University of Westminster's Mid-Module Check-ins show what earlier module feedback can look like

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Westminster’s Mid-Module Check-ins offer a documented example of collecting feedback during teaching. The university’s 16 February 2026 announcement set the second round for 16–22 February and described a short qualitative survey for undergraduate and taught postgraduate students. February announcement.

What Westminster published

Most modules were included. Level 6 students were instead directed to the NSS in that round. Participants received an email invitation; the university estimated about five minutes to respond, depending on detail, and noted that module leaders could select optional questions.

A September 2025 launch article said the revised process would normally run in week five of each semester. A December follow-up identified the previous name as Student Module Evaluation Surveys and recorded the first invitations on 20 October 2025. Launch and Semester One reflection.

The December article said that, for modules with five or more responses, students should have received a PDF containing the module leader’s answers to feedback. This describes the intended reporting process. It is not independent evidence that every eligible report was sent, that all comments were resolved or that the threshold makes every result representative.

What another institution can learn

Our practical suggestion is to design the response process alongside the survey. Agree who reads comments, what can change during the module and how students will hear back. Distinguish a question that needs immediate clarification from a programme change that needs wider consideration.

If optional questions vary, preserve that context in the analysis. Do not compare two theme percentages as though they came from identical prompts. Small response groups also need careful interpretation and confidentiality safeguards.

An earlier survey creates an opportunity to respond during teaching; the sources do not show that it necessarily produces better outcomes than another approach. Review the quality of follow-up as well as response volume. Our governance checklist and summary of staff–student evaluation redesign provide related questions for planning.

Review note, 7 September 2026: verified the three university announcements, clarified that the second round was the Semester Two round, and distinguished planned reporting and potential benefits from demonstrated outcomes.