Procedures

Student Evaluation of Course and Teaching - Procedures

Printer-friendly version
Body

1.0    Purpose and Scope

This procedure outlines the processes and requirements for preparing and delivering Student Evaluation of Course and Teaching (SECaT) surveys and Student Evaluation of Tutors (SETutor) surveys, which are centrally administered by the Student Surveys and Evaluations Team (SSET) in the Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation (ITaLI).

This procedure applies to all students and staff at UQ and is limited to SECaT and SETutor surveys.

This procedure does not apply to surveys that might arise for systematic and regular reviews of shorter-form credentials and pathway programs and courses, or from research projects that employ survey methods.

Corporate and administrative surveys may be administered on a regular and ad hoc basis to canvass student opinions on other topics (for example, public transport usage). Student surveys other than SECaT and SETutor fall within the scope of the Student Survey Guideline.

2.0    Process and Key Controls

This procedure describes the administration of the SECaT and SETutor surveys used to collect feedback from students on their educational experiences. It describes which courses and staff members are eligible to be surveyed, the schedule for those surveys, the processes of data collection, and the data access control levels that are in place for staff.

To the extent applicable, the administration of SECaT and SETutor surveys will comply with relevant policies, procedures, and guidelines including, but not necessarily limited to, the following:

3.0    Evaluation Procedure

3.1    Course and Teaching Evaluation Instruments

UQ undertakes internal quality assurance surveys to evaluate key aspects of the course and learning experiences of students, including:

  • SECaT survey - this survey gives students the opportunity to provide feedback on their educational experiences in relation to the course and teaching practices within a course in which they are enrolled.

  • SETutor survey - this survey gives students the opportunity to provide feedback on their educational experiences and a Tutor’s teaching practices within a course in which they are enrolled.

  • The SECaT and SETutor surveys use standardised questionnaires, which are formally reviewed and revised by the University’s Teaching and Learning Committee. Questions that appear on the SECaT and SETutor surveys are available on ITaLI’s Student Evaluation of Course and Teacher (SECaT) website. No personalised or customised questions may be added to SECaT and SETutor surveys.

  • These questionnaires are included in the Schedule of this procedure.

3.2    Student Evaluation of Course and Teacher (SECaT)

SECaT distribution should be managed such that it maximises student engagement. Only those making a reasonable contribution to the teaching of a course should be registered to evaluate with the course via SECaTs. To ascertain a reasonable contribution a threshold teaching load is defined in Section 8. This definition will allow identification of teaching staff from University data in order to issue the SECaTs for appropriate staff members. SECaT surveys are administered by SSET, ITaLI.

SECaT surveys are administered for every course with 5 or more (≥5) enrolments each time it is taught and for every teacher with a Threshold Teaching Load (defined in Section 8) on a course entered in the University’s curriculum management system.

A SECaT survey may be administered for staff who teach only in the first half of a year-long course at the end of their teaching semester. If staff, who are teaching across the full year, would like feedback mid-year then they should engage interim feedback techniques suggested in the Assuring and Enhancing Course and Teaching Quality Guideline.

To enable SECaT surveys to be generated automatically, schools should ensure, that the course coordinator and teaching staff for each course are recorded correctly in the curriculum management system, by the census date of each semester.

Schools may choose to self-administer surveys for guest lecturers and staff who do not undertake a Threshold Teaching Load on a course. These surveys may contain customised question sets about a course or teaching.

3.2.1    Exemption from SECaT

Any course with one-to-one supervision (including a thesis or clinical placement), is exempt from the SECaT requirements and processes set out in section 3.2 of this procedure. Schools are required to provide a list of exempt courses to SSET every semester.

There may, however, be instances when it is appropriate for an exemption from the SECaT requirements set out in section 3.2 of this procedure to apply to courses outside of thesis-based courses or clinical placement. An exemption may be applicable to the course, the teaching, or both. If the course coordinator and the School Director of Teaching and Learning consider that an exemption is appropriate, a confirmation email is required to be sent to SSET from the School Director of Teaching and Learning with a copy to the Faculty's Associate Dean (Academic). A copy of the email is to be kept on record by SSET and recorded in standard reporting processes to faculties and schools.

The full list of SECaT-exempt courses will be recorded by SSET and made available to the University’s Teaching and Learning Committee upon request.

3.3    Student Evaluation of Tutors (SETutor)

Engagement in the SETutor process is not compulsory. For the purpose of this procedure, Tutor is defined in section 8 below.

