well as the learning resources scale are not statistically significant.


12

2.5 Comparison by nation

This analysis breaks down the results for the subject by the UK nation in which the institution is located.

Results from the Open University have not been included in this analysis.

England Scotland Wales Sig.

Q1. Staff are good at explaining things 93.5% 100.0% 80.0% .037

Q2. Staff have made the subject interesting 89.1% 89.3% 68.6% .042

Q3. Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching 92.4% 92.9% 82.9% .106

Q4. The course is intellectually stimulating 98.9% 100.0% 94.3% .171

Q5. The criteria used in marking have been made clear in

advance

83.7% 92.9% 57.1% .000

Q6. Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair 88.0% 89.3% 77.1% .445

Q7. Feedback on my work has been prompt 72.8% 50.0% 51.4% .002

Q8. I have received detailed comments on my work 70.7% 71.4% 44.1% .008

Q9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I

did not understand

72.8% 78.6% 40.0% .001

Q10. I have received sufficient advice and support with

my studies

87.0% 85.7% 77.1% .571

Q11. I have been able to contact staff when I needed to 94.6% 96.4% 94.3% .066

Q12. Good advice was available when I needed to make

study choices

78.9% 89.3% 74.3% .461

Q13. The timetable works effectively as far as my

activities are concerned

81.5% 85.7% 77.1% .803

Q14. Any changes in the course or teaching have been

communicated effectively

87.0% 78.6% 77.1% .105

Q15. The course is well organised and is running

smoothly

87.0% 89.3% 77.1% .088

Q16. The library resources and services are good enough

for my needs

85.9% 96.4% 82.9% .209

Q17. I have been able to access general IT resources

when I needed to

90.2% 100.0% 82.9% .048

Q18. I have been able to access specialised equipment,

facilities, or rooms when I needed to

95.2% 100.0% 82.4% .045

Q19. The course has helped me to present myself with

confidence

82.6% 92.9% 64.7% .050

Q20. My communication skills have improved 90.2% 92.9% 64.7% .004

Q21. As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling

unfamiliar problems

92.4% 92.9% 65.7% .002

Q22. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course 93.5% 96.4% 80.0% .005

Number of responses to each item (range lowest – highest) 84 - 92 28 - 28 34 - 35

Where there are statistically significant differences for an item, this is highlighted in bold in the „Sig.‟ column.

Northern Ireland was excluded owing to insufficient student population in this subject.


13

2.6 Comparison by institution type

This analysis categorises the results for the subject according to the institution‟s „mission group‟. Mission

group membership is correct for the time the survey took place (Spring 2011).

Russell

Group

1994

Group

University

Alliance* Sig.






advance

83.1% 80.5% 83.2% .928




Q9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did

not understand

63.9% 78.0% 86.5% .001

Q10. I have received sufficient advice and support with my

studies

85.5% 78.0% 81.0% .667


Q12. Good advice was available when I needed to make study

choices

84.1% 70.0% 75.7% .303

Q13. The timetable works effectively as far as my activities are

concerned

80.7% 82.9% 84.7% .487



85.5% 82.9% 80.9% .393

Q15. The course is well organised and is running smoothly 88.0% 85.4% 89.5% .396

Q16. The library resources and services are good enough for

my needs

92.8% 80.5% 75.9% .017

Q17. I have been able to access general IT resources when I

needed to

91.6% 90.2% 90.3% .915



93.6% 94.6% 63.4% .000


confidence

80.5% 87.8% 67.0% .026



unfamiliar problems

89.2% 87.8% 72.0% .004



*Excluding Bucks New University (included in Million+).


The Million+ and GuildHE institutions were excluded owing to insufficient student population in this subject.


14

2.7 Comparison by full-time/part-time

Full-time Part-time Sig.














Q14. Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively 83.6% 81.4% .865




Q18. I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities, or rooms when I needed to 92.7% 60.7% .000







15

2.8 Comparison by gender

Female Male Sig.























Number of responses to each item (range lowest – highest) 60 - 88 179 -

250


16

2.9 Comparison with selected items from the Postgraduate Taught Experience

Survey

The national Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) is run annually by the Higher Education Academy

in conjunction with institutions. This table shows comparisons between data from NSS items and data from

relevant items in PTES. The PTES data are from the 2011 administration of the survey, and the full report can

be accessed on the HEA‟s website. There are relevant items in PTES for all NSS items except items 10, 11, 12

and 22. For NSS items 7 and 16 there are multiple relevant items in PTES. Unless otherwise stated, the

relevant item wording in PTES is either identical to the NSS item, or contains only insignificant differences.

The relevant PTES item numbers are in square brackets.

Please note that whereas the NSS is compulsory for HE providers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland,

PTES is voluntary. 80 institutions took part in PTES 2011, as opposed to the 253 institutions that took part in

NSS 2011. Differences in results between PTES and the NSS may, therefore, reflect differences between the

institutions taking part. Nonetheless, PTES includes many of the same questions as found in the NSS as well as

some that add further information to the NSS-type questions. The results below compare the experience of

those final-year undergraduates studying Astronomy across the UK answering the NSS with the experience of taught postgraduates studying Physical Science.


17

Please also note that no tests for significance have been undertaken for this table, and the differences between

results for NSS and PTES items are provided for interest only, and should only be taken as indicative.

