Faculty Information

Modern & Medieval Languages

Faculty Information

Faculty Survey 2004

Report by the Standing Committee on Teaching and Examining

The Faculty conducted a major student survey in the Lent Term and Easter vacation of 2004 with the stated purpose of "finding out more about the quality of your experience as a student here, and discovering where we should try to make changes and improvements". The survey was conducted exclusively on-line, with technical support provided by CARET, who also processed the responses and ensured that they remained anonymous to members of the Faculty. We are grateful to CARET for their generosity with their time and expertise in helping us to accomplish what proved to be quite a complex project. The survey addressed three separate groups of students: undergraduates taking the MML Tripos, undergraduates taking the Linguistics Tripos, and graduate students. The graduate survey was conducted by the Degree Committee, and they will submit an independent report.

Contents

MML Tripos
410 students responded, which represents 61% of the Faculty's undergraduate student population in 2003/4 (Reporter, Student Numbers issue, August 2004, p. 16). The respondents can be broken down between years of study as follows: 121 respondents were taking Part IA, 107 Part IB, 85 were on their Year Abroad, and 92 were taking Part II. A further five students taking an MML language from the Oriental Studies Tripos fall outside the Part IA/IB classification. 300 respondents (73%) were women and 110 were men (27%): this mirrors the general gender balance amongst the Faculty's students, given by the Reporter as 71% female to 29% male. Rates of response from students studying each language, were broadly in line with the overall distribution of students between languages in the Faculty, although German was slightly under- and Italian slightly over-represented. In general, the Standing Committee is satisfied that the questionnaire represents a fair and balanced snapshot of student opinion at the time when the survey was run. The questionnaire was divided into sections covering the dissemination of information, workload and timetable, facilities, examinations, year abroad, language combinations (for students combining an MML language with an Oriental or a Classical language) and questions on general satisfaction. The findings from each section are briefly presented below. Each section contained some questions which involved a scalar response (students indicate a level of satisfaction from 1-5, for instance), and concluded with an open box in which additional comments were invited. Responses from these open boxes were very varied: only those which appeared representative of a significant body of opinion have been commented on here. A summary of the recommendations appears at the end of the document. Back to Top

Information Dissemination
This section asked students to evaluate the Faculty's success in providing them with information, and to assess the relative merits of the different sources of information available. It was the Faculty website evoked the most positive response, with three quarters of the respondents giving it either a 4 or a 5 ("very useful"). A small number of students found the website difficult to navigate, and some also noted that other faculties offer more (for example, past exam papers and lecture notes on line). However, there was no general demand for change. Information sent by e-mail scored the next highest rating, with nearly 60% of respondents scoring it at 4 or 5. However, there were also several complaints recorded in the free comment section, with respondents referring to 'over-information', 'abuse of e-mail lists' and even to 'spam' from the Faculty.
Departmental handbooks and information provided by Directors of Studies were consistently given a lower rating for usefulness than the website, although in each case more than half of the responses were positive (marks of 4 or 5).
Turning to those information sessions provided by departments to help students choose papers, about a quarter of the respondents had not attended any such sessions. This was in part a result of timing. From those who had attended, the response was generally positive, with more than half awarding one of the top two scores. However, a large number of students felt that more such sessions would be desirable, and particularly that basic issues which may be taken for granted should be addressed (for example, that the same range of papers is offered at Part IB and Part II). In the open responses, a number of students commented that sessions needed to be timetabled in such a way as to maximise attendance: short sessions were preferred over longer ones.
Questionnaires about single papers and/or specific lecturers were generally regarded very positively by students, and departments which issued more such questionnaires came in for favourable comment. Students appreciated course-specific and anonymous questionnaires, even in small languages. The forthcoming standardization of this exercise across departments should resolve most of the comments about frequency and regularity of questionnaires. A number of students commented that questionnaires on lecture courses with multiple lecturers were not very useful (for example, in the first year French literature paper). A small number of students felt that they had not seen much change in response to questionnaires. The SCTE will ensure that the findings of this questionnaire are published on the website so that students can monitor the response.

