Sheffield Hallam's module evaluation reset shows why local student voice still needs governance

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Sheffield Hallam's current module evaluation guidance sets out a move to locally designed student voice activity for 2026/27. It attributes the change to evaluation work and feedback from students and staff, including low participation in existing questionnaires.

The guidance is undated and was checked on 7 September 2026. A separate conference abstract published on 7 July provides figures for the earlier survey approaches. The two sources describe different stages: the abstract reports a pilot and anticipated further learning; the current guidance sets out the institutional decision.

The approach described in the guidance

From September 2026, Schools and Institutes have autonomy to design suitable local activity alongside Hallam Students' Union routes. The university encourages regular, in-class opportunities and clear communication about how feedback informs action. These are intended benefits and expectations, not evidence that the new approach has already improved participation.

Formal review remains in place through course and module reviews and School/Institute quality performance reviews. Themes and actions can move through college boards and university bodies, including the new Student Voice Oversight Group. Trimester-three MEQs for 2025/26 continue, with closure required by 30 October 2026 to obtain results from EvaSys.

What the pilot abstract reports

The abstract by Alan Donnelly, Rachael Parsons, Louise Ward, Richard Telling, Caroline Smart and Laura Thickett-Cole reports an average MEQ response rate of 19% in 2024/25. The first-trimester course-level pilot covered 8,287 students across three of nine Schools and Institutes, with an 11% response rate.

Those figures describe different collection arrangements and populations. They are not a controlled comparison establishing that one design caused a lower response rate. The abstract says the questionnaire was repeated in trimester two and anticipates reporting its outcomes; it does not provide those outcomes. The current guidance separately says the evaluated course-level approach was not effective for gathering feedback.

This review uses the published abstract and public guidance. It does not independently examine the full pilot evaluation or the underlying response data.

Questions for a local redesign

Before changing an evaluation system, examine who participates, when feedback reaches staff and whether decisions are communicated. Low response rates deserve investigation, but a response rate alone does not establish the direction or size of nonresponse bias.

Local dialogue may offer useful detail and flexibility. It can also miss people who are absent or reluctant to speak in class. Provide appropriate alternative routes and record whose experiences remain uncertain. Hallam's institutional account should not be generalised into a claim about what most students across the sector prefer.

For oversight, preserve the connection between a theme, its collection context, the decision and the responsible team. Examples such as Westminster's mid-module check-ins and Glasgow's student voice framework can prompt questions about local practice; they do not establish which design is best for another university.

Consistent interpretation has limits

The governance checklist can help teams document how comments are reviewed and actions followed up. Using common theme definitions may aid interpretation across routes, but it does not remove differences in prompts, timing or participation. Do not turn counts from different classroom conversations and surveys into an institutional ranking without a defensible comparison method.

FAQ

Is Hallam ending student feedback collection?

No. Its guidance describes locally designed activity alongside Students' Union routes and formal quality oversight.

Did the July abstract report the success of the new local approach?

No. It describes the course-level questionnaire pilot and anticipated further results, not an outcome evaluation of the subsequent local model.

Is this a UK-wide policy?

No. It is one English university's approach.

Correction, 7 September 2026: Distinguished the undated current guidance from the July conference abstract, made the abstract-only pilot evidence explicit and qualified claims about student preferences, representativeness and cross-route comparability.

References

Sheffield Hallam University: Module Evaluation Questionnaires, undated; checked 7 September 2026.

Donnelly and colleagues: Towards a Course-Level approach to teaching evaluation at Sheffield Hallam University, Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Enquiry, 1(1), conference abstract, 7 July 2026. DOI: 10.7190/jostle.v1i1.579.