30 questionnaire responses out of a possible 58 were received, a return rate of 52.0% (less than the University's required target of 66% return response). 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

What is the point of questionnaires? What happens to them? Do they make any difference?

As you can see (below) I read and analyse the questionnaires carefully. I will respond to suggestions (e.g. on lecture topics) where I am able, or where there is an obvious demand. Where responses are divided (e.g. on seminars) I will bear these comments in mind, try and improve, and revisit the topic next year in the light of further comments.

But it doesn't stop there. The completed questionnaires, together with my responses, are passed to another member of staff, who also reads them thoroughly, and makes recommendations to me, if necessary, to change things next year. A summary of all responses goes to the staff-student committee, to make any recommendations they see fit; and their recommendations are passed to the Board of Studies for action.

In short, questionnaires can have a significant effect on the curriculum, or the way in which it is delivered; it is, therefore, always worth completing the module questionnaire, even if you have no comments you wish to make on a particular subject.

Responses to this year's Victorian Britain 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). 9 (16) respondents thought them very clear, 15 (11) good, 5 (5) average, and no one thought them less than clear (as last year).

The module's aims and objectives are set out in the handbook, and several people specifically said the handbook was very good, one non-historian in particular singling it out for praise. Also I do try in each lecture to indicate what is going on, without being too obtrusive.

The average "score" has fallen from 4.3 last year to 4.1 this; I can only guess that this was because (as was made plain in the responses) some people had not realised in advance that the module had shifted in a more political direction, and were somewhat disappointed, therefore.

Comments on the elements that might be expanded or reduced varied. One respondent wanted to reduce the material on the earlier period, to expand the later; one wanted more on Ireland/Scotland/Wales. Two wanted less on Parliamentary Reform, and two wanted more on the monarchy. One wanted a module that combined the social with the political, while another argued that the whole should be slimmed down, since it tried to cover too much. Three of those who commented on this section, however, specifically said the balance was "about right", one adding "I thought most relevant topics were covered in the right amount of detail."

In past years, there was far more complaint that the module tried to include too much; that was precisely why the Department tried to separate the political from the social, and Dr. Olechnowicz put on his Hard Times module, leaving Victorian Britain to concentrate more on the political. As I commented this time last year "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." There is, of course, one more lecture still to come on the Ireland/Scotland/Wales area. The comments about Parliamentary Reform have been noted; probably the lectures on "Equipoise" and pre-1867 apathy can be amalgamated, which would leave a space for race - my apologies that this one had to be cancelled this year - two students complained about that - but it was due to circumstances beyond my control!

2. Module Organisation

Two "scoring" questions on this section. Asked how far the module corresponded to the description in the handbook, 9 thought it corresponded very well; 17 thought it corresponded well, and 4 scored this as average, with none below that.

This is a "new" question so there are no comparable figures from last year. There is a problem with which "handbook" is being referred to - the Department's year handbook? the Faculty Handbook? or the module handbook? Obviously they should all say the same, but the amount of space for detailed description varies widely between all three. The new title next year will hopefully clarify things further.

On the suitability of teaching methods, the scoring was as follows: 9 (7) thought them very suitable; 17 (17) thought them good; 9 (6) thought them average; and one (1) thought them not very suitable. (Average score 3.8). (3.9).

As last year, this was the lowest overall "score", and a slight decline from last year; my guess from comments is that the slight decline was due to dissatisfaction over seminars (see below)

2.1 Lectures

There were very few complaints about the lectures; two respondents did not like the 5.15 p.m. slot; two complained about excessive modern political references, though a third jokingly asked for an entire lecture on "why Thatcher, Blair and Co. are all bastards." One respondent suggested that lectures tried to cram too much in. On the other hand 16 out of 30 respondents listed the lectures among the "good features" of the module, with comments such as "informative," "enjoyable", "interesting," "very clear," "lively", and "a breath of fresh air", with several people commending the "well-structured" nature of the lectures. One respondent said the lectures included too much primary material! One student requested a lecture on the "general background."

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…. Every year I vow to cut back on my political comments, and every year they go and invade Afghanistan, or abolish student grants, or abolish trial by jury… On the whole, though, the lecture content seems to be appreciated, and the organisation clear. I'm frankly amazed by the comment about primary material! As historians, do we not have to produce evidence to sustain our points? And where else are we to get it from? The request for a lecture on the general background is fair enough, coming as it did from a student with no previous experience of the period. The trouble with this request is that we only have 22 slots in the year. I do try, in the opening lecture, to sketch in some of the areas that will be covered. But mainly in that lecture I emphasise the need to do "background reading." The handbook contains a page of textbooks, and there are chronologies, lists of prime ministers / elections, mini-biographies etc. on the web-site.

