Student Evaluations

Student Survey Analysis

I presented two lectures in Spring 2026 as part of my 180-hour Internship in Nursing Education. I presented CNS pharmacology on February 11th and Gastroenterology pharmacology on April 13th under the supervision of Dr. Brian Peach for his class, NUR3145 Pharmacology for Nurses. I presented these lectures for both the 10 am and 12:30 pm sections of this class. In the 10am class (Section 1) there were 68 students. In the 12:30 pm class (Section 2) there were 69.  In total there were 137 students.

Following the completion of my second lecture and with permission from Dr. Peach, I created an anonyms survey to gain feedback from the students. The survey comprised of 5 Lickert scale questions and one optional free text for the provision of optional feedback.

·       Question 1: The presentation was clear and easy to follow

·       Question 2: The content was explained effectively

·       Question 3: The presenter seemed knowledgeable about the topic

·       Question 4: The examples and visual helped my understanding.

·       Question 5: The presentation kept me engaged.

·       Question 6: Additional feedback.

This optional quiz was opened to all 137 students. In Section 1, 35 of 68 students completed the survey. 2 of the 35 completed did not submit any answers and were therefore omitted resulting in a sample of n=33. In Section 2, 26 of the 69 students completed the survey. 1 of the 26 completed did not submit any answers and was omitted resulting in a sample of n=25. In total 58 of the 137 students completed the survey (roughly 42% of the class). A January 2026 study in Survey Practice indicated that institutions often face low historical response rates for voluntary surveys, with averages often between 26% and 39% (Sarraf & Jony, 2026). Considering these findings I projected a 30% participation rate.

18 of the 33 students who completed the survey in section 1 provided additional optional feedback. 13 of the 25 students who completed the survey in section also provided optional feedback for a total of 31 qualitative points of data.

Objective Data Summary

The overall median rating across both sections and all five objective items is a 4.4 (Fig. 1) with question 3 gaining the highest overall rating which correlated with many of the comments. Between the two sections, Section 2 (the afternoon cohort) consistently rated me higher across all items (Fig 3). This could be due to several factors. 1. This section 2 saw material that I was covering for the second time in the day thus providing a more confident and polished performance. 2. Time of day may have played a factor as many of the students seemed to be drowsy and less engaging. 3. There is the possibility of unequal distribution of higher performing students. Though students in the Second Section provided fewer survey submissions, the time spent of these surveys the extent of qualitative feedback exceeded their peers in Section 1. Figures 4 and 5 show the breakdown of item / questions scoring between the two sections. 

Subjective Data Summary

Emphasis on key points: The free text responses ranged from “Good job” to some student leaving in depth feedback. There were not any implicitly negative comments. Most were very positive, identifying energy, engagement, and expertise as major themes. 2 students stated that they desired more emphasis on test material. The main topic addressed was exactly as expected. That was the rate or speed of the presentation. 16 of the participants addressed this topic in their feedback. 8 students cited this as a negative element. 4 stated that they preferred the speed that the material was covered and 3 addressed but were neutral in their opinions with one acknowledging the time constraints and another noting improvement in the second lecture. Over the responses were overwhelmingly positive and provided insightful feedback.

Reference

Sarraf, S., & Jony, S. F. (2026). Improving college student survey response rates: Evidence from a split questionnaire design experiment. Survey Practice, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2025-0020