Recommendations

  • The Faculty can continue to move increasingly to using the website as the main source of information.
  • The Faculty should continue to send out information by e-mail, but may need to curb some excessive use.
  • On information sessions, the student preference seems to be for a larger number of shorter, basic sessions, rather than a small number of long and complex sessions.
  • Questionnaires on specific courses need to be regular and anonymous: departments need to issue similar questionnaires at similar time intervals if comparisons are to be avoided. The issue of evaluating multiple-lecturer courses needs to be addressed.
Back to Top

Workload and Timetable
In general, the Faculty's students classified their workload in the survey year as "heavy but manageable" (63.3% of total respondents). Only just over ten percent of the total number of respondents considered their workload to be excessively heavy: almost twice as many women as men took this view. This perception was strongest amongst Part IB students (20.6%), and weakest at Part IA (5.8%), where a significant minority (21.5%) of respondents rated the workload as only "moderate". Most students (71.1%) did not report any problems with the timetabling of Faculty classes. The quite large minority who did have such problems (111 respondents) were spread relatively evenly across the parts of the Tripos: more men than women perceived the timetable as problematical. The overwhelming majority of respondents (94%) had not been prevented by timetabling problems from choosing a paper they would have liked to have chosen.

122 respondents chose to add extra comments. No consistent picture emerges from the Part IA responses: while some students would like a timetable more evenly spread across the week, others complain of time wasted on the Sidgwick Site in gaps between classes. A more coherent picture emerges from the Part IB respondents, who are the most dissatisfied with their timetable and workload. A fairly large number of students (18 of 35 Part IB students who made a comment) felt that they had too much reading, or too many scheduled papers, and that both reading and language work suffered: there was a general sense of frustration from many respondents who wrote about "scraping by" and "rushed reading". As one student put it:
"The workload is far too heavy for students who want to do things properly!"
Some students commented that the workload difference between students with two post A-level languages and three scheduled papers on the one hand, and ex ab initios with only two scheduled papers on the other, was unreasonable.
At Part II, small numbers of students complained of clashes with borrowed and CS papers: it may be that the Faculty can do more to warn these students of these usually predictable problems. The small number of respondents taking an MML language with a Classical or an Oriental language had problems with both workload and timetable clashes (to be reported on later).
A misapprehension emerged from the responses on timetable clashes, namely, that 'the Faculty' knew in advance which papers students had opted to take, and therefore could have taken steps to inform them that lectures for their chosen combination would clash. Although this affected only a small number of students in Parts IB and II, it might be helpful if the Timetable Committee could advise Directors of Studies of predictable or annually-occurring clashes. In general, it seems desirable for the Faculty to define its policy on whether or not it wishes to know which papers students have chosen, as there is considerable variation between departments, and this seems to cause students some confusion.

Recommendations

  • The workload at Part IB is still quite widely seen as a problem: the Faculty may wish to address this.
  • The Faculty should notify Directors of Studies of predictable timetable clashes so that students can be given appropriate advice at the time when they choose their papers.
  • The Faculty should decide whether or not to centralise information about the papers students have chosen: departments need to move in step on this issue to avoid causing misunderstandings.
Back to Top

Facilities
This section covered the Faculty Library, the CALL Facility and the Language Centre.

