student feedback and leadership - Office for Learning and Teaching

Part B: Building Leadership Capacity - BUS: School of Economics, Finance & Marketing ART Report8.5 Outcomes & Evaluation of InitiativesWhat outcomes did the project achieve? Expected and unexpected?Each of the four Common Core Course Coordinators evaluated and soughtfeedback on the developments they had initiated as follows:Stage 3: Observe and EvaluateStudent feedback was sought to identify the impact of the changes madein each of the courses. In addition, staff observed the impact of these changeson students in class, the type of communications received from students andin some cases the impact on student results. Each course will be discussedas follows:MKTG1025 – Marketing PrinciplesFirst Semester 2008Audience response systems were tested in two lecture times in MarketingPrinciples – Class A (n=300) made up of first year school leavers and classB (n=120) predominantly made up of mature age students. A total of 140students registered for the trial, primarily from class B. The system was testedin five sessions commencing in week four. The in-class participation ratewas disappointingly low. A focus group was conducted part way throughthe semester and then followed up by an end of semester survey to identifythe reasons for this low uptake, particularly in class A.There were many reasons for lack of participation, but predominantly it wasthe cost, or perceived cost, associated with using the mobile phones. Manystudents in class A had low value mobile phone plans which did not allowthem to connect to the internet, restricted their access to the provider’swebsite, or charged them a premium to use the internet facility. Also, a majorityof the students from this class had never used the internet function on theirmobile phones and were uncertain as to exactly how much it was goingto cost them. The mature age students who had a low cost data packageor had employers pay for their mobile use were most willing and enthusiasticin their participation in the trials.In general, students had a favourable attitude towards the use of thistechnology and indicated they would prefer a class where this technologywas used over one that did not, provided it was made available free of cost.Both classes indicated that such initiatives would help them in their learningprocess. Class A, which had the lowest participation rate, also had a lesspositive attitude towards the use of technology, compared to class B whichparticipated more actively. Class B saw benefits of this technology, butdid not wish to see the expansion of such technologies to take overconventional teaching.Page 101