FINAL REVIEW REPORT
Student Feedback, Evaluation and Review, NUI Galway
01/10/2013
REVIEWERS
Professor Alan Davidson, Dean for the Enhancement of Learning, Teaching and Assessment, Robert Gordon
University, Aberdeen, Scotland (Chair); Dr Vicky Gunn, Director of Learning and Teaching Centre, University of
Glasgow, Scotland; Mr Gerry McAleavey, Athrú Consultancy, Dublin (Coordinator)
KEY STRENGTHS OF STUDENT FEEDBACK, EVALUATION AND REVIEW (SFER)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Good intention stated within the current policy objectives and structure
Openness of the policy to allow for local approaches to evolve as appropriate
Clear and reflective Self- Assessment report, confirmed by views expressed during meetings
Willingness of those engaged in the process to engage in a meaningful and enthusiastic manner
Open and honest exchange of views and willingness to share information
Desire among student / class representatives to be fully engaged with and contribute to the operation of the
policy and associated processes and actions
Where the policy has been applied there are positive examples of local evaluation practices within Schools
and Modules
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Clarify the core objectives / functions for the University of SFER, recognising the differences and linkages
between evaluation for Audit and for Learning Enhancement
a. Within the broad policy framework clearly state the underpinning rationale for / objective(s) and
functions of the SFER process. Express the rationale/ objective(s) in terms of actions / processes (i)
undertaken for Audit / Regulatory purposes, to provide confidence in respect of compliance and
input to Institutional reporting and (ii) aimed at Enhancing students’ learning experience and
achievement
b. State the linkage to decision making aimed at improvement and performance enhancement
c. Review existing methodologies to ensure that all participants are aware of the Policy and its specific
requirements and expected outcomes
2. Review / redesign SFER to reflect these objectives / functions within the NUIG organisational context
a. Identify sharp / focussed processes and tools to deliver the objectives in 1. above, recognising that
scope exists for differentiation that reflects different parts of the organisation (Schools, Nonacademic functions / Offices) and different organisational levels (Institution, College, School,
Programme, Module)
b. Ensure that there is “direct line of sight” between each process / tool and the Audit / Regulatory and
Learning Enhancement objectives
c. Identify any key linkages and interdependencies between the processes / tools
1
d. Ensure that the processes allow for identification of emerging trends, status indicators (red, green
flags etc.) and clearly set out the associated reporting requirements
3. Challenge every aspect of the redesign to minimise bureaucracy and administrative load
a. Ensure that each element of the SFER processes (survey and analysis, methodologies, lines and
forms of reporting etc.) has a robust rationale, specific stated outcome and clearly identified value.
b. Optimise all processes through removal of duplication, redundant actions etc.
c. Assign clear roles and responsibilities associated with each process
d. Recognise the importance of on-going dialogue and discussion between academic peers and
academics and students, including the value of both formal and informal regular interaction
e. Integrate Administrative functions into the process as appropriate
f. Develop an appropriate work-flow diagram that outlines all key aspects of the process
4. Communicate the correct information to the appropriate audience using the most effective means and
systems
a. Focus on the critical information e.g. data that has high impact on / relevance for achievement of
student learning outcomes, Institutional governance
b. Direct the information to where it has maximum impact e.g.
i. where change can be authorised and initiated
ii. where information sharing is crucial to delivery of enhanced outcomes
iii. backwards to evaluation contributors, forward to future students and to Class
Representatives and Students Union
5. Link evaluation, analysis and action planning to authority and resources for implementation of
enhancement actions
a. Ensure that responsibility for actions / opportunities arising from SFER is assigned to the institutional
body / role (Academic and Support Services / Offices) which has both the authority to prioritise and
control of the resources required to successfully implement
6. Following redesign of SFER at Institution level (see 2. above) each School should develop protocols which
translate policy into practice locally
a. Clearly identify key steps, lines of reporting and responsibilities
b. Identify the most appropriate focussed tools that fit the School context and organisation (Head of
School through to individual modules and staff)
c. Draw on existing good practices (both local and from across the Institution) that have proven
effective and efficient and which are sustainable and relevant
d. Develop an appropriate work-flow diagram for each School that outlines the above key aspects of
the local process and shows the interface with the Institutional framework set out in 1 to 5 above.
