33 questionnaire responses out of a possible 53 were received, a return rate of 62.0% (less than the University's required target of 66% return response, but marginally better than last year's 61.5% return rate). There is still time to complete a questionnaire if you wish to do so; please collect a form from Wendy Shoulder in the Departmental Office.

"Scores" for those questions which asked for a 1-5 response were as follows:

* included one blank return

Responses to questionnaires are summarised below, with last year's "scores" in brackets. AJH's comments in blue.

1. Module Content.

Generally people thought the objectives and progression of the module were clear (Question A1). 16 (9) respondents thought them very clear, 11 (16) good, 5 (5) average, and no one thought them less than clear (2 last year) though one person declined to score this question. (average "score" out of 5 = 4.4.24)

The module's aims and objectives are set out in the handbook, and I do try in each lecture to indicate what is going on, without being too obtrusive. The better "score" than last year suggests some improvement, here.

Comments on the elements that might be expanded or reduced varied. Respondents were equally divided between those who wanted to "expand the political side over the social" and those who said I should "reduce the politics." One commended the good balance of social and political topics. Several said they wanted no change, one wanted more economics and less "domestic" stuff (I wasn't sure what this meant!) One respondent wanted the number of topics reduced and suggested that the Indian Mutiny and Boer War were cut out - there were of course lectures on neither! - and another when asked what should be reduced or expanded replied "political aspects and foreign policy" - but I wasn't clear whether more or less of each or either was being requested.

I agree with those who suggested that the module tries to cover too much. Next year, when Dr. Olechnowicz's Hard Times module comes on stream, covering Victorian social history, this module will be re-focussed on politics, both "high" and "low." Obviously that will disappoint those who like the mix, but the majority clearly favoured a separation, or at least concentration, one student actually suggesting two separate modules in the section on "improvements" that could be made, and so the Board of Studies has responded to that demand by putting on two modules, enabling students to do either or both. The new (2001-2) handbook entries indicate the compass of Dr. Olechnowicz's module, and the changed nature of this one.

2. Module Organisation

Two "scoring" questions on this section. Asked to assess the quality of prior information, 17 (6) thought it very good, 14 (14) good, 2 (8) average, and none less than average (compared to 3 last year) (average score 4.45). One respondent also noted in the "general comments" section that the module was "well organised."

I'm not clear why there has been a marked improvement in the scoring on this section this year. One student (who said s/he had not done the period before) felt too much prior knowledge was assumed, another who had not done the period before felt s/he had to do extra reading to keep up. Another who hadn't studied Victorian history felt the teaching did not assume a great deal, just "background reading." That was certainly the intention. Some felt there were too many assumptions specifically about politics - hopefully with the concentration on political aspects next year this can be addressed

On teaching methods, the scoring was as follows: 7 (6) thought them very suitable; 19 (17) thought them good; 6 (30) thought them average; and one (8) thought them not very suitable. (Average score 3.97).

As last year, this was the lowest overal "score", though a considerable improvement on last year, nevertheless! I suspect this improvement was probably down to the seminars (see below).

2.1 Lectures

Lectures featured as "poor features" of the module is about a dozen responses. Three students complained that the lectures frequently over-ran their hour, another simply said they were too long. One student thought the lectures could be very "dry - especially the political ones", though others were much more positive (see below). Four students had a complaint which can be summarised by the respondent who said that each lecture was too complicated; tried to cram too much in; and that it was difficult to write everything down. One student complained about the "chronology of the lectures." One student complained about the 5.15 p.m. time.

The lectures did occasionally over-run, I confess. But I would defend myself to some extent by pointing out that the lecturer who occupies the room for the previous hour never finished on time, so that we were always late getting in to the room and starting. As for trying to cram too much into each, again, I am probably guilty; but I did suggest at the beginning that students should not, perhaps, try to write everything down, and the Web pagers are there as an aide-memoire to assist in this regard. I don't understand the comment about "chronology." As for the 5.15 p.m. slot, I'm afraid that that is the only time that I can guarantee to be available, since my duties as Dean of the Faculty occupy me from 8.30 a.m. till 5.00 p.m. on weekdays. We could always have it on Saturday morning….