A SETutor survey should not be administrated for a staff member if they are evaluated by a SECaT survey for the same course during the same evaluation period. This is to mitigate survey fatigue for student cohorts. For year long courses, a SETutor survey may be administered for individual Tutors in Semester 1 and 2.

A SETutor survey is administered at the course level with 5 or more (≥ 5) enrolments, as one (1) SETutor evaluation per Tutor, per course, including where the Tutor delivers multiple tutorials/laboratories across different modes of instruction for one course.

Additionally, SETutor is only administered for Tutors upon request to SSET by the relevant School. SSET can create SETutor surveys when a school opts in to centrally administrated SETutor surveys and assigns Tutors to such a role in the curriculum management system.

3.4    Standard Evaluation Schedule

SECaT and SETutor surveys:

  • are administered online

  • are administered within the following standard schedule:

    • are typically open for 3 weeks at the end of Semester, including Summer Semester. For a 13 week semester the surveys are opened on Monday of week 12.

    • close immediately before the Revision/Examination Period shown in the Academic Calendar

  • may be administered outside the standard schedule on request (see section 3.4.1 of this procedure).

The standard schedules are published and updated on the ITaLI website each semester according to the UQ academic calendar.

Notwithstanding section 3.2, unless approved by Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning), no other internal or external surveys should be administered concurrently with SECaT or SETutor evaluations. This includes surveys that target UQ’s student population or a randomised sample of the whole cohort. Please refer to the Student Survey Guideline.

3.4.1    SECaT/SETutor Surveys Outside the Standard Schedules

SECaT/SETutor surveys can be administered outside the standard schedule when courses are taught in intensive mode or offered outside of the standard semester timetables.

To facilitate these evaluations, schools must provide SSET with a list of courses two weeks before courses commence teaching with non-standard teaching start and end dates.

It is recommended that SECaT and SETutor surveys administered outside of the standard schedule remain open for a period of not more than 3 weeks.

No SECaT or SETutor surveys that are administered outside the standard schedule will open, re-open or close on a public holiday or be kept open during the University’s official business close periods to ensure that technical support is available to staff and students.

When SECaT or SETutor surveys are administered outside the standard schedule, the schools are responsible for communicating the relevant SECaT and SETutor survey dates to the relevant students and staff to avoid any confusion and miscommunication.

Reports for evaluations outside standard schedules will only be distributed after students’ grades are released, refer to Reporting section 4.0 of this procedure.

3.5    Language Scan

3.5.1    Language scan process

Student feedback should be honest, constructive, and respectful to improve the quality of teaching and learning. UQ acknowledges that (at times), valuable feedback may include critical language conveyed in a negative tone.

However, student feedback that is reasonably considered to be abusive, malicious, discriminatory or are breaches of the Student Code of Conduct Policy, Student Integrity and Misconduct Policy and/or Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom Policy will not be accepted. The University can take measures to scan for any feedback suggesting a threat of harm to self or others, or the use of any abusive, malicious or discriminatory language. This process is referred to in this section as the “Language Scan”.

SSET is responsible for the Language Scan process. It maintains a language scan dictionary (“the dictionary”) that detects and identifies language, behaviours or actions that are harmful to the safety and wellbeing of staff and students. Any words or phrases that are identified in the automated scanning process are then manually reviewed by SSET.

The Language Scan process is undertaken for all SECaT and SETutor evaluations. SSET forwards comments flagged (at SSET’s discretion) to the Director of ITaLI for review. The Director of ITaLI (or a person nominated by the Director) can approve words, phrases and/or sentences to be redacted from the evaluation reports.

Where an entire comment has been approved to be redacted by the Director of ITaLI in the Language Scan process, all associated ratings given by the students to all quantitative questions will be deleted from the evaluation reports before processing the scores and releasing the report to staff and in UQ’s Reportal. The Language scan is undertaken prior to releasing evaluation reports to staff.

UQ Staff may request the inclusion of additional words in the Dictionary by notifying the Associate Dean (Academic) who will then request the University's Teaching and Learning Committee to consider and endorse the proposed inclusion.

3.5.2    Staff request to redact or remove student comments

Upon receiving a SECaT or SETutor report, a staff member may request to have comments containing abusive, malicious or, discriminatory, language redacted from the relevant report and UQ’s Reportal, which were not identified during the Language Scan process. To do so the staff member can submit a request with support from the Head of School (or nominee) to the Associate Dean (Academic) who can, if satisfied, submit the endorsed request to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) (or nominee) for approval.

