Project Findings: Questionnaire

Qualitative Method Research

Survey 1.https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YCX72DJ

Survey 2. https://www.surveymonkey.com/create/?sm=aGYljAdKHsSafSjNXWX36Pq_2BuYTACGDG0Zu7hJyK2uo_3D

Survey 3. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YCX72DJ

Finally where I also did some Qualitative research by way of a questionnaire to gather further insights, I reached out to the three groups of 6-9 students for student reflections and feedback with an online survey through survey monkey. Due to this big fail here to gain adequate feedback- I ended up adapting all of my analysis to include much more observational insights. While the response rate was shockingly low, (there were 3 responses in total) I still found these reflections valuable, so will share my findings here.

Here’s an analysis of the data from first and third survey’s:

Survey 1.

Third survey for Photovoice Tutorial method with two respondents. Here’s an analysis based on those responses:

1. Consent to Participate: Both respondents gave their full consent to participate in the survey (100%).
2. Effectiveness of the Tutorial in Helping Feel Supported and Included: Both respondents found the tutorial “Very effective” in helping them feel supported and included (100%).
3. Time and Space to Discuss Artistic Practice and Concepts:
   • One respondent felt that there was “Yes” enough time and space to discuss (50%).
   • The other respondent felt that it was “Somewhat” effective (50%).

This suggests a mixed response regarding the adequacy of time for discussions. It may be worth considering additional time or structure in future tutorials to better accommodate students’ needs.

4. Most Helpful Aspects of the Tutorial: One respondent mentioned that the most helpful aspect was having the opportunity to “speak to someone about my time at UAL.” This indicates that the tutorial offered a meaningful personal connection, which could have been a key aspect of support and reflection for this student.
5. Suggestions for Improvement: One respondent suggested “a little more time.” This aligns with the earlier mixed feedback on the time available to discuss artistic practice and concepts, highlighting a potential area for improvement in future sessions.
6. Likelihood to Recommend the Tutorial:
   • One respondent would likely recommend it (50% rated 9-10 on the Net Promoter Score scale, categorized as Promoters).
   • The other respondent was neutral (50% rated 7-8, categorized as Passives).

The survey responses suggest that the tutorial was well-received overall, but there may be an opportunity to further engage the neutral respondents or adjust certain aspects of the tutorial to increase their enthusiasm.

7. Overall Quality of the Tutorial: Both respondents rated the overall quality of the tutorial as “Excellent” (100%).
8. Additional Comments or Feedback: No further comments or feedback were provided by the respondents.

Summary:

• The tutorial was seen as very effective in fostering support and inclusion, with an excellent rating for overall quality.
• However, there is feedback indicating that a bit more time for discussion could improve the experience, especially in terms of exploring artistic practice and concepts.
• Both respondents seemed likely to recommend the tutorial, with one respondent expressing strong enthusiasm.

This feedback is generally positive, with actionable insights that could be useful for fine-tuning future tutorials, especially concerning time allocation.

Survey 3:

Third survey for Stuckness Drawing Tutorial method with a single respondent. Here’s an analysis based on that response:

1. Consent to Participate: The respondent has given full consent to participate in the survey (100%).
2. Effectiveness of the Tutorial in Helping to Feel Supported and Part of the Learning Community: The respondent found the tutorial to be “Very effective” (100%).
3. Time to Complete the Exercises: The respondent felt that there was enough time to complete the exercises (100%).
4. Most Helpful Aspects of the Tutorial: They haven’t included the response for this question, but it would likely provide valuable feedback on what stood out most to the respondent regarding the tutorial.

Since there’s only one response, the data suggests that the tutorial was well-received and that the student felt supported and had sufficient time for exercises. Ideally I’d like to analyse further or seek more feedback, where I could continue gathering responses or explore the open-ended feedback in more detail.

Comparison of Survey 1 and Survey 3:

Similarities:

1. Consent to Participate: Both surveys had full consent (100%) from the respondents.
2. Effectiveness of the Tutorial: Both surveys indicated that the tutorials were highly effective in supporting students and fostering a sense of inclusion, with respondents selecting “Very effective” (100%) in both cases.
3. Time for Exercises: The feedback on time was similar in terms of both surveys. Survey 1 showed mixed responses, with one respondent feeling that time was “Somewhat” sufficient and another feeling it was “Yes” sufficient. In Survey 3, the single respondent felt that there was enough time to complete exercises (100%).
4. Quality of the Tutorial: In both surveys, the quality of the tutorial was rated as “Excellent” by all respondents.

Differences:

1. Time and Space to Discuss Artistic Practice:
   • Survey 1 had a mixed response on this, with one respondent feeling that the time was adequate (“Yes”) and the other feeling that it was only “Somewhat” sufficient. This may be due to the introduction of the methods at different times during the tutorials. Photovoice introduced at the beginning and ‘Stuckness’ half way through.
   • Survey 3 had a stronger consensus with the respondent indicating sufficient time for exercises.
2. Feedback and Suggestions:
   • Survey 1 provided more qualitative feedback. One respondent noted that the opportunity to speak about their time at UAL was helpful, while another suggested “a little more time.”
   • Survey 3 had no qualitative feedback or suggestions, as there was only one response, and no additional comments were provided.
3. Likelihood to Recommend:
   • Survey 1 included a Net Promoter Score (NPS), where half of the respondents were promoters and half were neutral.
   • Survey 3 did not have this data, as it was a single response.

Summary:

• Survey 1 provides more detailed insights into the experience of the tutorial, including feedback about time allocation and personal reflections.
• Survey 3 was simpler, with a single response, but still indicates a positive experience in terms of feeling supported and having enough time for exercises.

Both surveys are overwhelmingly positive, with suggestions for improvement mainly focused on the allocation of time. The feedback from Survey 1 is richer, providing more actionable insights, while Survey 3 reflects a very favourable view of the tutorial with no specific qualitative suggestions.