More students, on the other hand, singled out the lectures as "good features" of the module. One said the lectures were "great fun, not worth missing", another that they were "entertaining," one described the lectures as "excellent", one as well-presented, and another described them as "fantastic." Yet another said they were enjoyable in general, while one respondent simply said I was "enjoyable to watch" (I wonder if that was the same one who had difficulty with taking notes!). One described me as an "interesting and enthusiastic" lecturer.

I suppose this indicates that you can't please all the people all the time. One student asked to comment on good features of the module said that its strength was that it was very detailed; the same student said that it's weakness was that it was too detailed! I think it's fair to say the positive comments on lectures clearly outweighed the negative; certainly the tone of the positive comments was very flattering. Thank you! I certainly hope the enthusiasm is there - even after doing it for 35 years! My own love of Victorian history is undiminished, and of course the lectures grow out of my own research.

2.2 Seminars.

As with lectures, there was a mixed response; seven students said the seminars were a "good feature" of the module, and there was a substantial demand for more seminars, with people asking for two or three a term. One person thought they should be less formal, but more wanted them more structured, with more specific focus, directed reading, etc. One asked for presentations in the seminars, but since another complained that they relied on individuals "who did not turn up" this might prove difficult. Another respondent wanted the seminars to focus on primary material, while yet another said they should be focussed on exam. topics. One respondent said that it was not clear what work was to be done. One wanted smaller groups, another more continuity in groups.

Generally the response was more positive than last year, when (admittedly) the seminars were disastrous. It seems they are not right yet, even though improved on the previous year. As for the frequency - the Department has a policy that students on any one module should not do more than 2½ pieces of prepared work; 2 essays plus 2 seminars as required on Victorian Britain is, if anything, a little in excess of that ruling - I cannot see how more could be fitted in, without breaching the Departmental guidelines, and encroaching on the time you should be devoting to other modules.

2.3 Tutorials

There was no negative feed-back on the tutorials at all. The wide range of potential essay topics was praised, and the topics were also described as "interesting". The tutorials as such were praised as "really useful," "helpful," "great", and "very good", or generally held up as a "good feature" of the module. The speed of essay return was also praised.

I'm glad they were successful. I note that two respondents on the section "What have you gained from the module?" commented that they had learned essay writing skills, or learned to write essays better, while one respondent commented that going through an individual essay, pointing out strengths and weaknesses, was "very good" - this I thought was standard practice in the Department. I was amazed that so few students, initially, knew how to produce proper footnotes and bibliography, but I'm glad that some of you, at least, benefited from this. If other tutors take a long time to return essays, take it up with the Staff-Student Committee; the Department does lay down norms. I think I succeeded in returning all essays within a week of their being handed in, which is within the Department's guidelines.

On essay feedback the "scores" were as follows: very good 14 (10); good 10 (13); average 8 (6); with no one thinking the feed-back less than average (whereas three respondents did so last year, where there was a wider variety of tutors). Average score 4.19.

3. Learning Resources

3.1 Reading Lists / Library resources.

The handbook in general was well received; one respondent describing it as "extremely useful." More specifically, the reading lists were praised, one respondent describing them as "very comprehensive," and two more singling them out as "good features" of the module. One respondent wanted them to be more prioritised, indicating what were the "best books" for a specific question, and not just an "enormous list", but another said the list was "well divided into topics."

There was the usual demand for more books, especially in the reserve section, but more respondents than in past years noted that "the excellent reading lists were long enough to ensure an adequate number of books for each essay" or that the wide reading list meant there was "no rush for books." "More books are always welcome," wrote one student, but added "no real problem."