Where approval to remove text is granted, the comments and scores will be redacted and associated quantitative scores will be deleted.

3.5.3    Staff request to access unedited qualitative data (comments)

A staff member through their Head of School may make a request to SSET to access the unedited version of students’ comments. The staff member should provide reasons as to why the unedited version should be released to them. At their discretion, the Head of School can decide whether it is appropriate to release the unedited version of students’ comments to the staff member. If the Head of School considers it to be appropriate, SSET will release a copy of unedited students’ comments in PDF format to the Head of School to provide to the staff member. The identity of the student remains confidential and will not be disclosed to the Head of School or staff member.

3.6    Closing the Feedback Loop

Course coordinators are encouraged to provide a summary of evaluation outcomes, as well as how they have responded to comments received, to students in the next cohort. This information may be recorded on the Blackboard site and discussed in the first class of the semester.

All students can request course coordinators to provide summaries of evaluation results from the previous offering of each course.

4.0    Recording and Reporting

4.1    Evaluation Reporting

Evaluation reports are distributed to staff after the official release date of final grades each semester specified in the UQ academic calendar.

To protect student confidentiality, evaluation reports will only be distributed when a single survey meets the reportable data threshold (5 or more (≥5) responses). Where there are fewer than 5 responses, no numerical analysis and/or comments will be disclosed in evaluation reports.

When a SECaT or SETutor survey meets the reportable data threshold, the following evaluation reports will be available:

  • SECaT Course Reports – these reports contain the results from the quantitative questions only, and do not contain any comments from students. These reports are publicly accessible through the UQ’s Reportal.

  • Individual SECaT Teaching reports – these reports are available in UQ’s Reportal as well as through the Individual Activity Profile (IAP).

  • School-level summary reports – these reports are based on SECaT and SETutor surveys and are available in the UQ’s Reportal.

SSET provides a semester-based executive summary to the University’s Teaching and Learning Committee for internal quality assurance purposes and other reports upon request. Semester-based summary reports generally include:

  • SECaT response rates and survey effectiveness aggregated at university levels, including the number of courses that do not meet the reportable data threshold

  • SECaT question-level analyses aggregated at university levels

  • Additional analyses that may be undertaken as required dependent on strategic priorities as well as responding to other committees and senior executives.

4.2    Staff access to Evaluation Reports in Reportal

4.2.1    Staff access to evaluation reports by role

Individual Evaluation reports from SECaTs and SETutors are distributed to the appropriate staff member. The identity of students remains confidential within SSET. Student identities are not disclosed to individual staff.

Evaluation Reports are also available through UQ’s Reportal. Staff members may access reports through the Reportal according to their roles and the following business rules:

  1. Individual teachers – All their own individual teaching results at the question item level for SECaT teaching questions.

  2. Course coordinators - All quantitative, qualitative, past, and present results related to the specific course, including the teaching results of all members of teaching staff involved in the course delivery.
    New course coordinators can request access to all quantitative, qualitative, past, and present results related to the specific course they are new to coordinating, including the teaching results of all members of teaching staff involved in the past delivery of the course.

  3. Heads of School - All quantitative, qualitative, past, and present results of all individual course and teaching evaluations, School SECaT Summary (course and teaching) and School SETutor Summary reports for the School.

  4. Executive Deans and Associate Deans (Academic) - All quantitative, qualitative, past, and present results of all individual course and teaching evaluations, School SECaT Summary (course and teaching) and School SETutor Summary Reports for the schools in the Faculty.

  5. Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning), President of the Academic Board - All quantitative, qualitative, past, and present results of all course and teaching evaluations, School SECaT Summary (course and teaching) and School SETutor Summary Reports.

  6. All staff and students – Quantitative results of course evaluations only (without comments) through UQ’s Reportal and other UQ dashboards as appropriate.

4.2.2    Staff delegations to access evaluation reports

Heads of School, Associate Deans (Academic), Executive Deans, and University Executives may delegate their authority of access in UQ’s Reportal to other UQ staff members who have responsibility for teaching and learning or reviews of performance. Any delegation of authority must be provided to SSET in writing and renewed each year.

SSET conducts an annual audit of SECaT/SETutor report access at the beginning of an academic year. Changes of academic leadership roles and/or staff with delegated authority access taking place before the next annual report access audit must be provided to SSET in writing and updated with Planning and Business Intelligence (PBI).

4.2.3    Raw data exports

UQ staff may request SSET to export raw data of course and teaching evaluation in the de-identified format. The level and scope of raw data export are aligned with the UQ staff’s role and report access rules listed in section 4.2.1 of this procedure.