NSS PTES

Q1. Staff are good at explaining things [PTES Q4a] 90.2% 83.3%

Q2. Staff have made the subject interesting [PTES Q4b] 85.3% 76.4%

Q3. Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching [PTES Q4c] 90.3% 84.5%

Q4. The course is intellectually stimulating [PTES Q3d] 97.3% 82.5%

Q5. The criteria used in marking have been made clear in advance [PTES Q11a] 82.8% 69.4%

Q6. Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair [PTES Q11b] 88.7% 74.4%

Q7. Feedback on my work has been prompt [PTES Q11c] 76.6% 52.9%

I received feedback in time to allow me to improve my next assignment [PTES Q11d – no

direct NSS equivalent]

N/A 53.6%

Q8. I have received detailed comments on my work [PTES Q11e] 79.8% 65.0%

Q9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand [PTES Q11f] 78.0% 59.6%

Q13*. The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned [PTES Q14a] 82.7% 73.5%

Q14. Any changes in the course of teaching have been communicated effectively [PTES Q14b] 82.5% 69.9%

Q15. The course is well organised and is running smoothly [PTES Q14c] 88.5% 66.2%

Q16. The library resources and services are good enough for my needs [PTES Q16a] 81.3% 76.5%

The library resources and services are easily accessible [PTES Q16b – no NSS equivalent] N/A 77.0%

I am satisfied with the quality of learning materials available to me (Print, online material,

DVDs etc.) [PTES Q16f – no NSS equivalent]

N/A 72.9%

Q17. I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to [PTES Q16c] 90.1% 78.8%

Q18. I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to [PTES

Q16e]

80.8% 76.1%

Q19. The course has helped me to present myself with confidence [PTES Q17d] 73.8% 62.3%

Q20. My communication skills have improved [PTES Q17e] 75.8% 58.9%

Q21. As a result of my course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems [PTES Q17f] 78.7% 65.8%


* PTES Q14a, the equivalent of the NSS item Q13, is slightly differently worded: „The timetable fits well with my other commitments‟.


18

3. Chemistry

There are 2378 students in the NSS dataset who study Chemistry at 50% FPE or more. 46.4% of students

who responded are women, 92.8% are from the UK, and 94.5% study full-time.


This table compares the experiences of students across the UK responding to the NSS in Chemistry with the


All (excl.

Chemistry)

Chemistry Sig.















effectively

73.4% 82.4% .000





I needed to

75.5% 86.1% .000







19


This table compares the experience of students across the UK responding to the NSS in Chemistry with the


STEM (excl.

Chemistry)

Chemistry Sig.















effectively

76.5% 82.4% .000





I needed to

77.9% 86.1% .000







20









Q22. Overall,

I am satisfied

with the

quality of the

course

Quality of

Learning

and

Teaching

scale

Assessment

and Feedback

scale

Academic

Support

scale

Organisation

and

Management

scale

Learning

Resources

scale

Personal

Development

scale



1 .714 .582 .673 .556 .408 .608


Teaching scale

1 .602 .623 .527 .404 .571


scale

1 .587 .516 .354 .470


Organisation and

Management scale

1 .424 .428






21










Unstandardised

Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) -.145 .082 -1.761 .078




Organisation and Management scale .113 .016 .115 6.927 .000

Learning resources scale .038 .017 .033 2.255 .024



experience while the learning resources have the weakest impact.


22

3.5 Range of institutional results for overall satisfaction

The points on the graph represent the % agree for overall satisfaction (item 22) among those answering the

survey for this subject. The error bars represent 95% confidents intervals – in other words, there is a 95%

probability that the actual % agree for all students taking this subject at an institution, rather than just those

who responded to the survey, lies within this range. This is important because it is a significant limitation on

any rank ordering of institutions based on NSS scores. Institutions with 22 students or less were removed

from the graph. Institutions have been anonymised and the numbers on the x-axis do not correspond to the

numbers on the x-axis in other graphs in this report.

In general, this analysis is intended to give an indication of the range of overall satisfaction across institutions

offering this subject.


23



Results from The Open University have not been included in this analysis.

England Scotland Wales Northern

Ireland

Sig.

Q1. Staff are good at explaining things 93.5% 95.8% 90.9% 91.7% .300

Q2. Staff have made the subject interesting 83.8% 85.5% 80.2% 87.5% .348

Q3. Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching 90.8% 89.7% 84.6% 87.5% .048

Q4. The course is intellectually stimulating 92.6% 92.7% 88.4% 87.5% .053


advance

67.4% 75.0% 58.4% 75.0% .002

Q6. Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair 80.7% 84.7% 75.4% 83.3% .100

Q7. Feedback on my work has been prompt 67.3% 64.9% 51.7% 75.0% .000

Q8. I have received detailed comments on my work 62.1% 55.9% 47.3% 62.5% .000


did not understand

67.6% 67.4% 53.0% 83.3% .000


my studies

83.8% 82.6% 74.8% 75.0% .004

Q11. I have been able to contact staff when I needed to 90.7% 93.1% 88.7% 87.5% .517


study choices

79.6% 81.5% 73.6% 66.7% .013



81.3% 83.5% 79.2% 87.5% .805



82.1% 87.0% 80.7% 87.5% .318


smoothly

85.6% 84.7% 80.4% 83.3% .308


for my needs

91.7% 84.4% 88.9% 87.5% .004


when I needed to

91.1% 88.9% 84.9% 87.5% .000



87.5% 86.8% 80.3% 95.8% .010


confidence

81.1% 78.2% 71.5% 75.0% .009

Q20. My communication skills have improved 82.1% 82.1% 76.6% 66.7% .047


unfamiliar problems

84.7% 83.1% 79.9% 79.2% .205

Q22. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course 92.0% 91.6% 88.3% 91.7% .365

Number of responses to each item (range lowest – highest) 1653 - 1698 250 - 262 309 - 318 24 - 24



24




Russell

Group

1994

Group

Million+ University

Alliance* Sig.

