York’s module evaluation guidance specifies who receives results and when

Updated Sep 07, 2026

The University of York’s digital module evaluation guidance describes a central Evasys process with common questions and a defined response timetable. These are institutional arrangements and intended benefits, not published evidence that the system has improved student experience. Staff guidance.

The stated process

Evaluations normally run for ten working days near the end of teaching, before final summative assessment. Core questions are standardised; the guidance describes a typical survey as ten scale questions and one comment box. It also provides arrangements for modules outside standard semester dates.

Participants receive numerical results after closure. Module leaders receive scores, raw comments and a word cloud. A summary and initial departmental response must reach all eligible students within ten working days of closure; this is not an additional deadline after the reflection period.

The guidance describes confidentiality rather than total anonymity, including authorised identification in serious welfare or misconduct circumstances. It explicitly tells staff to read all comments, using the word cloud only to identify possible themes. Process, confidentiality and reporting FAQ.

What other institutions can examine

Our practical suggestion is to write down the recipients and deadline at each stage. Distinguish people who completed the survey from everyone eligible for it. Decide who owns the response and how delivery will be checked before claiming that the feedback process has become faster.

When reporting comments, preserve context and restrict access appropriately. Frequency alone should not determine importance: a single concern may require immediate attention. Follow the institution’s established escalation process for urgent reports rather than waiting for a thematic summary.

Standard questions can support comparison, but timing, coverage and module context still matter. Note exceptions and questionnaire changes alongside results. Treat any claimed efficiency or experience benefit as something to evaluate, using baseline information and records of actual delivery.

The student comment analysis governance checklist can help structure that review. The public guidance does not verify implementation on every module or guarantee the anonymity of free-text comments.

Review note, 7 September 2026: checked the accessible indexed guidance and clarified the single response deadline, eligibility, typical question format and confidentiality limits. Removed claims that intended speed, comparability or experience benefits were demonstrated outcomes.