Raw data is not available when a single survey does not meet the reportable data threshold, receiving less than 5 (<5) responses.

4.3    Evaluation Data Recording

The use, analysis and storage of SECaT and SETutor survey data must follow the University Information Management Policy. SSET can provide guidance on the appropriate use, analysis, and storage of the survey data.

SSET manages collecting, exporting, and updating SECaT and SETutor results, and reviews the reporting structure and data access in UQ’s Reportal.

PBI manages recording, reporting and storing SECaT and SETutor results in Reportal as required (see sections 4.1 and 4.2 of this procedure).

Both business units will keep adequate records as outlined in the Keeping Records at UQ Procedure.

Evaluation data recorded in UQ’s Reportal is primarily used for the annual programs, plans and courses quality assurance process, as well as for comprehensive cyclical reviews of undergraduate and postgraduate coursework programs, septennial school reviews, and for the monitoring of the quality of teaching and student outcomes within courses, as outlined in the Programs Plans and Courses Quality Policy.

Evaluation data used for any purposes other than those outlined in this procedure or the relevant policies and guidelines must be approved by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) and in compliance with other relevant policies and procedures.

4.4    Data Confidentiality

The University will ensure that all data is collected and managed in accordance with University policies and relevant privacy laws, including the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). Students are requested not to self-identify and student identities remain confidential and are not released to teaching staff. However, if the student does self-identify the teaching staff are not to contact individual students about their responses to SECaT and/or SETutor surveys.

The University is not to provide information that will identify a student who responds to the SECaT or SETutor survey unless required elsewhere in this procedure or by law.

5.0    University’s Evaluation and Wellbeing of Staff and Students

Where comments collected through the SECaT and/or SETutor surveys do not meet the standards of behaviour expected of students (UQ standards), as defined in the Student Code of Conduct, and conduct that is prohibited (misconduct) as outlined in the behaviours or actions that are relevant to the Student Code of Conduct Policy, the Director of ITaLI, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning), or their nominee, may refer the matter to be dealt with in accordance with the Student Integrity and Misconduct Policy.

When identifying any intention, behaviours, or actions that suggest a threat of harm to self or others, SSET forwards comments identified to the Manager of Student Incidents and Support (or nominee) to work with the Associate Dean of the relevant faculty (or nominee) to determine what, if any, action needs to be taken following the relevant University’s procedure and protocols.

Comments that appear to contain threats to any student or staff, or that are perceived to be abusive, malicious or, discriminatory to the extent they may constitute misconduct or serious misconduct, will be handled according to relevant UQ policies relating to student and staff misconduct, and the UQ Enterprise Agreement.

6.0    Roles, Responsibilities, and Accountabilities

SSET is responsible for assessing UQ’s compliance with the student evaluation survey requirements in the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth) (TEQSA Act) via a range of mechanisms including:

  • Advising the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) on this procedure’s validity, currency and requirements

  • Providing training opportunities and awareness-raising materials to enable UQ staff to meet obligations under this procedure.

  • Consider relevant Policies as outlined in Section 2 of this procedure, when undertaking the language scan process.

7.0    Monitoring, Review, and Assurance

This procedure is monitored by the University’s Teaching and Learning Committee and will be reviewed every 5 years. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) oversees the compliance with this procedure across the University and will manage the review of this procedure and/or its associated Schedules as required.

8.0    Definitions

Threshold Teaching Load” means a teaching load carried by an individual teacher with responsibility in a course for 4 or more sessions that:

  • each cover new material (i.e. not a repeat)

  • include lectures, tutorials or active learning sessions or a combination of these

  • may or may not include associated assessment

Tutor - means an individual that:

  • has an academic appointment in Workday and an Aurion number; and

  • leads classes, tutorials, workshops, labs, practical sessions, problem-based learning, case based learning, clinical sessions, drop-in sessions, study sessions, or groups online. (A Tutor must lead a consistent group of students for at least four sessions.)

A Tutor does not include support staff who provide incidental support or technical assistance to students in teaching spaces/labs.

It is anticipated that the above requirements will exclude certain teaching support staff including demonstrators and peer led learning Tutors.