Q1. Staff are good at explaining things 93.7% 95.3% 89.8% 87.3% .000

Q2. Staff have made the subject interesting 81.7% 87.6% 87.6% 80.5% .033

Q3. Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching 89.7% 92.6% 89.9% 85.9% .002

Q4. The course is intellectually stimulating 92.5% 93.7% 86.5% 89.0% .029


advance

62.4% 74.6% 73.9% 73.8% .000

Q6. Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair 76.1% 87.1% 87.5% 83.7% .000

Q7. Feedback on my work has been prompt 65.6% 70.1% 71.6% 60.8% .021

Q8. I have received detailed comments on my work 56.2% 63.8% 71.6% 68.0% .000


not understand

64.5% 69.1% 71.6% 64.9% .100


studies

80.5% 88.8% 82.0% 77.7% .000

Q11. I have been able to contact staff when I needed to 91.5% 94.6% 83.1% 82.6% .000


choices

76.4% 84.6% 81.2% 73.9% .001


concerned

80.5% 82.5% 81.8% 80.4% .168



83.5% 85.0% 73.9% 77.3% .003

Q15. The course is well organised and is running smoothly 85.6% 87.9% 73.9% 82.5% .000


my needs

92.1% 90.1% 88.5% 86.2% .067


needed to

91.4% 91.7% 84.1% 80.9% .000



87.4% 88.5% 77.9% 77.1% .000


confidence

76.7% 82.7% 76.4% 78.6% .037

Q20. My communication skills have improved 77.7% 84.4% 79.8% 79.9% .023


unfamiliar problems

82.9% 85.6% 79.8% 79.0% .098

Q22. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course 91.1% 94.6% 93.1% 85.7% .001

Number of responses to each item (range lowest – highest) 1172 -

1193

539 -

556

85 - 89 249 - 294



The GuildHE institutions were excluded owing to insufficient student population in this subject.


25

The following table shows comparisons between broader institution type.

Pre-1992 Post-

1992 Sig.















effectively

83.4% 77.6% .002




Q18. I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities, or rooms

when I needed to

87.7% 80.5% .000



Q21. As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar

problems

84.3% 80.8% .147



1900

365 -

382


The small and specialist and FEC institutions were excluded owing to insufficient student population in this

subject.


26


























2247

93 - 130


27

Because of the large proportion of part-time students who study at The Open University, as an aid to

effective benchmarking the following table compares OU part-time students to part-time students studying at

other institutions.

Part-time

OU

Part-time

non-OU

Sig.

























28


Female Male Sig.
























1104

1226 -

1274


29

3.10 Comparison by domicile

The following analysis breaks down the NSS results for the subject by students‟ place of residence. Students

are allocated to one category only, so those based in the UK are not included in the EU category for the

purpose of this analysis.

UK EU Non-

EU

Sig.





Q5. The criteria used in marking have been made clear in advance 67.3% 76.3% 72.1% .488




Q9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand 66.1% 59.3% 74.8% .289

Q10. I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies 82.5% 83.1% 81.3% .869


Q12. Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices 78.4% 86.4% 83.8% .036

Q13. The timetable works effectively as far as my activities are concerned 81.4% 83.1% 80.4% .382

Q14. Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively 82.6% 86.2% 77.7% .340


Q16. The library resources and services are good enough for my needs 90.1% 89.7% 87.4% .782

Q17. I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to 89.4% 89.8% 91.9% .036

Q18. I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities, or rooms when I needed to 86.3% 83.6% 83.3% .625

Q19. The course has helped me to present myself with confidence 79.2% 74.6% 83.8% .658


Q21. As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems 84.2% 78.0% 77.7% .109



2207

55 - 59 105 -

112



30


Survey













those final-year undergraduates studying Chemistry across the UK answering the NSS with the experience of taught postgraduates studying Physical Science.


31



NSS PTES










N/A 53.6%










N/A 72.9%



Q16e]

86.1% 76.1%





2377

163 - 234

* PTES Q14a, the equivalent of the NSS item Q13, is slightly differently worded: „The timetable fits well with

my other commitments‟.


32

4. Forensic and Archaeological Science

There are 1440 students in the NSS dataset who study Forensic and Archaeological Science at 50% FPE or

more. 64% of students who responded are women, 94.8% are from the UK, and 98.8% study full-time. Please

note: due to insufficient student population in this subject, the comparison between part-time and full-time

respondents cannot be displayed.


This table compares the experiences of students across the UK responding to the NSS in Forensic and

Archaeological Science with the experience of all other students responding to the NSS.

All (excl. Forensic

and Archaeological

Science)

Forensic and

Archaeological

Science

Sig.















effectively

73.4% 71.9% .285





I needed to

75.6% 77.7% .208







33


This table compares the experience of students across the UK responding to the NSS in Forensic and

Archaeological Science with the experience of all other students in the wider subject area of STEM

responding to the NSS.

STEM (excl.

Forensic and

Archaeological

Science)

Forensic and

Archaeological

Science

Sig.















effectively

76.8% 71.9% .000





I needed to

78.2% 77.7% .904







34









Q22. Overall,

I am satisfied

with the

quality of the

course

Quality of

Learning

and

Teaching

scale

Assessment

and Feedback

scale

Academic

Support

scale

Organisation

and

Management

scale

Learning

Resources

scale

Personal

Development

scale



1 .694 .554 .652 .654 .395 .634


Teaching scale

1 .597 .656 .592 .341 .581


scale

1 .595 .556 .320 .496


Organisation and

Management scale

1 .373 .497






35










Unstandardised

Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) -.562 .109 -5.164 .000








experience while the learning resources have the weakest impact. The assessment and feedback scale is not

statistically significant.