2.2 Seminars.

An interesting response. Several people wanted more seminars, one because he/she thought they were "quite fun", but more seriously a number described them as "haphazard," "not well structured," "a bit random," or felt they need to be more tightly focussed. Three people wanted prior reading to be set for the seminars, while a fourth claimed that while it was claimed that no prior reading was required, "clearly it was." On the other hand one respondent , while saying that the seminars were "a little too informal," nevertheless commented that they had "a different and interesting approach." Another said it was "good to have off the cuff seminars as it promotes more independent thought on the spot," and another (commending the seminars as a good feature of the module) said that "going in with no specified work makes it easier for everyone to participate and actually makes you think." One student said that few seminars was a good feature of the module; three listed such seminars as there were among the good features.

As can be seen the response to the seminars was contradictory. Clearly there is work to be done in explaining what it is that I am trying to achieve in the seminars. It may be possible to increase the number of seminars; I could certainly do so if everyone thought that 5.15 was a good time to teach/learn! (Cf. constraints on Dean's time, above). The prior reading/no prior reading debate is clearly on-going. On balance, I will persist for at least another year with the "no prior reading" approach, partly because of the comments above, and partly from bitter experience, that so few students actually do prior reading when requested! I am developing a brief post-seminar reading list on each topic, so that students can follow up the seminar in greater detail if they wish.

2.3 Tutorials

On essay feedback the "scores" were as follows: very good 17 (14); good 12 (10); average 2 (8); with no one thinking the feed-back less than average. The average score of 4.5 suggests that essay feed-back was generally good.

There was only one negative comment on the tutorials - all others who commented were positive; "excellent feedback on essays," "very thorough" essay consultations, with praise for one-to-one tutorials, and tutorials being generally seen as a "good feature" of the module. There was also a small but significant commendation for the range of topics, and for the ability to e-mail essays in.

The one exception was a student who wanted "smaller groups" for the tutorials. Given that they were all one-to-one, I was unclear which of us was not expected to turn up in order to reduce the size?

3. Learning Resources

3.1 Reading Lists / Library resources.

The handbook in general was well received; one respondent describing it as "very informative," another as "very good." More specifically, the reading lists were praised, one respondent describing them as "comprehensive and easy to follow," another as "extensive and helpful," a third simply as "excellent." Several students commended the book list for its thematic arrangement. On the other hand two respondents wanted lists to be more prioritised, indicating what were the "best books" for a specific question.

There was the usual demand for more in the reserve section, but one respondent added that "the reading lists were vast so one could usually find some range of books/journals related to office textbooks," and several others commented on the wide availablity of books. No respondents suggested that there was a difficulty over books, though one person wanted more duplicate textbooks.

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. 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, though one respondent thought they could be clearer. Several wanted the web resources to be extended, one wanting library links; another wanting more links to other sites; but another noted that the web pages were continually updated.

I was a little alarmed at the respondents who thought I put "lecture notes" on the web site. As I pointed out, 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. Hopefully the web-site will next year be linked to DUO, when things like Library links become easier, and I am (slowly) adding links - one at least this year as a result of a student bibliography on an essay, which drew my attention to a site of which I was unaware! Teaching is an interactive process, after all!

4. Student Learning Experience

4.1 Reasons for choosing this module.

The number choosing the module "because they had done the period before" was depressingly high, but conversely several chose it because they had never studied the period before. The most common reason given was "interest in the period." One chose it because it was recommended by friends; one because they had to do a British history module, one because it "complemented Hard Times" - hooray! -

It would be nice to think that those who had studied the period at A-level gained different, deeper insights. Those who had not studied it before I hope acquired some enthusiasm for the period. The generally positive response suggests they might have done!

4.2 Hours worked

Hours worked is always interesting. Formal contact varied from 1 to 2 hours a week. Hours for private study varied from zero to 8 (an average of about 3 hours a week). Hours taken to write an essay varied from a low of 10 to a high of 80, 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 of those who had not studied the period before confessed to having developed an interest in the period especially in terms of women's role; but most responded in terms that would delight the QAA, in that they seem to have attained at least the subject specific outcomes of the module, in that the majority claimed to have gained a greater insight into Victorian politics.

In answer to the question, "Would you recommend this module to others?" the scores were as follows: very strongly - 9 (13); strongly - 18 (12); average recommendation - 2 (8). None gave it a negative recommendation. The average "score" of 4.2 (4.1) would indicate, in general, a very strong recommendation.

5. General comments

There were few general comments, but the one who noted that "Alan Heesom is cool" was, at my age, very gratifying - or is "cool" a sixties' epithet?

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

Return to contents page