  • The Library About 40% of the respondents visit the Faculty Library most days, and only 14% visit less than once a week. This makes the Library by far the most-used facility provided by the Faculty. Most students (70%) go to the Library to prepare work for classes and supervisions. IT resources, other than the on-line catalogue, are used by about three-fifths of the respondents (37.9%): only just over quarter (26.4%) of respondents read newspapers, magazines and journals in the Library. A suggestion is made in the open text section that this is partly because no comfortable space is provided for reading them. Over half of the respondents use the Library outside of normal opening hours (53.5%), and more again are regular borrowers (59.4% borrow more than once a week). Of the 29 students who added further comments in the open text section, 18 felt there were not enough copies of the set texts and titles from the core reading lists available. Some also noted that often a book listed as being on shelf would be missing. Two respondents suggested that the Library should invest in a security system to prevent book theft: others suggested putting more books on overnight loan only and increasing fines. There were several complaints about the library being too cold in winter and about the need for stricter enforcement of the silence rule. Several students were appreciative of the staff's friendliness and helpfulness.
  • CALL facility The CALL Facility attracts considerably fewer users than the Library, with only 4.5% of respondents visiting most days, and a further 15% going there at least once a week. In some cases, students comment that this is because packages are available on-line, thus obviating the need to visit the Facility itself. When students do use the CALL Facility, they seem to make a good general use of the range of options available, with nearly half using e-mail (42.8%), the internet (48.2%) and software packages (44.3%). The largest number (59.9%) use it to complete language exercises. More women (63.2%) do language exercises there than men (50.9%). Several students added a comment that they watch DVDs there: in this sense they saw the CALL Facility as compensating in part for the loss of the Language Centre on the Sidgwick Site.
    21 respondents wrote further on the CALL Facility in the open text boxes. Of these, four thought it to be a "useful" or "excellent" facility, but would like the range of software expanded. Most of the comments were from students who felt that their IT needs were well provided for at their colleges. Several Part II students felt that the CALL Facility, which they had used in earlier years, was no longer relevant to them because of changed priorities between language and scheduled papers.
  • Language Centre The Language Centre is not heavily used by respondents to this questionnaire, with only 2% going there most days and 14.9% going at least once a week. Somewhat over half of the respondents (58.7%) had not yet visited the new Language Centre on the Downing Site at the time of the questionnaire. A third of respondents reported that they visited less often as a result of the move. Watching satellite TV is what attracts about half of the visitors to the Language Centre: just over a tenth (10.8%) attend language classes there, , about a quarter (24.2%) listen to audio materials, and about a third (30.8%) engage in private language study. There was a very large number of comments on the Language Centre in the open comment space, mostly concerning the then-recent move of the centre away from the Sidgwick Site. Six respondents praised the Centre unreservedly, most adding that the improvement in the facility outweighed the disadvantage of its location. However, more than half of the respondents (54 students currently in Cambridge) registered their dissatisfaction with the relocation of the Language Centre, and even some Year Abroad students anticipated spending less time there in the final year than they normally would. While the facilities on offer at the new venue were praised, it was felt that having access to language resources on site would be much more important as it would enable students to use the Centre frequently between classes and lectures. A typical comment was "It is a lot more difficult to find the time to use the language centre now it has moved. [...] it means students cannot use it for just a spare hour when they have one free between lectures. It was a useful resource for just watching half an hour's TV in a foreign language. Now a visit has to be specifically planned." Students of Dutch were particularly disappointed because the Centre no longer offered Dutch TV: this issue has since been resolved.

Facilities Recommendations

  • Where possible, numbers of copies of core texts in the Library should be increased.
  • The CALL Facility is an underexploited resource. The Faculty should increase efforts to inform students about what the facility offers, as in some cases it can replace functions formerly carried out in the Language Centre.
Back to Top

Examinations
This section dealt with information about examinations, and with the regulations for portfolios and dissertations.
The main resources which respondents say they used for getting information about examinations are supervisors (79.5%), past exam papers in College libraries (78.7%) and lecturers in faculty classes (71.4%). Past papers in the faculty library were used by just over half (51.6%) and examiners' reports by a comparatively modest 36.9%. Students clearly need to have their attention drawn to these for the useful suggestions which they often contain. On portfolios, year abroad projects and dissertations, only those who had completed such a piece of work responded. Respondents were asked in each case whether they had found the guidelines to be straightforward and clear. The portfolio guidelines were awarded marks of 4 or 5 by a rather modest 55.8% of respondents, the optional dissertation guidelines did a little better with 61.6%, and the YA Project guidelines were the best received with scores of 4 or 5 from 66.8% of respondents. The clarity and usefulness of all these guidelines needs to be kept constantly under review: in the case of the portfolio guidelines, they will be considered by SCTE along with the whole portfolio option this term.
Forty-nine respondents made further comments on examinations and assessment. These were fairly disparate, on timing of oral examinations, information about the weighting of different exam papers and so on. Two concentrations of answers emerged: on the translation project, where several students say the guidelines are too sketchy, and on the portfolio, which attracted the biggest range of - mostly negative - comments (18). The commonest form of complaint is typified in this quotation:
"I don't think the portfolio option was sufficiently explained to me - i.e. I didn't know the rules about essay length and format etc. - at the start of IB and as a result regretted that I was not able to submit my supervision essays and so did not have the option of doing the portfolio." (YA student)
However, students also complained about the limited availability of the portfolio both across languages and in individual papers, about the word length, the timing, the information about referencing and bibliographies and the lack of knowledge of supervisors about the rules. In general, the survey reinforces the need for a review of this option.