36












37










advance

71.3% 76.6% 71.4% .564





did not understand

59.9% 59.8% 61.9% .137


my studies

75.6% 86.2% 75.5% .189



study choices

74.8% 78.3% 71.4% .087



78.6% 86.2% 68.1% .000



72.0% 74.5% 70.6% .502


smoothly

67.6% 66.0% 66.1% .228


for my needs

80.4% 81.7% 77.7% .345


when I needed to

82.9% 88.3% 81.7% .510



79.5% 84.1% 69.8% .003


confidence

76.6% 77.7% 73.9% .513



unfamiliar problems

78.6% 80.9% 74.8% .323




Northern Ireland was excluded owing to insufficient student population in this subject.


38




Russell

Group

Million+ University

Alliance* Sig.






advance

77.1% 76.4% 65.2% .000





not understand

84.3% 66.3% 49.6% .000


studies

85.5% 77.0% 73.4% .125



choices

79.3% 77.3% 71.9% .161


concerned

89.0% 82.4% 67.4% .000



84.1% 74.6% 66.8% .001



my needs

79.5% 77.1% 83.0% .037


needed to

82.9% 80.3% 84.9% .172



76.6% 78.1% 78.3% .200


confidence

80.7% 77.8% 73.9% .313



unfamiliar problems

83.1% 80.8% 75.5% .229





The 1994 Group and GuildHE institutions were excluded owing to insufficient student population in this

subject.


39


Pre-1992 Post-

1992 FEC Sig.















effectively

80.1% 70.8% 57.8% .000





when I needed to

81.5% 77.7% 64.5% .002




problems

83.4% 77.6% 60.3% .000



1121

62 - 65


The small and specialist institutions were excluded owing to insufficient student population in this subject.


40


Female Male Sig.
























921

491 -

519


41





UK EU Non-

EU

Sig.
























1365

43 - 45 26 -

30



42


Survey













those final-year undergraduates studying Forensic and Archaeological Science across the UK answering the NSS with the experience of taught postgraduates studying Physical Science.


43



NSS PTES










N/A 53.6%










N/A 72.9%



Q16e]

77.7% 76.1%





1440

163 - 234




44

5. Others in Physical Sciences

There are 265 students in the NSS dataset who study Others in Physical Science at 50% FPE or more. 53.2%

of students who responded are women, 94.7% are from the UK, and 54.7% study full-time. Please note: due

to insufficient student population in this subject, the range of institutional results, the comparison by nation,

and the comparison by student domile, cannot be displayed.


This table compares the experiences of students across the UK responding to the NSS in Others in Physical

Science with the experience of all other students responding to the NSS.

All (excl. Others in

Physical Science)

Others in

Physical Science

Sig.















effectively

73.4% 82.3% .000





I needed to

75.6% 79.4% .022







45


This table compares the experience of students across the UK responding to the NSS in Others in Physical

Science with the experience of all other students in the wider subject area of STEM responding to the NSS.

STEM (excl.

Others in Physical

Science)

Others in Physical

Science

Sig.















effectively

76.7% 82.3% .013





I needed to

78.2% 79.4% .024







46









Q22. Overall,

I am satisfied

with the

quality of the

course

Quality of

Learning

and

Teaching

scale

Assessment

and Feedback

scale

Academic

Support

scale

Organisation

and

Management

scale

Learning

Resources

scale

Personal

Development

scale



1 .708 .615 .650 .638 .403 .560


Teaching scale

1 .604 .612 .566 .286 .499


scale

1 .660 .551 .358 .429


Organisation and

Management scale

1 .421 .473






47










Unstandardised

Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) -.057 .278 -.205 .838





Learning resources scale .046 .051 .045 .901 .369



experience while the organisation and management have the weakest impact. The learning resources scale is

not statistically significant.


48




Million+ University

Alliance* Sig.






advance

69.0% 89.9% .001





not understand

63.8% 80.4% .001


studies

60.3% 84.1% .000



choices

66.1% 79.6% .043


concerned

81.4% 81.2% .815



74.6% 83.9% .125



my needs

86.4% 90.2% .308


needed to

81.4% 88.8% .344



76.4% 78.9% .837


confidence

61.0% 76.0% .043



unfamiliar problems

79.3% 78.1% .546





The Russell Group, 1994 Group and GuildHE institutions were excluded owing to insufficient student

population in this subject.


49


Pre-1992 Post-

1992 Sig.















effectively

87.2% 71.7% .110





when I needed to

84.1% 78.7% .690




problems

80.9% 79.6% .975





subject.


50





















Q19. The course has helped me to present myself with confidence 71.5% 71.6% 1.000






51


Female Male Sig.
























124


52


Survey













those final-year undergraduates studying Others in Physical Science across the UK answering the NSS with the experience of taught postgraduates studying Physical Science.


53



NSS PTES










N/A 53.6%










N/A 72.9%



Q16e]

79.4% 76.1%





* PTES Q14a, the equivalent of the NSS item Q13, is slightly differently worded: „The timetable fits well with my other commitments‟.


54

6. Physics

There are 2027 students in the NSS dataset who study Physics at 50% FPE or more. 24.4% of students who

responded are women, 92.1% are from the UK, and 90.2% study full-time.


This table compares the experiences of students across the UK responding to the NSS in Physics with the


All (excl. Physics) Physics Sig.















effectively

73.3% 85.1% .000





I needed to

75.6% 86.9% .000







55


This table compares the experience of students across the UK responding to the NSS in Physics with the


STEM (excl.

