Hey, Fatima 👋
You’ve got 2 quick things to say. Your take actually moves the needle here — there are 4 new staff replies in Impact.
Open now
The NSS is run externally — we don’t see who answered. Once you’ve done it (or decided not to), let us know here so we stop reminding you.
A 2-minute pulse — early enough that staff can act on it.
Recently done (2) +60 pts this week
Coming soon (2) Opens 14 Jun
Have a concern that needs attention?
Your course and school reps are students too — anything you tell them stays confidential, and they take it forward.
When staff act on feedback from your courses, it shows up here. This is the bit that proves it’s worth doing. 💬
You said, we did
-
Rubrics published with the brief — not days before submission ✅ DoneU0968PYC · BSc Software Engineering Assessment & feedback
From this term we’ll publish marking rubrics on Moodle alongside the assignment brief — both up by week 3 at the latest.
-
Extra lab drop-in on Tuesdays for Programming Foundations 🔧 In progressM34698 · Programming Foundations Academic support
Dr Ashby has booked the lab from 15:00–16:00 each Tuesday starting next week.
Replies from your staff
What your course leaders and module coordinators have said in response to clustered issues.
-
Dr Helena Bright · U0968PYC · 3 days agoOn issue: Lecture pace too fast in weeks 4–6
We’ll re-plan weeks 4–6 of Architecture and Operating Systems with two consolidation labs and a slower intro to memory hierarchy. Slides updated already.
-
Dr Devon Ashby · M34698 · 6 days agoOn issue: Assessment brief unclear about pair-programming rules
Updated the brief to say collaboration is allowed for whiteboard discussion but submitted code must be your own. Will mention in next lecture too.
Badges (5)
Recently done
- Module Pulse · M21270 Data Structures & Algorithms+30 pts
- Module Pulse · M30943 Architecture & Operating Systems+30 pts
- L5 course survey · BSc Software Engineering+80 pts
🏆 Cohort leaderboard
Anonymised- 1🥇 Anon-4521L6980
- 2🥈 Anon-8821L6812
- 3🥉 Anon-2210L6780
- 4YouL6720
- 5Anon-9907L6680
Names are never shown. You see your own rank only.
Your answers and your account are in completely separate tables — no foreign key, no timestamp pair, no IP. Even an admin can’t pull “what did Fatima write?”. Your completion is tracked (so you earn points), your content isn’t. Read more →
M34698 · Programming Foundations
Taught on U0968PYC SoftEng · U0056PYC CS · U0580PYC Computing · 240 students · Dr Devon Ashby
Sentiment trend
↗ Improving (+0.6 over 5 rounds)Sentiment
How students felt overall — captured directly on each response. No analysis needed.
Question averages (1–5)
Free-text answers are surfaced through clustering only — never quoted individually. Segments under 5 responses collapse to “all respondents”.
How cohorts compare
Module taught on 3 coursesk-anonymity threshold: cohorts with <5 responses are hidden.
Themed issues
Azure OpenAI · gpt-4o · run 9be41aQuotes are sanitised — emails, phone numbers, student-number-shaped digits and “I’m <Name>” patterns stripped before reaching staff or the LLM.
-
14 responses Open #assessment#communication
Assessment brief unclear about pair-programming rules
Multiple students unsure whether collaboration is allowed on the practical assessment.
- “The brief says ‘individual work’ but tutorials encourage pairing — I don’t know what’s allowed.”
- “Could the assessment brief be a bit clearer on rules around working together?”
- “I asked my tutor and got a different answer to what the brief says.”
-
28 responses Responded #academic-support
Lab tutors are very approachable
Strong consistent praise for tutor availability and patience.
Dr Devon Ashby · 4 days ago · visible to studentsThanks — passed on to the lab team. We’ve extended drop-in hours by 30 minutes on Tuesdays based on the volume of feedback.
-
7 responses Open #teaching
Recursion content jumps in pace at week 5
Some students enjoy the challenge; others say they lose the thread.