Recommendations

  • The attention of the students should be drawn to examiners' reports, perhaps by notices in the Library as well as by comments from lecturers. This resource is underused.
  • The survey supports the review of the portfolio option.
  • The guidelines for the translation project should be made both clearer and more comprehensive.
Back to Top

Year Abroad
In this section students were asked to evaluate the merits of various sources of information about the Year Abroad and to express their satisfaction or otherwise with the experience as a whole. For about half of the respondents, this section was not yet relevant, so the statistics relate to the 187 students who made a response.
This seems to be an area where there is a considerable mismatch between student hopes or expectations, and what the faculty can actually provide. On sources of information for the year abroad, while over forty percent (43.8%) were satisfied with the Year Abroad Office, quite a large number gave low scores (1 or 2) to the Office for usefulness (28.8%). Although this is a relatively poor result, it does not lead to a recommendation as the survey covers quite a long period including several staff changes. Over a third (36.4%) did not find the information sessions on the Year Abroad useful, and nearly half (48%) did not find departmental advisers useful. Just over half (54.5%) gave the higher two scores to reports from, and contacts with, students from higher years, but the highest scores were given to the internet, which was found to be very useful (scores 4 and 5) by two-thirds of the respondents (66.3%).
About half of the students (48.3%) were satisfied with the availability of academic contact during the year abroad, and 60% felt that the year had been very beneficial to them academically. However, the most positive result was for the personal benefit derived from the year abroad, with 85.3% of respondents giving one of the top two scores here.

Recommendations

  • The information sessions on the year abroad should be reviewed and consolidated.
Back to Top

Language combinations (Oriental/Classical languages)
This question inevitably addressed only a small number of students: comments are therefore reported here which in other sections would have been rejected as unrepresentative. Unfortunately, the layout of the questionnaire left it unclear that this section applied only students combining with an Oriental or Classical language, so some results have had to be discarded.
In total twelve students answered this section in the spirit in which it was intended, with one further student noting that she would have combined Spanish with Chinese if this combination had been allowable. Eight of these students were taking a Classical and four an Oriental language. In general, the combiners with Classics are the least satisfied group, with only scores of 3 or below being awarded in answer to the question "have you been satisfied with the provision of information to you by the Classics Faculty?"

Most of these students felt that there is a distinct lack of communication between the faculties, and that each faculty was really only geared up to dealing with their own non-combining students. The perceived communication problems lead to overall confusion: students complained of missing events, being left off lists, not getting information about classes and so on. This confusion was also reflected at College level, with some students having one, and some two directors of studies. Several respondents mentioned that students who opt to do Post A-level Latin in combination with a modern language are required to do a literary paper rather than a non-literary paper, resulting both in a very restricted range of options in Classics, and, it is claimed, in a much heavier workload compared to students reading Classics or two MML languages. It was disappointing to read comments like:
"I don't think I would choose this combination given a second chance, as neither faculty wants to be responsible for us." (Female, IB, Classics)
or [this choice] "has caused me so much stress that I would forcefully advise all applicants against it." (Female, IB, Classics)

Recommendation

  • The MML Faculty should consider how to improve communication with OS and Classics, and should review the paper combinations and workload involved in these particular combined courses.
Back to Top

General Section
The concluding section asked students about their general satisfaction levels with the range of papers available, with the balance between language and scheduled papers, and with the balance between College and Faculty teaching. These questions were included in the general questionnaire because they fell outside the scope of what might be elicited through questionnaires on teaching for individual papers.
Most respondents were satisfied by the range of scheduled papers: 68.5% gave a score of 4 or 5, and this figure rises to 92.5% if the mid-score of 3 is included. Satisfaction levels with the balance between language and scheduled papers are markedly lower, with 22.5% recording the bottom scores of 1 or 2. The highest level of dissatisfaction is at Part IB, where 40.2% of respondents awarded scores of only 1 or 2, and only 38.3% gave scores of 4 or 5. Combined with the responses on workload and timetabling, this makes Part IB respondents the least satisfied year group as a whole. In general respondents are happy with the balance between college and Faculty teaching, with 57.9% of responses scored at 4 or 5, and only 14% at 1 or 2. There is a noticeable gender difference here, with women rather more satisfied with this balance than are men (61.6% of women score 4 or 5, but 48.2% of men).