Physics)

Physics Sig.















effectively

76.5% 85.1% .000





I needed to

77.9% 86.9% .000







56









Q22. Overall,

I am satisfied

with the

quality of the

course

Quality of

Learning

and

Teaching

scale

Assessment

and Feedback

scale

Academic

Support

scale

Organisation

and

Management

scale

Learning

Resources

scale

Personal

Development

scale



1 .689 .583 .637 .569 .375 .605


Teaching scale

1 .598 .616 .496 .373 .579


scale

1 .583 .477 .362 .462


Organisation and

Management scale

1 .421 .424






57










Unstandardised

Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) -.279 .100 -2.800 .005








experience while assessment and feedback have the weakest impact. The learning resources scale is not



58












59










advance

75.8% 78.8% 61.5% .000





did not understand

68.0% 67.3% 55.7% .001


my studies

81.8% 88.0% 71.8% .000



study choices

76.4% 82.3% 71.0% .026



81.3% 85.3% 77.7% .285



85.3% 86.1% 86.2% .485


smoothly

87.5% 84.8% 85.4% .502


for my needs

88.6% 92.0% 88.7% .512


when I needed to

89.5% 94.9% 86.3% .012



88.8% 89.2% 87.2% .722


confidence

77.4% 80.6% 69.9% .006



unfamiliar problems

85.7% 87.6% 81.0% .155




Northern Ireland was excluded owing to the insufficient student population in this subject.


60




Russell

Group

1994

Group

University

Alliance* Sig.






advance

70.8% 77.5% 84.0% .000





not understand

62.8% 69.9% 83.1% .000


studies

76.9% 84.8% 81.7% .004



choices

73.5% 77.4% 78.5% .187


concerned

80.6% 82.0% 82.9% .551



85.7% 85.4% 81.7% .445



my needs

90.1% 86.4% 79.1% .000


needed to

88.7% 90.4% 90.7% .752



87.4% 89.9% 68.0% .000


confidence

73.7% 81.8% 68.3% .000



unfamiliar problems

83.7% 87.4% 73.0% .000



1103

503 -

523

125 - 220



The Million+ and GuildHE institutions were excluded owing to insufficient student population in this subject.


61


Pre-1992 Post-

1992 Sig.















effectively

85.3% 89.8% .672





when I needed to

88.3% 87.0% .655




problems

85.2% 81.6% .337



1787

46 - 49



subject.


62


























1829

104 - 198


63


Female Male Sig.
























495

1405 -

1532


64





UK EU Non-

EU

Sig.
























1866

73 - 84 74 -

77



65


Survey













those final-year undergraduates studying Physics across the UK answering the NSS with the experience of taught postgraduates studying Physical Science.


66



NSS PTES










N/A 53.6%










N/A 72.9%



Q16e]

86.9% 76.1%





2027

163 - 234




67

7. Comparison between cognate subjects

This analysis compares NSS results for cognate subjects. Because of important differences in the demographic

characteristics of students studying different subjects, and the large effect that subject of study has been

shown to have on NSS results, caution should always be exercised when comparing NSS data between

subjects. Cognate subjects have been selected for this comparison in order to provide potentially useful

information and to suggest where there may be opportunities for learning between subjects, but the

limitations of inter-subject comparison should be borne in mind.

Unlike in previous tables, only students who study that subject at 100% FPE have been included in this

comparison.


68

Astronomy Chemistry Forensic and

Archaeological

Science

Others in

Physical

Sciences

Physics Sig.

Q1. Staff are good at explaining things 89.9% 93.6% 89.5% 88.5% 90.0% .001

Q2. Staff have made the subject interesting 78.3% 83.6% 82.9% 82.4% 81.4% .249

Q3. Staff are enthusiastic about what they are

teaching

88.4% 90.1% 85.1% 90.8% 88.4% .003

Q4. The course is intellectually stimulating 97.1% 92.4% 84.5% 84.7% 93.2% .000

Q5. The criteria used in marking have been

made clear in advance

72.5% 68.3% 71.8% 74.6% 73.0% .076

Q6. Assessment arrangements and marking

have been fair

85.5% 82.0% 75.3% 76.2% 79.0% .000

Q7. Feedback on my work has been prompt 55.1% 67.4% 61.2% 56.9% 66.5% .004

Q8. I have received detailed comments on my

work

55.1% 62.3% 63.0% 69.2% 60.1% .104

Q9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify

things I did not understand

60.9% 67.8% 60.8% 64.3% 65.1% .001

Q10. I have received sufficient advice and

support with my studies

79.7% 83.6% 77.3% 69.8% 80.1% .000

Q11. I have been able to contact staff when I

needed to

94.2% 91.5% 83.1% 81.5% 92.5% .000

Q12. Good advice was available when I needed

to make study choices

76.8% 79.7% 75.8% 72.7% 76.1% .087

Q13. The timetable works effectively as far as

my activities are concerned

82.6% 82.2% 77.9% 80.0% 82.6% .012

Q14. Any changes in the course or teaching

have been communicated effectively

81.2% 83.4% 72.3% 74.6% 86.6% .000

Q15. The course is well organised and is

running smoothly

79.7% 86.0% 67.8% 76.9% 88.1% .000

Q16. The library resources and services are

good enough for my needs

89.9% 90.6% 80.2% 92.3% 89.0% .000

Q17. I have been able to access general IT

resources when I needed to

89.9% 90.2% 83.3% 87.7% 89.0% .000

Q18. I have been able to access specialised

equipment, facilities, or rooms when I needed

to

89.6% 86.6% 78.5% 81.5% 87.7% .000

Q19. The course has helped me to present

myself with confidence

73.9% 79.8% 75.9% 71.5% 76.4% .003

Q20. My communication skills have improved 76.8% 80.9% 79.8% 79.2% 78.7% .843

Q21. As a result of the course, I feel confident

in tackling unfamiliar problems

78.3% 84.1% 77.5% 79.8% 85.4% .000

Q22. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of

the course

87.0% 92.0% 83.5% 89.2% 90.2% .000

Number of responses to each item (range lowest –

highest) 67 - 69 1832 -

1916

1035 - 1100 124 - 131 1351 -

1408



69

8. Additional HEA resources

The Higher Education Academy supports institutions and discipline communities to use student survey data to

bring about the enhancement of the student learning experience. For more about our work on the National

Student Survey please visit http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/nss.

