TRAINING FEEDBACK ANALYSIS : AUTUMN TERM 2006

During the period of October – December 2006, 590 feedback forms were
filled in by students after they had attended our information skills training
sessions. This report is structured according to the questions asked in the
form and is intended to demonstrate the key trends in the results, as well as
highlight potential areas for further consideration. Whilst the report focuses
on the feedback gained during the period stated, the results of quantitative
feedback from previous years are also included to provide a retrospective
comparison.

Overview

Trainers can also voluntarily complete their own feedback forms, outlining key
situational information about the sessions that they have provided. During the
Autumn term, these forms were completed for 37 of the sessions provided.
They demonstrate that of the 439 students expected to attend these sessions,
356 actually did, a healthy overall attendance rate of 81%, up 13% on the
previous year. This improvement demonstrates that the proactive marketing
of the sessions during the induction period had a very positive impact in
encouraging students to attend.

Furthermore, 90% of those students completed a voluntary feedback form,

indicating that the following results are representative of the general opinion of
the sessions.

1. Did the course content fulfil your training need…

0%
24%

Partially
2004 Completely
Not at all

76%
 0%
16%

Partially
Completely
2005 Not at all

84%

0%
19%

Partially
Completely
2006 Not at all

81%

81% of students were completely satisfied with the course content, which is
highly encouraging. Longitudinally, the figure is (minimally) down 3% on last
year, but is still 5% up on 2004. It is worth monitoring this trend over time, but
it is not significant enough to warrant greater investigation at this stage. As in
both previous years, no-one felt that the course content was totally
unsatisfying. The rationale for the 19% who felt that their needs had only
been partially met is explored in the following question.

2. If you answered ‘partially’ or ‘not at all’ to the previous question, did

we miss out anything you thought should be included?

In 2005, the most frequent response to this question was that they had not
had enough time to familiarise themselves with the content and would need to
practice after the session. This trend continued in 2006, with the majority of
students framing this positively. However, a secondary, recurring comment
from those students who had attended the “Discovering quality information”
course was that the session had only introduced RefWorks and they needed
more information about this particular package. This may just be an indication
of their keenness to learn this new software rather than a statement that the
course they had attended was deficient.

As in 2005, there was a general understanding amongst the students that the
session was introductory and that they could refer back to their information
specialist for further advice and support. This demonstrates that the
recommendation made in the 2004 analysis to make this philosophy clearer is
continuing to be successfully adopted into the sessions.

3. Was the amount of information…

2%
18%

Too much
2004 Just right
Too little

80%

1% 11%

Too much
Just right
2005 Too little

88%

1%
18%

Too much
Just right
2006 Too little

81%

81% of students were satisfied with the amount of information covered in the
course, a 7% decrease on last year, but matching the 2004 results.
Significantly, that 7% now feel that the course contains too much information
and this is an issue that will require close monitoring in future years as further
increases in this response may require a different approach to the way the
courses are delivered. The number of students responding that the course
contains too little information has remained constant.
4. Was the level of the information…

4%
3%

Too easy
2004 Just right
Too hard

93%

4%
3%

Too easy
Just right
2005 Too hard

93%

3% 5%

Too easy
Just right
2006 Too hard

92%

92% of students were satisfied with the level of information covered in the
course, consistent with previous years, and the highest rating within the
feedback received. This reinforces the statement made in the 2005 report
that the proportions are probably at their optimum, so it is recommended that
any future variations from this model should be considered carefully.
5. Was the speed of the presentation…

4%
18%

Too slow
2004 Just right
Too fast

78%

13% 7%

Too slow
Just right
2005 Too fast

80%

14% 6%

Too slow
Just right
2006 Too fast

80%

The results for this question were consistent with those of 2005, and
maintained the improvement made in 2004-5. 80% of students were satisfied
with the speed of the presentation. 14% felt that the course was too fast,
which follows the trend of comments received in questions 2 and 3 relating to
the amount of information covered.
6. Was the timing of the session within the academic year…

