Feedback that arrives while the term can still change.
Course and faculty evaluation built from a governed question bank, issued against live registration records, answered anonymously on a phone in about ninety seconds, and returned to the coordinator, the head of department and the quality office as the responses land.
The problem
A third of the class answers, and the results arrive after the decisions.
Most institutions already run evaluations. The difficulty is that the exercise sits outside the systems that hold the students, the sections and the outcomes, so it has to be rebuilt every term: a list is exported, a form is copied from last year, a link goes out by email, and the numbers come back weeks later in a spreadsheet.
Three things go wrong. Participation is low because the form is hard to reach, so the sample is too small to defend. Results are late, arriving after grades are published and the next timetable is set. And the findings are a satisfaction score with nowhere to go, because nothing connects a comment to the course, the outcome or the person who could act on it.
The operating model
Ask from a bank, issue from the records, return the result to an owner.
Four design choices separate an evaluation that runs itself from one rebuilt every term: questions are governed, the population comes from live enrolment, participation is designed for a phone, and every result lands with someone who can act on it.
Questions are governed, not retyped
A central bank holds every question, grouped as faculty based, course based or institution based, and grouped again by theme such as teaching quality or course content. Templates draw from the bank, so a department can tailor a form without inventing a new instrument that cannot be compared with anything.
The population is the registration record
A cycle is defined by semester, programme, course and section, and the students who receive it are the students enrolled at that moment. Nothing is uploaded, so nothing has to be reconciled when a late add or a withdrawal changes the cohort.
Participation is built for a phone
Students reach the evaluation from their dashboard or the mobile app menu, start it in one click and move through the questions in sequence. Reminders fire on a schedule you set. Response rate is a design outcome, not a plea in a staff meeting.
Anonymity and accountability, at the same time
A cycle collects anonymously or with authenticated responses, by policy. Either way participation is tracked separately from answers, so you can report who has responded and chase the sections that are behind without ever exposing what an individual said.
What it does
Five things course evaluation needs. One cycle.
The question bank and templates, the cycle and its reminders, participation on web and mobile, results and analytics, and the governance that makes the whole thing reportable. Pick one to see what sits inside it.
Click any block to explore
One repository of questions, and forms you can reuse without retyping.
- Centralised question bank, created and managed in one place
- Question groups for faculty based, course based and institution based feedback
- Category grouping by theme: teaching quality, course content, institutional support
- Rating scales, multiple choice, free text, yes or no, dropdown and matrix formats
- Reusable template builder, organised into sections
- Templates tailored per department or programme from the same bank
- Questions mapped to course and programme learning outcomes or graduate attributes
- Multi-language authoring for a mixed cohort
A window per semester, programme and section, and reminders that fire themselves.
- Evaluation plans per semester, programme or course
- Custom start and end dates, mapped to sections and to the faculty who teach them
- Automatic email and in-app notifications at intervals you configure
- Reminders before and during the window, targeted at who has not responded
- Anonymous or authenticated participation, set per cycle
- Submission window lock, and closure once a student submits
- Mid-term and end of term cycles running side by side
If it is not easy on a phone, the response rate tells you.
- Fully responsive evaluation form on the web
- Mobile app participation from the menu or the student profile
- Profile based navigation, so the open evaluation is where the student already is
- One click to start, then a sequential run through the questions
- Progress kept if a student leaves the form and returns
- Clear confirmation on submit, and no second prompt afterwards
- Accessible form controls and readable type at phone width
Results while the window is open, and comparisons once it closes.
- Live dashboard of participation, rating trends and comparisons
- Analysis per course, per section, per faculty member and per category
- Section level and faculty level tracking of teaching effectiveness
- Consolidated reporting across sections and programmes for academic leadership
- Export of raw and aggregated data to Excel or PDF
- Filters by faculty, department, programme or course
- Free text comments grouped into themes for review
Everyone sees what their role allows, and the cycle keeps its own history.
- Role based access for administrators, heads of department, faculty and quality officers
- Faculty see their own aggregated results, released after the window closes
- Audit log of submissions, access history and administrative actions
- Participation history retained per cycle for compliance reporting
- Template version recorded against every result
- Identity held apart from responses on anonymous cycles
- Evidence usable as indirect input to outcome attainment
Inside the product
The whole evaluation cycle, in one place.
This is the application, not a diagram. Move through the surfaces your coordinators, faculty and quality office work in: the question bank, the template, the cycle, what a student sees, the results dashboard and the reports that come out of it.
| Question | Group | Type | Mapped to | Actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The instructor explained concepts clearlyteaching quality | Faculty based | Scale 1 to 5 | PLO8 | ⋯ | |
| Assessment expectations were clear from the startcourse content | Course based | Scale 1 to 5 | CLO3 | ⋯ | |
| Which part of the course helped you most?open comment | Course based | Free text | Unmapped | ⋯ | |
| Library and lab resources were available when neededinstitutional support | Institution based | Yes or no | Unmapped | ⋯ |
| Report | Scope | Audience | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty evaluation summaryaggregated, released after close | Per faculty member | Faculty, HoD | Released |
| Course and section comparisonfiltered by department | 41 courses | Dean | Ready |
| Programme quality packindirect evidence of outcomes | Per programme | Quality office | Ready |
| Raw response exportExcel or PDF, filtered | Cycle wide | Institutional research | Available |
Six surfaces, one cycle. Nothing here is uploaded or reconciled.