8.1 Research

The HEA has produced a number of key pieces of research relating to the NSS:

Dimensions of Quality (2010)

Produced by Graham Gibbs, this report sets out to identify those factors that give a reliable indication of the

quality of student learning. Its focus is broader than just the use of student survey data, but it provides a useful

overview of different mechanisms of evaluating educational quality.

Available from:

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/evidence_informed_practice/Dimensions_of_Quality.pdf.

The National Student Survey three years on: What have we learned? (2009)

This report by Paula Surridge summarises some key pieces of research to give an overview of findings relating

to the NSS. It also gives recommendations for future work. It is a very useful guide to NSS data, especially

regarding the important question of what it can and cannot tell us.

Available from:

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/surveys/nss/NSS_three_years_on_surridge_02.06.09.pdf.

National Student Survey of Teaching in UK Universities: Dimensionality, multilevel structure

and differentiation at the level of university and discipline: preliminary results (2008)

This report, by Herb Marsh and Jacqueline Cheng, is a technical investigation of a number of issues, focusing in

particular on the relative effects on NSS scores of various factors such as institution and discipline. It is a rich

source of information that can help to illuminate raw NSS data.

Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/surveys/nss/NSS_herb_marsh-

28.08.08.pdf.

8.2 Case studies of enhancement activities

Through its Institutional Working Group, the HEA has collected case studies describing how NSS data have

been used to enhance learning and teaching within institutions:

12 case studies from 2007, available from:

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/bioscience/nss-case-studies.doc

5 case studies from 2010, available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Case_studies/NSS_case_studies_Nov_2010.pdf.

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/nss

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/evidence_informed_practice/Dimensions_of_Quality.pdf

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/surveys/nss/NSS_three_years_on_surridge_02.06.09.pdf

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/surveys/nss/NSS_three_years_on_surridge_02.06.09.pdf

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/surveys/nss/NSS_herb_marsh-28.08.08.pdf

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/surveys/nss/NSS_herb_marsh-28.08.08.pdf

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/bioscience/nss-case-studies.doc

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Case_studies/NSS_case_studies_Nov_2010.pdf


70

8.3 Postgraduate surveys

In addition to supporting the sector to use NSS data for the enhancement of learning and teaching, the HEA

has also developed its own national surveys, looking at the postgraduate student experience.

Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey

PTES has been running since 2009, and in 2011 about 39,000 students from 80 institutions completed the

survey. The survey asks students about a wide range of elements of their learning experience, including

feedback, teaching and skills development. It also asks about the depth and sophistication of the learning they

have engaged in. 85 institutions are taking part in the survey in 2012.

For more information visit: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ptes.

Postgraduate Research Experience Survey

PRES is the sister survey of PTES and is aimed at postgraduate research students. It runs every two years, and

in 2011 over 31,000 students from 102 institutions completed the survey. The survey will next run in 2013.

For more information please visit: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/pres.

8.4 Consultancy and change programmes

The HEA runs regular change programmes for departments and faculties wishing to explore their NSS results.

More information can be found here: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/change.

The HEA is also currently developing an institutional consultancy service, which will provide senior managers

with advice, tailored analysis and support to help them use survey data to strategically address issues in learning and teaching. If you are interested in this service then please email: [email protected].

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ptes

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/pres

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/change

mailto:[email protected]


71

9. Further reading

In addition to the research produced by the HEA described in the previous section, there are number of

other studies and reviews that provide useful information about the strengths and limitations of NSS data.

Alan Fielding, Peter Dunleavy and Mark Langan (2010) Interpreting context to the UK‟s National

Student (Satisfaction) Survey for science subjects. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 34 (3), 347-

368.

This is an investigation into the complex issues that can arise when interpreting NSS data. A number of

important findings are contained in the article, such as the absence of a strong correlation between the

experience of feedback and overall satisfaction, and the important subject differences in students‟ responses

to the NSS items.

Abbi Flint, Anne Oxley, Paul Helm and Sally Bradley (2009) Preparing for success: one institution‟s aspirational and student focused response to the National Student Survey. Teaching in Higher Education.

14 (6), 608-618.

This article discusses the involvement of students in the process of using NSS data for quality enhancement

purposes. Various activities are described, including an event to allow academics to hear student perspectives

in detail, and the publication of a „You Said, We Did...‟ document to inform students of the changes that had

resulted from their feedback.

HEFCE (2011) National Student Survey: Findings and trends 2006 to 2010. Bristol: HEFCE.

This is the latest annual report on the NSS by HEFCE. It provides an overview of the 2010 data, as well as

looking at trends in the data from 2006 to 2010 around various demographic characteristics of the student

population.

Paul Ramsden, Denise Batchelor, Alison Peacock, Paul Temple and David Watson (2010) Enhancing and

developing the National Student Survey: report to HEFCE. Bristol: HEFCE.