Previous pulses
- Round 1 · 14 Apr → 28 Apr n=128 2 open issues
- TB1 round 3 · 22 Nov → 6 Dec 2025 n=204 All closed
- TB1 round 2 · 8 Nov → 22 Nov 2025 n=189 All closed
U0968PYC · BSc (Hons) Software Engineering
240 students across L4 / L5 / L6 · 12 modules · NSS-eligible cohort: 78 (L6)
All within Software Engineering — listed in the Chase view.
NSS theme scores · this year vs last
Bars in red where the score is below 3/5 — the "needs attention" line.
Sentiment over time · last 5 years
Average sentiment across all pulses + EOY surveys, by academic year.
Open issues by level
L4 feedback
-
14 responses M34698 · Programming ⏰ Over SLA
Lecture pace too fast in mid-semester weeks
Students report feeling overwhelmed when new theoretical content lands in weeks 4–6.
-
8 responses M30943 · Architecture & OS
Group projects organisation
Format appreciated, team allocation confusing.
L5 feedback
-
Responded8 responses M21270 · Data Structures & Algorithms
Marking criteria released too late
Rubrics arrived days before submission; planning suffered.
L6 feedback
-
11 responses M30819 · SETP
Industry-relevant project briefs
Students value the new partnerships with local tech employers.
Action plan · 2025/26
Record what you’re changing in response to feedback. Marked items are visible to students in their Impact tab.
-
✅ DoneRubrics published with assignment briefs from this termPrompted by Assessment & feedback
Implemented across all 12 modules. Confirmed with module leads.
👁 Visible to students -
🔧 In progressRe-plan Architecture & OS weeks 4–6 with two consolidation labsPrompted by Teaching
Lab schedules updated; new exercises drafted with the module team.
👁 Visible to students -
📅 Next yearPilot a peer mentoring scheme for L4 in TB1 2026/27Prompted by Learning community🔒 Internal only
School of Computing · oversight
5 courses · 64 active modules · 930 students. Drill in by clicking a row, a crumb, or the scope-bar dropdown.
Module sentiment · School of Computing
64 modules · slices show how many are in each band.
How schools compare · Faculty of Technology
Avg sentiment by school. Your school is highlighted in port.
Modules — sorted by concerns
| Code | Module | Level | Resp. rate | Sentiment | Open issues | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M30943 | Architecture & Operating Systems | L4 | 71% | 2.6 | 3 | |
| M34698 | Programming Foundations | L4 | 59% | 3.4 | 3 | |
| M21270 | Data Structures & Algorithms | L5 | 68% | 3.3 | 2 | |
| M33148 | Distributed Systems | L6 | 64% | 4.1 | 1 | |
| M30819 | Software Engineering Team Project | L6 | 72% | 4.3 | 0 |
Courses in School of Computing
Click a row to scope into it. NSS/PTES eligibility shown per course.
-
5 open 🙂 3.9 →U0968PYC · BSc (Hons) Software Engineering240 students · Dr Helena Bright
-
5 open 🙂 3.6 →U0056PYC · BSc (Hons) Computer Science312 students · Dr Jonah Pemberton
-
2 open 🙂 4.0 →U2515PYC · MEng Computer Science Integrated masters48 students · Dr Jonah Pemberton · PTES excluded
-
4 open 😕 3.2 →U0580PYC · BSc (Hons) Computing198 students · Prof. Adaeze Nwosu
-
5 open 🙂 3.8 →U2686PYC · BSc (Hons) Data Science & Analytics132 students · Dr Roman Vasilev
Survey targeting at this scope
- · NSS — final-year UG only (L6 BSc + L7 MEng). 4 cohorts in scope, 412 students.
- · PTES — L7 standalone masters only. None at this scope (integrated masters excluded).
- · Course survey — L4 / L5 / L6 (integrated-masters only). 8 cohorts, 678 students.
- · Module Pulse — every level, every active module. 64 modules running this block.
L4 / L5 / L6 course surveys · 2025/26
Internal end-of-year surveys with NSS-aligned themes. Final-year UG see NSS instead; L7 taught see PTES; integrated masters L6 take the internal survey.
23 loops still need a written response from a course leader.
Feedback loops · closed vs awaiting
A loop closes when a course leader posts a response visible to students.
Avg score by NSS theme · 2025/26
Bars in red where below 3/5. Compare against the dashed national NSS average line.