Lifecycle or product
The lifecycle is the operating model. This is the product that runs it.
Two pages, two jobs. Read the lifecycle to understand how evaluation connects to curriculum, assessment, outcomes and accreditation; read this page to see the application your coordinators, faculty and quality office use every term.
Assessment & Outcomes
How feedback, graded work and attainment fit together across the institution, and why evaluation results reconcile with everything else. Read the lifecycle →
Course Evaluation
The question bank, templates, cycles, participation, analytics and reporting your teams work in. You are on this page.
Displacement
A survey tool can collect answers. It cannot know who was enrolled.
Dedicated evaluation and survey products are good at forms and reminders. The gap is structural: they sit beside the systems of record, so every cycle starts with an export and ends with a spreadsheet that has to be reconciled against curriculum, sections and outcomes.
A list is exported each term. Late adds and withdrawals are wrong until someone re-exports.
The enrolled cohort at that moment, read from registration records. Nothing to upload.
A link in an email competing with everything else in the inbox.
Inside the student portal and the mobile app they already use, one tap from the dashboard.
A satisfaction score, unattached to the curriculum or the outcomes it was meant to inform.
Questions mapped to course and programme outcomes, so feedback is usable as indirect evidence, not just a rating.
Results exported, then reconciled by hand against section and faculty lists.
Section and faculty level from the start, consolidated across programmes without a matching exercise.
The cycle has to be described from memory: which form, which cohort, what response rate.
The cycle is the record: template version, population, response rate and audit log, all retained.
Also part of the operating system
Course Evaluation is also part of Assessment & Outcomes.
Connect it and student feedback, graded work, moderation and attainment run on the same records, so a programme review draws on one set of figures rather than four separate collections.
Built for every role
One cycle. Five views of the same feedback.
Finds the open evaluation on their dashboard or in the app, and finishes it in about ninety seconds knowing the response is anonymous.
Sees their own aggregated results after the window closes, with comments grouped into themes rather than a raw feed.
Watches response rate by section while the window is open, and gets one specific category to act on when it closes.
Compares sections, courses and faculty on the same questions, and sees where teaching support is actually needed.
Draws indirect evidence for programme review from cycles that already ran, with response rates and template versions attached.
What academic teams say about running Creatrix.
Creatrix Campus has helped us centralise all student information in one reliable and intuitive system, improving efficiency and reducing errors. We use it to manage student data, schedule sessions, and automatically generate transcripts, which has simplified many of our academic processes.
Creatrix provides an excellent platform for timetabling within the School of Pharmacy, enabling teaching activities to be planned and coordinated through a clear line of sight to learning outcomes, assessments, professional competency standards, entrustable professional activities, and graduate attributes.
Go deeper
From the Creatrix library.
Blogs, whitepapers and case studies for the people who run evaluation: course coordinators, faculty, heads of department and the quality office.
Frequently asked
Plain answers about course evaluation.
What is course evaluation software?
Course evaluation software collects structured student feedback on courses and teaching, then turns it into results the institution can act on.
In Creatrix Campus it is part of the Assessment & Outcomes lifecycle: questions come from a governed bank, templates are reused across departments, cycles run against live registration records, and results are routed to the coordinator, the head of department and the quality office.
How do you improve evaluation response rates?
Three things do most of the work. Students reach the form from their own dashboard or the mobile app in one click, reminders are scheduled automatically at intervals you configure, and the form is short because it is built from a question bank rather than assembled from scratch each term.
Participation is tracked live by section, so a coordinator can nudge the sections that are behind while the window is still open.
Is student feedback anonymous?
It is configurable per cycle. A cycle can collect responses anonymously, so no identity is stored against an answer, or it can record authenticated responses where policy requires an auditable link.
Participation is always tracked separately from answers, so you can report who has responded without exposing what any individual said.
Can students complete evaluations on a phone?
Yes. The form is responsive on the web and available in the mobile app, where students reach it from the menu or their profile, answer the questions and submit. In most institutions the majority of responses arrive on a phone.
Which question types are supported?
Rating scales, multiple choice, yes or no, dropdown, matrix grids and free text. Questions are grouped into categories such as teaching quality, course content and institutional support, and each category can carry its own section in the template.
Can evaluation questions be mapped to learning outcomes?
Yes. A question can be mapped to course learning outcomes, programme learning outcomes or graduate attributes, which makes student evaluation usable as indirect evidence of attainment alongside graded work rather than a separate satisfaction score. The attainment computation itself lives in Outcomes & Attainment.
Does it support multiple languages?
Yes. Questions and evaluation forms can be authored in multiple languages so a mixed cohort answers in the language it reads, and results still aggregate to one set of figures per question.
What evidence does an accreditor or reviewer see?
The cycle itself is the record: the template version used, the population it was issued to, the response rate by section, the aggregated results, and the audit log of submissions, access and administrative actions.
Because evaluation runs on the same records as curriculum, registration and outcomes, the figures reconcile with the rest of the institution without a separate collection exercise.
SEE IT ON YOUR OWN CYCLE
Bring one course and one term. We will run the cycle live.
A tailored proof session uses your questions, your sections and your evaluation policy. Leave with a named, dated next step.