What Bedfordshire reports after replacing its end-of-unit survey

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Updated, 7 September 2026: We checked the complete paper and clarified that its headline numbers count online-form entries. They are not survey response rates, unique-student totals or proof that removing the end-of-unit survey caused the change.

What Bedfordshire changed

Steve Briggs, Julie Brunton, Ruki Heritage and Amy McLaughlan describe the University of Bedfordshire’s decision to remove its standard end-of-unit survey in 2024/25. The replacement framework combines in-class or meeting feedback, representatives and an online route through a cycle of asking, analysing, acting and acknowledging.

The authors report 135 online-form entries in 2022/23, 253 in 2023/24 and 460 from September to December 2024. These cover unequal time periods and have no eligible-population denominator. They show recorded submissions, not a directly comparable response rate.

The paper also compares the composition of online-form users with course representatives. Some groups, including international fee payers and taught postgraduates, were closer to their share of the wider student population online, although still under-represented. This comparison between channels is not a before-and-after demonstration of improved representation caused by the redesign.

At the time of writing, the authors report over 90% of first-term 2024/25 feedback as completed under their process, which includes confirmation from the submitting student. This is an operational closure measure, not independent evidence that the underlying issue was fully solved or that learning improved.

Limits and questions for a local review

The account describes early experience at one institution, with favourable staff and student comments alongside difficulties involving meeting attendance, training, responsibilities and contradictory feedback. It does not test the redesign against a control group. Some demographic differences in Table 2 do not reconcile arithmetically; this briefing avoids those affected figures.

Our suggested review is to define the purpose of each feedback route before deciding whether to retain or replace it. Record entries, unique participants and eligible populations separately where possible. Keep the time window and response mechanism visible when comparing numbers.

When channels disagree, examine who responded and what they were asked. Consistent thematic labels do not by themselves establish that different collection methods produce comparable measures. The comment-analysis governance checklist can support that planning. These are our evaluation suggestions; the paper does not show that every institution should abandon an end-point survey or that an analysis product guarantees faster action.

Reference

Briggs, S., Brunton, J., Heritage, R. and McLaughlan, A. (2025). Is it time to move away from end of unit surveys? Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 7(1). Open paper.