13% 3%

Too early
2004 Just right
Too late

84%

3%
17%

Too early
Just right
2005 Too late

80%

5%
23%

Too early
Just right
2006 Too late

72%

72% of students were satisfied with the timing of the session within the
academic year, which is a very respectable figure in itself. However, we
cannot ignore that the number of students who are dissatisfied has risen 10%
over the past three years and it is recommended that this issue is discussed
to attempt to find a suitable means of combating this trend. In 2005, a
number of individual courses were responsible for the overall increase in
responses from students feeling the course had been delivered “too late” for
them, but in 2006 there was a more general dissatisfaction across all courses.
7. Were the exercises…

4%

Not helpful
2004 Helpful

96%

3%

Not helpful
Helpful
2005

97%

3%

Not helpful
2006 Helpful

97%

97% of students found the exercises helpful, which is an outstandingly high

percentage, particularly as we have maintained this level of success for three
years. We are doing exceptionally well in this area, and the overwhelmingly
most frequent response to question 9 (the best thing about the session) was
students’ appreciation of their ability to practice and to familiarise themselves
with the resources.
8. If you answered ‘not helpful’ to the previous question, please could
you briefly explain why.

The minority who didn’t find them useful generally felt that the demonstrations
within the trainers’ presentations were enough and that they didn’t gain
anything from the additional practice time. This can be interpreted as a
difference in learning styles and is not something that we should examine too
deeply given the number of students who are satisfied with the format of the
sessions.

9. What was the best thing about the session?

In no particular order, the recurrent themes in response to this question were

as follows:

• Exercises and having time to practice

• Helpfulness and depth of knowledge of the trainer
• Raising awareness of the resources available and how to use them
effectively
• Interactivity – ability to ask questions
• Well structured, clear presentations
• The relevance of the session to their course or specific research areas
• Clear handouts for future reference (particularly mentioned by those
students who felt overwhelmed by the amount of information that had
been covered in the session)
• How much time will have been saved by attending the course
• SearchHub and the ability to cross-search databases were appreciated
by students attending ‘Discovering quality information’
• Bogus site evaluation in ‘Google is not enough’ was particularly useful
• Importing into Word and Write ‘n’ Cite functionality was well-received in
relation to RefWorks training

10. What was the worst thing about the session?

It is worth noting that this question received only a third of the number of
responses that the previous question did, implying that students are generally
much more positive about the training sessions than they are negative. The
main trends in responses to this question were as follows:

• Overwhelming amount of information

• The session had taken place too late in the year, after assignments
had already been handed in
• Need for a break mid-session
• Awareness that the session had only been introductory and that there
was so much more left to learn
There were also a number of individual comments which it might be useful to
discuss as follows:

• I didn’t appreciate the trainer repeatedly telling me how little we would

accomplish in the session
• There was no need to explain the need for referencing (in the
RefWorks session)
• It would be better if the trainer stood up rather than sat down during the
session

There were far fewer comments this year relating to language issues and the
difficulty of following the trainer’s typing or cursor movements on the screen,
which indicates that the recommendations made in the 2005 report have been
successfully integrated into the training sessions. Furthermore, criticisms
from 2004 related to the heat in the training room / lack of air conditioning, the
content being irrelevant to the research interests of the attendees and lack of
relevant PINS and passwords in advance were also unmentioned this year.
This demonstrates that trainers and other relevant members of staff have
been highly responsive in tackling and resolving these issues to improve the
quality of the sessions.

Any other comments?

This section was mainly used to show appreciation for the usefulness and
quality of the session. A couple of students felt that the session should have
been better promoted, and one student suggested that it would be helpful to
have the materials available on the Web site for future reference.

Summary

The feedback shows that the training we provide is very well-received by our
customers. The lowest “just right” rating for questions 3-6 (relating to the
amount and level of the information provided, the speed of the presentation
and the timing of the session within the academic year) was 72%, and 97% of
respondents felt that the practical exercises were helpful in consolidating their
learning.

It is also encouraging that the attendance rate had improved 13% on last
year, as a result of all the extra targeted marketing that had taken place
during the registration period and induction tours.

The late timing of the presentation and the amount of information delivered
were the two main criticisms of the training sessions, both within the
structured and qualitative questions, and must be addressed. Alll negative
comments received in the past have been successfully dealt with and have
not recurred and it is hoped that we will be able to deal with these new, not
insignificant, challenges as successfully.