This was the section where most respondents chose to add comments in the open box: additional remarks were made by 30 Part IA, 46 Part IB, 26 YA and 47 Part II students. The SCTE analysed these results independently for each group, but in fact the same issues were raised by students throughout the Tripos, and therefore all these answers are considered together. Two main issues exercise students in all year groups: the wish for more language teaching, and the wish for a greater diversity of scheduled papers.
Overall, 77 students commented about perceived inadequacies in quality or quantity of language teaching, with the majority simply wanting more hours, though some more specific wishes were for more oral practice, more opportunities to participate in class, and more opportunities to hear lectures in the foreign language(s). Typical comments were:
"Although Part I emphasises the language aspect of the course rather then the [scheduled] papers, I still feel that too much emphasis is placed on passive language skills rather than active [ones] [...] we don't get enough time to speak [...] at the moment my "Use of" classes [...] feel like another lecture." (Female, IA, Ger/Russ)
"I don't feel there is enough work for my post-A-level language in part IB. I think I would have benefited from continued oral supervisions in part IB, especially for my year abroad." (Male, IB, Sp/It)
"Language teaching seems to vary enormously between colleges and languages, it would be nice to feel we were all attaining the same level. [...] I don�t feel my written language was up to the required standard before my Year Abroad. I could have done with more language tuition in the first two years." (Female, YA, Fr/Classical)
Within this body of opinion a significant sub-group is made up of finalists dissatisfied with teaching for the Part II essay. 29 of the 47 Part II students who made a comment wanted more language teaching, mostly (15 respondents), more or more coherent teaching for the essay paper, and a more standard approach across languages. A similar point was made by the 9 respondents who complained of considerable disparity in the teaching offered by colleges for Part II language papers. The following comment was typical:
"Teaching for the language essay [...] is inadequate. Students are required to take a final paper in this subject with almost no guidance at all." (Male, Fr/Sp)
While it may be felt that the demand for language teaching is literally insatiable, these levels of dissatisfaction are quite high in the context of the survey as a whole.
The second area of dissatisfaction which emerged from this section was the disappointment expressed by many respondents (40) at the, as they saw it, rather narrow focus of the scheduled papers available. It was felt that while there was plenty of provision for students whose interests were mainly literary, there was inadequate provision for students to explore their interests in 'non-literary' areas such as history, linguistics of a particular language, philosophy and culture. Some respondents still rate the Tripos as 'traditional' or 'old-fashioned' in the range of papers which is offered. On the whole, it is history, politics and current affairs which most respondents would like to see taught more, though other areas are also mentioned (including, for example, art, music and cinema).

Recommendations

  • The Part II Working Party should consider the comments made by respondents about the Part II language teaching, particularly the essay.
  • Departments may wish to review the contents and titles of their scheduled papers so that students have a clear picture of which topic areas are offered.
Back to Top

Summary of Recommendations

  • The Faculty can continue to move increasingly to using the website as the main source of information.
  • The Faculty should continue to send out information by e-mail, but may need to curb some excessive use.
  • On information sessions, the student preference seems to be for a larger number of shorter, basic sessions, rather than a small number of long and complex sessions.
  • Questionnaires on specific courses need to be regular and anonymous: departments need to issue similar questionnaires at similar time intervals if comparisons are to be avoided. The issue of evaluating multiple-lecturer courses needs to be addressed.
  • The workload at Part IB is still quite widely seen as a problem: the Faculty may wish to address this.
  • The Faculty should notify Directors of Studies of predictable timetable clashes so that students can be given appropriate advice at the time when they choose their papers.
  • The Faculty should decide whether or not to centralise information about the papers students have chosen: departments need to move in step on this issue to avoid causing misunderstandings.
  • Where possible, numbers of copies of core texts in the Library should be increased.
  • The CALL Facility is an underexploited resource. The Faculty should increase efforts to inform students about what the facility offers, as in some cases it can replace functions formerly carried out in the Language Centre.
  • The attention of the students should be drawn to examiners' reports, perhaps by notices in the Library as well as by comments from lecturers. This resource is underused.
  • The survey supports the review of the portfolio option.
  • The guidelines for the translation project should be made both clearer and more comprehensive.
  • The information sessions on the year abroad should be reviewed and consolidated.
  • The MML Faculty should consider how to improve communication with OS and Classics, and should review the paper combinations and workload involved in these particular combined courses.
  • Departments may wish to review the contents and titles of their scheduled papers so that students have a clear picture of which topic areas are offered.
  • The Part II Working Party should consider the comments made by respondents about the Part II language teaching, particularly the essay.
  • The Faculty should publish this report on the website and draw students' attention to it by e-mail.
  • The Faculty should consider what further use it wishes to make of the responses to the survey.

Standing Committee on Teaching and Examining 14.01.05

Back to Top

 

 

Share/Bookmark