By faculty
Export to CSV ↗| Faculty | Courses | Response rate | Avg sentiment | Loops awaiting | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty of Technology | 9 | 63% | 🙂 3.8 | 7 | |
| Faculty of Business & Law | 6 | 59% | 🙂 3.6 | 4 | |
| Faculty of Science & Health | 7 | 57% | 😕 3.2 | 8 | |
| Faculty of Creative & Cultural Industries | 4 | 55% | 🙂 3.9 | 4 |
Archive · previous years
Each year keeps its own clustered issues + the staff responses that closed them.
Edit survey · plain-English authoring
No JSON, no IT ticket, no engineering bottleneck. Reorder, edit, add or remove questions — they apply to every instance derived from this template.
Questions (3 of 22 shown)
-
1
-
2
-
3
Warehouse sync
Re-pull staff mappings + student enrolment from the institutional warehouse.
About this hub
A single, structured place where students know what feedback is expected of them and when — and where staff close the loop with a public, on-the-record response.
Why one internal hub, instead of pulling feedback from elsewhere?
Most institutions have feedback scattered across at least half a dozen systems: VLE quizzes, Microsoft Forms, Google Forms, paper surveys, NSS data, PTES data, ad-hoc emails to module coordinators, course rep notes. Each is a partial picture; none speak to each other.
One source of truth
Course leaders, module coordinators, deans and the SU all see the same issues, same numbers, same staff responses — debates are about what to do, not whose data is right.
Closes the loop publicly
Every clustered issue carries a written response from a course leader or module coordinator, visible to students. The single biggest lever on response rates.
In time to act
External surveys land annually and tell you about cohorts who’ve already moved on. Module Pulse and L4/L5 surveys flow continuously — staff can change pace and materials while it still helps the cohort that raised the issue.
NSS-aligned question bank
L4/L5/L6 surveys use NSS themes (teaching, assessment & feedback, IT/library, organisation, learning resources, academic support, learning community) so internal results sit alongside NSS data without translation.
Non-technical authoring
Programme admins edit survey questions through a plain-English editor — no JSON, no IT ticket.
Privacy by design
Student responses cannot be tied back to individual students. The guarantee is structural — it’s in the schema. Makes GDPR posture, FOI handling, and SU scrutiny much simpler.
Lower duplication for students
L6 students get NSS, not an internal end-of-year. L7 taught get PTES (excluding integrated masters). Module Pulse runs across all levels. Nobody is asked the same question twice.
Gamification that’s not a gimmick
Streaks, levels, and badges turn the chore of feedback into something with rhythm. They reward the act of giving feedback — never the content of it — so privacy stays clean.
Owned and hosted internally
No SaaS that goes off-message at renewal, no third party with access to free-text quotes. Use whatever LLM the institution already pays for — Microsoft Copilot via Azure OpenAI by default.
Survives staff turnover
When a course leader moves on, the successor inherits a written record of what was raised, what was promised, and what changed.
Defensible to auditors
Every clustering run records its model id and run id. Every staff response is timestamped and attributable. The warehouse remains the source of truth for enrolment.
LTI 1.3 inside Moodle
A minimal Moodle block shows "feedback due" and "recent staff replies" for the launched module, so the hub meets students where they already are.
How student feedback stays anonymous
Student feedback content is structurally not linked to the student who wrote it.
This is a property of the database itself, not an after-the-fact policy. We can’t tie a student’s words to their identity even if we wanted to.
How we do it
- Two separate tables. One records that a student completed a survey (so streak, points, completion stats work). A second, completely separate table holds the answers — with no link of any kind to the student record.
- No timing fingerprint. Submission time on the answer side is rounded to the day, so it can’t be matched to completion-time on the user side.
- No IP, no device, no session. Answer rows store none of those — only the answers themselves.
- Quote sanitisation. Before any free-text quote reaches staff or the LLM, we strip emails, phone numbers, student-number-shaped digits, URLs, and “I’m <Name>” patterns as defence in depth.
- K-anonymity on segmentation. Per-level / per-cohort breakdowns only display once at least 5 responses are in that segment. Below that, segments collapse to “all respondents”.
Tech stack
Want to try the live demo?
Sign in as any seeded student or staff account — no password needed. One click and you’re in.