Overview
A module evaluation form provides a structured way for an institution to review the quality and effectiveness of an individual course or module.
The purpose is not simply to collect positive feedback. Effective evaluation should help an institution identify what is working, where students are experiencing difficulties, whether learning outcomes are being achieved and what improvements should be considered.
The following template may be adapted by Bible colleges, seminaries, ministry schools and theological education providers as part of their internal quality-assurance system.
Institutions should customise the form to reflect their actual programmes, delivery methods and governance processes.
Module Information
Institution: [Institution Name]
Programme: [Programme Name]
Module: [Module Title]
Module code: [Code]
Academic period: [Term / Semester / Year]
Lecturer / Facilitator: [Name]
Delivery method: [Campus / Online / Distance / Blended]
Evaluation date: [Date]
Student Evaluation
Students should evaluate the following statements using the institution's chosen rating scale.
Suggested scale:
1 — Strongly Disagree
2 — Disagree
3 — Neutral
4 — Agree
5 — Strongly Agree
N/A — Not Applicable
Module Content
The purpose of the module was clearly explained.
The module content was relevant to the stated learning outcomes.
The learning materials supported my understanding of the subject.
The module was organised in a logical sequence.
The workload was appropriate for the module.
Instructions for completing required learning activities were clear.
Teaching and Learning
Teaching or instructional material was presented clearly.
The lecturer or facilitator demonstrated appropriate knowledge of the subject.
The teaching methods supported my learning.
I had appropriate opportunities to ask questions or obtain clarification.
The module encouraged meaningful engagement with the subject.
The learning activities contributed to my understanding of the material.
Assessment
Assessment requirements were communicated clearly.
Assessments were relevant to the module's learning outcomes.
I understood how my work would be evaluated.
The amount of assessment was appropriate for the module.
Feedback on assessed work helped me understand my progress.
Assessment provided an appropriate opportunity to demonstrate what I had learned.
Student Support
I knew where to obtain assistance when I needed academic support.
Relevant learning resources were reasonably accessible.
Administrative information relating to the module was communicated clearly.
Technical or delivery support was adequate where applicable.
Overall Student Evaluation
Overall, how would you rate this module?
1 — Poor
2 — Below Expectations
3 — Satisfactory
4 — Good
5 — Excellent
What aspects of this module were most helpful to your learning?
[Student response]
What aspects of this module could be improved?
[Student response]
Were there any topics that required greater explanation or additional learning material?
[Student response]
Were there any unnecessary or repetitive elements?
[Student response]
What changes would you recommend for the next presentation of this module?
[Student response]
Additional comments:
[Student response]
Academic Review
Student feedback should form only one part of module evaluation.
The institution should also conduct an academic review of the module using appropriate evidence.
Reviewer: [Name / Committee]
Review date: [Date]
Learning Outcomes
Are the module learning outcomes clearly defined?
[Yes / No / Partially]
Are the learning outcomes appropriate to the programme and intended level of study?
[Yes / No / Partially]
Is there evidence that students are achieving the intended learning outcomes?
[Yes / No / Partially]
Comments:
[Reviewer comments]
Curriculum and Learning Materials
Is the module content current and appropriate to its stated purpose?
[Yes / No / Partially]
Does the curriculum provide sufficient coverage of the subject?
[Yes / No / Partially]
Are prescribed learning materials appropriate and accessible?
[Yes / No / Partially]
Are any significant curriculum revisions required?
[Yes / No]
Comments:
[Reviewer comments]
Assessment Review
Do assessments appropriately measure the stated learning outcomes?
[Yes / No / Partially]
Are assessment instructions sufficiently clear?
[Yes / No / Partially]
Is the assessment workload appropriate?
[Yes / No / Partially]
Do marking or grading processes demonstrate appropriate consistency?
[Yes / No / Partially]
Are changes to assessment required?
[Yes / No]
Comments:
[Reviewer comments]
Performance Evidence
Where appropriate, the institution should consider available evidence in addition to student feedback.
This may include:
student completion rates;
assessment results;
withdrawal patterns;
recurring student questions or difficulties;
lecturer observations;
moderation findings;
complaints relating to the module;
academic integrity concerns; and
previous module-evaluation findings.
The purpose is to avoid making quality decisions from a single source of information.
A module receiving positive student feedback may still require academic improvement. Likewise, demanding material should not automatically be considered poor-quality simply because students find it difficult.
The institution should evaluate the evidence within the educational context of the programme.
Improvement Action Plan
Where improvements are identified, they should be converted into documented actions.
Improvement Required Action Responsible Person Target Date Completed
[Issue] [Action] [Name] [Date] [Yes / No]
[Issue] [Action] [Name] [Date] [Yes / No]
[Issue] [Action] [Name] [Date] [Yes / No]
Final Module Review
Following consideration of student feedback, academic review and available performance evidence, select the appropriate outcome:
[ ] Module approved without changes
[ ] Module approved with minor improvements
[ ] Module requires substantial revision
[ ] Module requires further academic review
Summary of findings:
[Summary]
Approved actions:
[Actions]
Responsible person or committee:
[Name]
Next review date:
[Date]
Closing the Quality-Assurance Cycle
Collecting evaluation forms is not, by itself, an effective quality-assurance system.
The institution should be able to demonstrate what happened after feedback was received.
Where a problem is identified, there should be a reasonable process for reviewing the issue, deciding whether action is required, assigning responsibility and checking whether the action was completed.
This creates an evidence trail from:
Evaluation → Review → Decision → Improvement → Follow-up
Repeated evaluations can then help the institution determine whether previous changes actually improved the module.
Records of evaluations, reviews and resulting actions should be retained according to the institution's records-management policies.
Important Accreditation Information
ITAA is a private theological accreditation agency.
ITAA is not a governmental accreditation authority.
ITAA accreditation never overrides local law.
Institutions remain solely responsible for compliance with all applicable national, state or provincial, regional, and local laws.
ITAA does not grant statutory degree-awarding powers.
Accreditation status does not replace governmental recognition where required.
Institutional rankings measure the maturity of systems and governance, not the value of a ministry, spiritual calling, ministry effectiveness, or God’s favour.
Institutions remain responsible for ensuring that their academic quality-assurance practices, student information and educational activities comply with applicable requirements.
For the complete governing framework, read Important Accreditation Information.
Frequently asked questions
ITAA is a government accreditation authority.
ITAA is an independent theological accreditation body and is not a governmental authority. Institutions remain responsible for meeting all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
ITAA's Role
ITAA evaluates whether institutions have functioning quality-assurance systems appropriate to their theological education activities.
A module evaluation process can provide evidence that an institution systematically reviews teaching, learning, assessment and student experience rather than relying only on informal feedback.
The existence of a form does not itself demonstrate effective quality assurance. Institutions should be able to show that evaluation results are considered and that appropriate improvement actions are implemented.