Sheffield Hallam's module evaluation reset shows why local student voice still needs governance
Updated Jul 22, 2026
Sheffield Hallam's module evaluation system is being reset in a way other universities should watch closely. In current Module Evaluation Questionnaires (MEQs) guidance and a 7 July 2026 conference abstract on course-level evaluation, the university says it will move away from its university-wide module evaluation process from the 2026/27 academic year and give Schools and Institutes more autonomy over local feedback activity. For teams responsible for student voice, that matters because Hallam is not just tweaking a questionnaire. It is explicitly concluding that both its legacy MEQ model and a 2025/26 course-level replacement were not effective enough to gather usable student feedback.
What has changed in Sheffield Hallam's module evaluation approach
The formal shift is clear. Sheffield Hallam says that from September 2026, Schools and Institutes will be responsible for putting in place local student voice activities aligned to their own courses and students, rather than relying on one university-wide Module Evaluation Questionnaire. The university says those local routes should provide regular opportunities for students to share their perspectives and should clearly show how feedback informed decisions and actions. MEQs will continue only for trimester three of 2025/26, with the remaining surveys due to close by 30 October 2026.
"Starting from the 2026/27 academic year, Sheffield Hallam will move away from the current university-wide Module Evaluation Questionnaire (MEQ) process."
What makes the change more useful than a routine process update is the explanation behind it. Sheffield Hallam says the decision was informed by recent evaluation work and feedback from students and staff, with evidence suggesting that students prefer more agile, local, in-class dialogue and greater flexibility in how they give feedback. It also says the existing MEQ model was not meeting its intended aims because of low response rates and limited engagement from students and staff. That matters because the university is treating poor participation as a design problem, not just a reminder-email problem.
The supporting Sheffield Hallam conference abstract adds useful scale. It says the average response rate across the university in 2024-25 was 19 per cent under the module-level MEQ approach. It also says a replacement Course-Level Evaluation Questionnaire (CLEQ) was piloted across three of nine Schools and Institutes, covering 8,287 students in trimester one, but reached a response rate of only 11 per cent. In other words, Hallam did not simply decide that module evaluation was too centralised. It also found that a course-level survey pilot, at least in its first form, was "not effective for gathering student feedback" either.
What this means for institutions
The first implication is that local flexibility is back on the table, but with a harder governance challenge attached. Many universities already know that students often prefer quicker, in-class, or more conversational feedback routes over long end-point surveys. Hallam is now acting on that logic directly. The benefit is speed and fit. The risk is fragmentation. If each School or Institute develops its own mix of conversations, short surveys, or in-term reviews, the institution still needs a way to compare what it is hearing across the whole university. That is why Hallam's move sits naturally alongside earlier examples such as mid-module feedback at Westminster, where earlier collection only works when the route from comment to action is operationally clear.
The second implication is methodological. Hallam's own evidence suggests that changing the unit of survey collection does not automatically solve response-rate or engagement problems. A module-level approach averaged 19 per cent response, and the first course-level CLEQ pilot reached 11 per cent. That does not mean local dialogue is the wrong answer. It means institutions should be cautious about assuming that any one survey architecture, by itself, will restore participation. Questions about who responds, when they respond, and whether the resulting evidence is representative still matter, especially when universities are using the findings to shape teaching, quality review, or enhancement priorities.
The third implication is about institutional oversight. Sheffield Hallam is not abandoning formal quality structures. The guidance says local student voice themes and actions will still move through Course and Module Review meetings, School and Institute Quality Performance Reviews, College Learning, Teaching and Student Success Boards, the Education, Quality and Student Experience Committee, and a new Student Voice Oversight Group. That is the crucial discipline in the model. If feedback becomes more local, the evidence trail has to become more deliberate. Universities considering a similar move should look closely at models such as Glasgow's student voice framework, because decentralised collection only works when there is still a shared understanding of ownership, escalation, and follow-through.
How student feedback analysis connects
This story is not mainly about AI. It is about evidence discipline. Once a university moves away from one central module evaluation instrument, the open-text picture usually becomes more scattered. Different schools may ask different questions, collect comments at different points in the trimester, or rely more heavily on workshop discussion, rep channels, or short in-class prompts. That can make the evidence more timely and more useful locally, but it can also make it harder to compare patterns across the institution unless teams agree in advance how comments will be grouped, reviewed, and reported. A practical starting point is a clear student comment analysis governance checklist.
At Student Voice AI, we see the value when universities keep that interpretive method stable even if the collection routes vary. A governed workflow such as Student Voice Analytics can help institutions compare decentralised feedback without forcing every school back into one rigid survey design. The larger point is simpler than the tooling. If feedback collection becomes more local, analysis and action-tracking usually need to become more consistent, not less.
FAQ
Q: What should institutions do now if they are reconsidering university-wide module evaluations?
A: Start with an audit of what the current process is actually delivering. Check response rates, timing, how often staff act on the results, and whether students can see what changed. Then decide which parts of the process need standardisation and which parts would work better through more local, in-term methods.
Q: What is the timeline and scope of Sheffield Hallam's change?
A: Sheffield Hallam says the new approach starts in the 2026/27 academic year, with School and Institute autonomy from September 2026. Existing MEQs remain in place for trimester three of 2025/26 and must close by 30 October 2026. This is one English university's current student voice model, not a sector-wide policy change.
Q: What is the broader implication for student voice?
A: The broader implication is that universities are becoming less willing to defend weakly used central surveys just because they are standardised. But if they replace them with more local methods, they still need comparability, oversight, and a clear action trail. Local listening is not a substitute for institutional evidence design.
References
[Sheffield Hallam University]: "Module Evaluation Questionnaires (MEQs)" Published: not stated
[Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Enquiry]: "Towards a Course-Level approach to teaching evaluation at Sheffield Hallam University" Published: 2026-07-07
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround