## 5 Discussions and Implications for Decision Making  
### Effectiveness of the Teaching Intervention  
Overall, the interventions designed are considered to be effective, achieving an average satisfaction rate of 92% and, for Q7 (overall satisfaction), 100%. Note that only Level 6 results are included in this discussion. To measure the effectiveness of each action, we took the average rating of related questions, as defined in Table 6 (the rating for Q7 is excluded, as it is an overall rating). For example, A1 has two related questions--Q1 and Q14--whose ratings are 100% and 94%. Therefore, the rating for A1 is \((100+94)/2=97\) (%). The detailed measurements of each action are listed in Table 7. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Question Summary**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Satisfaction Rate (\%)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Level 5** & **Level 6** & **NSS * & **Level 6 against NSS** \\ \hline
1. & Assessment brief & 85 & 100 & n/a & \\ \hline
2. & Marking criteria & 96 & 94 & 71 & +23 \\ \hline
3. & Feedback & 63 & 91 & 69 & +22 \\ \hline
4. & Staff support & 78 & 100 & 73 & +27 \\ \hline
5. & Formative feedback & 68 & 94 & n/a & \\ \hline
6. & Staff contact & 74 & 94 & 83 & +11 \\ \hline
7. & Overall & 59 & 100 & 73 & +27 \\ \hline
8. & Real-life examples & 83 & 100 & n/a & \\ \hline
9. & Real-life examples & 66 & 94 & n/a & \\ \hline
10. & Real-life examples & 55 & 83 & n/a & \\ \hline
11. & Marking criteria & 62 & 67 & n/a & \\ \hline
12. & Marking criteria & 58 & 78 & n/a & \\ \hline
13. & In-class feedback & 62 & 94 & n/a & \\ \hline
14. & Coursework deadlines & 100 & 94 & n/a & \\ \hline
15. & Progress check & 68 & 83 & n/a & \\ \hline
16. & Progress check & 75 & 89 & n/a & \\ \hline
17. & Staff communication & 90 & 100 & n/a & \\ \hline
18. & Staff communication & 86 & 94 & n/a & \\ \hline  & Average & 74 & 92 & 74 & +22 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The ratings were calculated by averaging all programmes (weighted by student numbers). Data refers to the previous year and the same department in which the teaching intervention took place. NSS survey results available online: [[http://www.hefec.ac.uk/lt/nss/results/](http://www.hefec.ac.uk/lt/nss/results/)]([http://www.hefec.ac.uk/lt/nss/results/](http://www.hefec.ac.uk/lt/nss/results/)) (accessed on 20 August 2021).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: End of module survey results. It was concluded that most actions were well received by students: 11 actions achieved a 90%+ rating. A5 (\"Explanation of how assignment works') showed an 85% rating and A11 (\"Explanation of how email contact works') 83%, which appears to suggest that the clarification of existing documentation is less helpful to students. However, A13 (\"Provisional marking criteria'), which had a 100% rating, is also about explaining documentation (i.e., the marking criteria). Therefore, we conclude that negative responses were probably caused by how the teaching was delivered rather than by the clarity of documentation and policies. In other words, clarification should be carried out by linking to the context rather than by simply referring to the documents. For example, instead of directly explaining each of the marking criteria in Week 1, it is more effective to link a difficult/key concept to the marking criteria, alongside teaching, and explain how it will be assessed, as this will help students to plan their after-class study better, enhancing their learning experience. To measure the effectiveness of how each issue was addressed, we calculated the average rating of all questions related to that issue, as defined in Table 6 (Q7's rating is excluded). For example, I2 is related to Q1, Q2, Q14, and Q17, whose ratings are 100%, 94%, 94%, and 100%. Therefore, the rating for I2 is \((100+94+94+100)/4=94\) (%). Table 8 shows the measurements of all issues. While most issues were addressed well and eight of the 10 scored a 90%+ average rating, we would like to discuss further I3 and I7, which were rated at under 90%.