This report, commissioned by HEFCE, provided an interim evaluation of the functions and performance of the

NSS, in order to arrive at recommendations about whether the survey should be updated or developed. The

study proposed no substantial changes to the survey, but recommended that a full review be undertaken in

2015.

John Richardson (2005) Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 30 (4), 387-415.

This is a very useful review of the research literature concerning the different kinds of survey tools that can

be used to gather information about students‟ learning experiences.

John Richardson, John Slater and Jane Wilson (2007) The National Student Survey: development,

findings and implications. Studies in Higher Education. 32 (5), 557-580.

This article describes the history and development of the NSS, focusing on the mechanisms and findings of the

two pilot surveys that took place in 2003 and 2004.

Ruth Williams and John Brennan (2003) Collecting and using student feedback on quality and standards of

learning and teaching in HE. Bristol: HEFCE.


72

This is a report commissioned by HEFCE in order to: i) to identify good practice in collecting feedback from

students, for quality enhancement; and ii) to make recommendations about the design and implementation of

a national survey of students. This report played an important role in the development of the NSS.

Mantz Yorke (2009) Student experience surveys: some methodological considerations and an empirical investigation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 34 (6), 721-739.

This article looks at a number of issues and controversies around the design and administration of sector-

wide student surveys, including the NSS.


73

Appendix A: Brief description of analyses

Differences between subjects and between various demographic groups within each subject were analysed

using the chi-square test. Each NSS item was recoded from the 5 point Likert scale into the 3 point Likert

scale and was treated as a discrete variable. The Pearson chi-square statistics were calculated for each NSS

item separately and relevant statistical significance values are reported in the tables. If the statistical

significance value is equal or less than 0.05 then the difference between groups on the particular NSS item is


NSS scale scores were calculated for each student as the averages taken over all items that belong to the

same scale. The averages were taken over the original 5 point Likert scale items, hence they take values

between 1 and 5. Some missing values were allowed, i.e. scale score was computed even if a student did not

provide an answer to all questions in the scale. The minimum number of answers required per scale was 3.

The correlation coefficients between scales and Q22 (the overall satisfaction item) were calculated using the

Bivariate correlation (Two-tailed)4.

The regression analysis employs simple linear regression. The dependent variable – Q22 on a 5 point Likert scale – was treated as a continuous variable, which is fairly common although not the only method used to

analyse this type of data. This method was chosen for the simplicity of the output and interpretation of the

regression coefficients. The NSS scale scores were used as the explanatory variables in the regression

equation. Some of them are highly correlated, hence the regression analysis may be subject to the

multicolinearity issue. Multicolinearity usually inflates the standard errors of the coefficients, but it does not

affect the main conclusion from the model.

The graph(s) shown in the report are simple error bar graph(s). The dots represent the proportion of

students who agreed with the overall satisfaction item (Q22). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Please see the Introduction for further guidance on the interpretation of statistical significance and confidence

intervals as used in this report.

4 Mean scale scores can oversimplify Likert scale categories, and have only been used in this report where necessary – to undertake

correlations and multiple regression analyses.


74

Appendix B: Full list of subjects covered in this report

Astronomy includes:

F500 Astronomy The specifically scientific study of celestial bodies. Includes mathematics, statistics, physics, photography and computing.

F510 Astrophysics

The study of the physical nature of the universe including cosmology and astronomical techniques.

F520 Space and Planetary Sciences

The study of the solar system and evaluation of physical measurements from space.

F521 Space Science

The physical science study of space beyond the solar system.

F522 Planetary Science

The physical science study of the solar system.

F590 Astronomy not elsewhere classified

Miscellaneous grouping for related subjects which do not fit into the other Astronomy categories.

Chemistry includes:

F100 Chemistry The study of individual atoms and molecules and the way they react together naturally and synthetically.

F110 Applied Chemistry

Topics in chemistry of commercial or social importance.

F111 Industrial Chemistry

The study of chemical processes of industrial significance.

F112 Colour Chemistry

The chemical science of dyes and pigments.

F120 Inorganic Chemistry

The study of inorganic elements, compounds and reaction mechanisms.

F130 Structural Chemistry

Determination and analysis of chemical structures.

F131 Crystallography

The study and application of techniques for determining crystal structure.

F140 Environmental Chemistry

Concerned with environmental issues related to the chemical sciences.

F141 Marine Chemistry

Topics in the chemical sciences concerned with understanding the marine environment.

F150 Medicinal Chemistry

Aspects of Chemistry, such as drug design, of importance to medical science.

F151 Pharmaceutical Chemistry

The study of drug function.

F160 Organic Chemistry

The study of organic compounds and their reaction mechanisms.

F161 Organometallic Chemistry

The study of reactions between organic compounds and metals.

F162 Polymer Chemistry

The study of the properties of macromolecular compounds and their synthesis.

F163 Bio-organic Chemistry

The study of natural organic compounds.

F164 Petrochemical Chemistry

The chemical science of petroleum and petroleum compounds.

F165 Biomolecular Chemistry

The chemical science of biological materials at the molecular level.

F170 Physical Chemistry

The study of atomic and molecular structure, chemical bonding, energetics and dynamics.

F180 Analytical Chemistry

The study of chemical and instrumental analysis.

F190 Chemistry not elsewhere classified

Miscellaneous grouping for related subjects which do not fit into the other Chemistry categories.


75

Forensic and Archaeological Science includes:

F400 Forensic and Archaeological Sciences The specifically scientific study of materials involved in investigative procedures. May necessitate the study of chemical processes and

other scientific techniques including archaeological sciences. The application of Forensic Science in evaluating evidence in courts of

law. The techniques used include fingerprinting (both traditional and genetic), analysis of blood and poison samples, ballistics etc.