7. Actively use student evaluation to promote student engagement and learning
a. Both the Institutional framework and Local protocols should be explicitly designed to:
i. ensure ease of access by students through vehicles / approaches that will promote and
encourage involvement e.g. input to President’s Teaching Award
ii. build confidence among respondents that their input will be taken seriously and can result in
action
2
b. Evaluations should be designed, with input from Student representatives, to identify ways of
improving student engagement with learning and should where appropriate contain relevant
metrics to assess impact (e.g. student attendance levels, active participation in learning activities)
8. Limit and control the number of evaluations from all sources that a student is expected to complete in any
year
a. Consider centralising elements of the SFER process, utilising a single high level survey to rationalise
aspects of annual evaluation (see 9. below)
b. Draw on other surveys (e.g. Institutional Research Office) for multiple purposes
c. Develop a collaborative cross-Institution oversight and control mechanism to give effect to the
above
9. Centralise, where appropriate, parts of SFER particularly those related to assurance type functions
a. Develop a standardised questionnaire with some facility to reflect specific circumstances, e.g.
School, Programme, Year of study
b. Include a “traffic-light” approach aimed at highlighting individual modules or findings requiring
attention / further investigation / broader dissemination; thus reducing perceived need for annual
surveys for every module
c. Include both Academic and Support functions to capture the “complete student life-cycle and
experience”
10. Maintain a focus on promoting and supporting enhancement at all levels
a. Assess all aspects of the SFER process (frameworks, protocols, survey methodologies) and decisions
against the fundamental added-value criterion of “promoting enhancement of student learning”
b. Draw on and learn from aspects of existing good practice both at the Institutional level e.g. CELT,
Schools and Programmes and individual modules
c. Maintain the purpose and spirit of the current SFER policy
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
•
•
•
Ensure that CELT maintains its leadership in good practice and institutional brokerage role
Review relevant IT systems and websites (e.g. Blackboard and Academic Manual) in order to improve ease of
access to / visibility of information
Extend, where feasible, the practice of regular information sharing meetings between Class Reps and School
staff including senior School leadership (possible pilot trials)
COMMENTS ON REVIEW PROCESS
•
•
•
•
Staff and participants were extremely helpful, accommodating and open
Well organised with comprehensive input
Future such reviews should include Student representatives on the external review team
Future reviews should also include those with budgetary oversight for each College to ensure resources can
follow recommendations at College level as well as at central level
3
Action Plan
Student Feedback, Evaluation and Review
Action Plan meeting held during the AMT meeting of the 9th December 2013
Present: Registrar and Deputy-President (Chair), Vice-President for Innovation and Performance, Vice-President
for the Student Experience, Dean of Arts, Social Sciences and Celtic Studies, Dean of Engineering and Informatics,
Dean of Science, Dean of Graduate Studies, Dean of International Affairs, Academic Secretary
Apologies: Vice-President for Research, Dean of Business, Public Policy and Law
In Attendance: Administrative Officer, Office of the Registrar and Deputy-President, Administrative Officer,
College of Arts, Social Sciences and Celtic Studies, Administrative Officer, College of Business, Public Policy and
Law, Administrative Officer, College of Engineering and Informatics, Administrative Officer, College of Science,
Director of Academic Administration, Director of International Affairs, Director of Strategic Planning, College of
Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Ms. A.M. Leonard, Ms. A. McNena, Human Resource Office (for item 20)
This Action Plan has been agreed by Reviewers and University Management in response to the Review Report.
This Action Plan and the Review Report are now made available on the University’s public website.
Progress on this Action Plan will be followed up by the Quality Office after 12 months.
Action for the Academic Management Team (AMT)
The AMT will establish a Working Group, chaired by the Dean of Science, with the Vice-Deans for Learning and
Teaching, a student representative and a representative from CELT, to implement recommendations made in
the Review Report, developing new guidelines, policies and procedures for Student Feedback, Evaluation and
Review.
Responsible: Registrar and Deputy-President; Due: June 2015
Approved by:
Registrar and Deputy-President
Deans
Director of Quality
5th February 2014
4