Using Module Data to
Inform an Innovative
Strategy to
Enhance Student
Success
Elaine M. Clafferty and Barry J. Beggs
Introduction
• Gathering and using feedback from students is routine
across higher education (Brennan and Williams, 2004).
• The requirement to publish summary reports from student
evaluation surveys was an outcome of the ‘Students at the
Heart of the System’ UK government white paper (2011).
• QAA audit reports from institutional reviews allow good practice
in the use of student feedback to be identified and shared.
Module feedback from students
• Perhaps it is reasonable to expect that modules taught at the
same level of a degree which carry the same academic credit
should require similar student ability and effort.
• However feedback from NSS and other student surveys
highlights differences that the students perceive between the
teaching, and sometimes the management of their learning, in
different modules.
Module data identifying outlier modules
Spread of Module Pass Rates
70
No of Modules
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
68 modules out of 400
have a pass rate, after
second diet, of 100%
Deciding how to use module data
• Two filters were applied to the raw module pass rate data to
assist with the rapid realisation of impact.
• The first threshold filtered out modules with low student
populations - a minimum student population of 20 was chosen.
• The second filter was introduced to remove any module which,
after second diet, had a fail rate of 20% or worse.
• The strategy became known as the 20/20 initiative.
Implementing the 20/20 initiative
• The data on the fail rates of the outlier modules was
analysed more deeply to provide a report.
• Structured staff interviews took place with the module teams.
• Student questionnaires were issued and analysed.
• Module mentors were chosen.
• A module action plan was completed.
• The next delivery of the module was supported by the mentors.
Overall results after two years
• 16 of the 20 modules improved their pass rates during the
first academic year.
• 10 of the modules improved enough to take them to a
percentage pass rate of 80% or better.
• The 10 modules that had improved to the 80% threshold
remained as higher performing modules in the second year.
• 6 additional modules from the original group of outliers
improved to 80% in the second year.
Sample of results after two years
Two Year
Change
Pass Rate
Pass Rate
Pass Rate
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Module A
61.9%
86.4%
94.2%
32.3%
Module B
65.1%
79.8%
78.9%
13.8%
Module C
70.5%
87.8%
91.5%
21.0%
Module D
72.2%
79.2%
83.3%
11.1%
Module E
72.5%
76.3%
90.3%
17.8%
Module F
73.1%
75%
90.6%
17.5%
Module
Non improving modules
• The small number of modules that showed no significant
improvement present an interesting challenge.
Two Year
Change
Pass Rate
Pass Rate
Pass Rate
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Module L
76.9%
77.1%
73.0%
Module M
77.3%
66.7%
66.7%
Module
-3.9%
-10.6%
Conclusions
• The 20/20 initiative rarely identified a single issue as
contributing to students poorly performing in a module.
• Heightened staff awareness of the thorough analysis of module
performance may have contributed to the improvements.
• The initial filters chosen in the 20/20 initiative were arbitrary.
• Staff engagement and sustained management support are
essential for full implementation of the initiative.