I am happy to accept suggestions for books to be placed in the reserve collection; no one actually suggested what books they wanted there, nor has anyone made any suggestions to me over the year for books in short supply that might be duplicated. As for the demand for more books in general, while Universities are consistently underfunded by Government, this remains a problem. The University Library funding was kept constant this academic year (while all other sections of the University were cut by 5%) and we do top-slice our Library funding to provide duplicate copies. But with the best will in the world, we cannot provide a personal copy of every book for every student from Library resources. As for prioritising the list, it is of course sectionalised, and not simply "an enormous list." I try to offer enough choice. Within topics, the list cannot be prioritised unless I know precisely what essay you are going to attempt; but am always willing to offer advice, and indeed did so on several occasions when requested to do so.

3.2. IT resources

The web site attracted considerable positive comment, and no negative feedback. Generally it was described as "very good", with people particularly commending the fact that the overheads used in the lectures could be accessed there. The overheads themselves equally attracted positive comment, one respondent commenting that they contained "just enough."

I was a little alarmed at the respondents who thought I put "lecture notes" on the web site. As indicated above, the overheads are aides memoire, or headings, if you prefer. They could give you a guide to the lecture content, hopefully spelling of proper names, and dates and figures, but they are emphatically not lecture notes. I am occasionally adding more "background" material (e.g. in the chronology, or the dramatis personae) and of course the web book lists contain material that appears in the Library after the handbook has gone to press. I had no requests this year for specific items to be added to the web site, but am always willing to receive suggestions.

4. Student Learning Experience

4.1 Reasons for choosing this module.

The most common reason for taking the module was interest in the period, Two respondents said it "sounded interesting", and one was attracted by the description in the handbook. Two chose it because they "had to do a modern module", and, while 2 chose it because they had done the period before, I was pleased to see that four chose it because "I didn't know about this period."

Two of those who had not studied this period before were very positive; asked what they had gained from the module, one of these students replied "a strong interest in Victorian Britain that I hope to develop," while another said: "I had no idea about the period before, but am now very interested, and intend to do a dissertation on it." You possibly have no idea how gratifying such comments are! You have man an old man very happy!

4.2 Hours worked

Hours worked is always interesting. Formal contact varied from 1 to 2 hours a week. Most respondents claimed they were doing virtually no private study at all (an average of about 2 hours a week). Hours taken to write an essay varied from a low of 6 to a high of 40, with an average of about 20.

One student felt there should be more formal contact hours, a view I would endorse in principle, but unless you have invented a longer day than the normal 24 hour one, I'm not clear how it could be done… The hours listed under "private study" were highly alarming, given that most of the student learning time for the module is supposed to be devoted to that! I can only hope you were under-estimating.

4.3 Gains from the module.

One student responded by saying s/he had gained "exactly what it says in the booklet." I have noted the two who felt they gained essay writing skills. Most felt that they had gained an understanding of Victorian Britain, or some degree of insight into it, and several felt that they wished to carry their study of the period further. One found the information "fascinating," several talked about gaining an "overview," but one felt that "the course went much too quickly to gain a deep knowledge."

In answer to the question, "Would you recommend this module to others?" the scores were as follows: very strongly - 13 (10); strongly - 12 (15); average recommendation - 8 (4). None gave it a negative recommendation (compared to 3 last year). The average "score" of 4.15 would indicate, in general, a very strong recommendation.

5. General comments

There were few general comments, but there was a thread running through some of the responses to other questions that suggested strongly that the module should be slimmed down. This came through not just in the demand to reduce the number of topics, but in the fear expressed by one or two that it was difficult to know what to revise.

I've pointed out, above, that the Department is responding by dividing the Victorian era, so that there will, in future, be a social and a political Victorian module. As for what you should revise, I tried (very briefly) to address that in the last lecture; but in general the examination is designed to test your understanding of Victorian Britain, rather than your factual knowledge of it; hopefully you will be able intelligently to apply the knowledge you have, rather than trying to engage in an exercise in memory.

To those half dozen who wrote very kind, flattering comments in the "other comments" section of the questionnaire, thank you - I'm glad you enjoyed it!

E-mails to Alan.Heesom@Durham.ac.uk if you want to follow any of this up.

Alan Heesom

10th May 2001

Return to Contents page