F420 Archaeological Science

Scientific analysis of the material remains of past cultures. Includes an approach to reconstruct and

understand the past.

F490 Forensic and Archaeological Sciences not elsewhere classified

Miscellaneous grouping for related subjects which do not fit into the other Forensic and Archaeological Sciences categories.

Others in Physical Sciences includes:

F900 Others in Physical Sciences Miscellaneous grouping for related subjects which do not fit into the other Physical Sciences categories.

F990 Physical Sciences not elsewhere classified

Miscellaneous grouping for related subjects which do not fit into the Others in Physical Sciences

categories.

Physics includes:

F300 Physics The study of the properties of matter and energy and the relationships between them, making extensive use of mathematical

techniques and models. May include mechanics, optics, electricity, magnetism and acoustics. May also include atomic, nuclear,

particle and solid state studies.

F310 Applied Physics

Topics in physics of commercial or social importance.

F311 Engineering Physics

Physical principles and techniques applied to engineering and technology.

F320 Chemical Physics

Concerned with central area of physical science, integrating chemistry and physics.

F321 Solid- state Physics

Study of the structure of solids and the explanation of their properties.

F330 Environmental Physics

Aspects of physics concerned with environmental issues.

F331 Atmospheric Physics

The study of the Earth's upper atmosphere.

F332 Marine Physics

The study of the physical properties of the marine environment.

F340 Mathematical & Theoretical Physics

The mathematical principles and techniques of physics theory and explanation of physical phenomena.

F341 Electromagnetism

The study of the interaction of charges in electromagnetic fields.

F342 Quantum Mechanics

Description and analysis of sub-atomic behaviour.

F343 Computational Physics

Numerical and quantitative methods in physics.

F350 Medical Physics

The application of Physics to the medical sciences.

F351 Radiation Physics

Monitoring and evaluation of emissions from sources of radiation.

F360 Optical Physics

The study of optics as a natural phenomenon and optical instrumentation.

F361 Laser Physics

The study of lasers as optical instrumentation.

F370 Nuclear and Particle Physics

The study of matter at atomic and sub-atomic level, and of the structure and behaviour of nuclei.

F380 Acoustics


76

The study of the propagation and transmission of sound waves

F390 Physics not elsewhere classified

Miscellaneous grouping for related subjects which do not fit into the other Physics categories.


77

Appendix C: Information about the NSS

The NSS is a survey of final-year students on undergraduate programmes. It is compulsory for publicly-funded

HE providers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and some Scottish institutions take part on a voluntary

basis5. Ipsos-MORI administer the survey on behalf of HEFCE, and contact all suitable students using a variety

of methods (including email and telephone). The survey was introduced in 2005, and in 2011 154 HEIs and 99

FECs took part, and 265,000 students responded – an overall response rate of 65%.

NSS data are currently available primarily from the Unistats website (http://unistats.direct.gov.uk), which

allows visitors to compare overall satisfaction results at course and institutional level, as well as download

spreadsheets with more comprehensive information. In addition HEFCE releases headline figures, as well as

annual reports providing national-level analysis. From September 2012, course-level NSS data will be

incorporated into Key Information Sets, which will be available on institutional websites and on a new central

website.

For reasons of reliability and confidentiality, the threshold for public reportability of the results is a response

rate of 23 responses, which must also represent at least 50% of the eligible students. Where there are less

than 23 responses, responses from more than one year, or from across different courses, can be aggregated

to produce publicly reportable data.

In addition to the public availability of the data, institutions receive their own data at a more detailed subject

level. The reportability threshold for the data that institutions receive is 10 responses, rather than 23.

Data at the individual student level are also available for researchers on application to HEFCE. Data at that

level have been used in this report.

The NSS is based to a significant extent on the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), which has been in

use in Australia since 1993. There has been a significant amount of research on the CEQ, and a more limited

amount on the NSS, and this research indicates that the two surveys are both reliable – they yield consistent and repeatable data – and valid – they measure what they purport to measure.

The NSS asks participants to rate their level of agreement with 22 positive statements, on a five-point scale (in

addition to „not applicable‟): definitely disagree; mostly disagree; neither agree nor disagree; mostly agree;

definitely agree. The statements are grouped into six areas, or „scales‟, in addition to an overall statement:

teaching; assessment and feedback; academic support; organisation and management; learning resources;

personal development.

As well as asking participants to rate their agreement with 22 statements, the survey also invites them to add

free-text comments about particular positive or negative aspects of their experience. Institutions can choose

to utilise a bank of optional statements in addition to the 22 core statements, which are not publicly reported.

5 14 Scottish institutions took part in 2011.

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/


78

Appendix D: NSS items

The teaching on my course

1. Staff are good at explaining things

2. Staff have made the subject interesting

3. Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching

4. The course is intellectually stimulating

Assessment and feedback

5. The criteria used in marking have been clear in advance

6. Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair

7. Feedback on my work has been prompt

8. I have received detailed comments on my work

9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand

Academic support

10. I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies

11. I have been able to contact staff when I needed to

12. Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices

Organisation and management

13. The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned

14. Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively

15. The course is well organised and is running smoothly

Learning resources

16. The library resources and services are good enough for my needs

17. I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to

18. I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities, or rooms when I needed to

Personal development

19. The course has helped me to present myself with confidence

20. My communication skills have improved

21. As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems

Overall satisfaction

22. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course

Date post:	20-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuongtuong
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Physical Sciences - Higher Education Academy · NSS Discipline Report – Physical Sciences 5 this...

Documents