Schedules

SECaT Course questions, effective Semester 2 2020 onwards:

  1. I had a clear understanding of the aims and goals of the course.

  2. The course was intellectually stimulating.

  3. The course was well structured.

  4. Course experiences, tools or materials were useful for my learning.

  5. Assessment requirements were made clear to me.

  6. I received helpful personal or group feedback on how I was going in the course (in person or online).

  7. I learned a lot in this course.

  8. Overall, how would you rate this course?

  9. What were the best aspects of this course?

  10. What improvements would you suggest?

SECaT Teacher questions, effective Semester 2 2020 onwards:

  1. …was well organised.

  2. …was good at explaining things.

  3. …was approachable and treated students with respect (in person or online).

  4. …stimulated my interest in the field of study.

  5. …inspired me to learn (in person or online).

  6. …encouraged student input (in person or online).

  7. …was available and responsive (in person or online).

  8. Overall, how would you rate this teacher?

  9. What aspects of this teacher’s approach best helped your learning?

  10. What would you have liked this teacher to have done differently?

SETutor questions:

  1. …was well prepared.

  2. …communicated clearly (in person or online).

  3. …was approachable and treated students with respect (in person or online).

  4. …inspired me to learn.

  5. …encouraged student input (in person or online).

  6. …gave helpful personal or group advice or feedback (in person or online).

  7. Overall, how would you rate this tutor?

  8. What aspects of this tutor’s approach to teaching best helped your learning?

  9. What would you have liked this tutor to have done differently?

Custodians
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) Professor Doune Macdonald

Guidelines

Student Survey - Guideline

Printer-friendly version
Body

1.0    Purpose and Scope

This Guideline supplements the Programs, Plans and Courses Quality Assurance Policy and supports the application of the Student Evaluation of Course and Teaching Procedure.

This Guideline sets out the principles and requirements for surveys of students enrolled at the University of Queensland (UQ) expects that surveys:

  1. are of an appropriate quality

  2. adhere to appropriate ethical standards

  3. do not duplicate data collection conducted through other channels

  4. are disseminated and utilised appropriately

  5. are released at a time that does not compromise students’ attention to mandated survey

  6. do not make unreasonable demands on students’ time. 

This Guideline provides information on student survey approval processes and explains the criteria used to evaluate survey approvals. It applies to all students, staff, and external stakeholders requesting to survey UQ students.

1.1    In-scope surveys

In-scope surveys include, but are not limited to:

  1. internal quality assurance surveys (e.g. surveys conducted for quality audit or strategic planning purposes, or by the University and its organisational units in respect of teaching, learning and the student experience)

  2. internal market research surveys (to students)

  3. internal surveys of student attitudes and opinions (e.g. satisfaction surveys and climate surveys to gauge student perceptions of their experience at the University)

  4. surveys conducted as part of cyclic review processes (e.g. Academic Program Reviews and School Reviews)

  5. surveys commissioned by Government departments or agencies, or other external individuals or organisations.

In-scope student recipient groups

In-scope student recipient groups include, but are not limited to:

  1. undergraduate and postgraduate coursework students

  2. domestic and international students

  3. student users of a UQ-delivered service or experience.

1.2    Out of scope surveys

This Guideline does not apply to the following surveys:

  1. matters within the scope of the Ethics Committee

  2. surveys to future students, graduates, and non-student stakeholders in the University’s educational endeavour

  3. surveys conducted by individual academic staff with only those students enrolled in their courses as part of course and teaching quality assurance and enhancement outlined in Assuring and Enhancing Course and Teaching Quality Guideline.

  4. surveys undertaken by academic staff for the purposes of academic research, that span fewer than 500 students

  5. general calls for stakeholder opinions, with less than 500 students, that are made through faculty, school or student newsletters, social media (e.g., a course Facebook site), organisational unit websites (Blackboard site), UQ Marketing and Communications data gathering or general communications

  6. professional/accreditation agency surveys and moderation.

2.0    Key Student Survey Principles

Student surveys inform:

  1. mandated quality assurance processes and frameworks, including Programs, Plans and Courses Quality Assurance, Academic Program Reviews, and the School Reviews

  2. product development, digital tool acquisition, and other activities designed to support and improve the student experience

  3. improvement in the delivery of learning and student experiences for current and future students

  4. quality assurance and benchmarking processes.

Surveys may be required or requested by external agencies including the federal government, regulatory bodies, and professional accreditation agencies. They may be administrated occasionally, cyclically, or annually.

Student participation must be voluntary.

All student surveys must comply with relevant university policies outlined in section 2 of the Student Evaluation of Course and Teaching Procedure.

3.0    Student Survey Approval

All surveys within the scope of this Guideline must be approved by the Head of School, the Head of an Organisational unit, an Associate Dean (Academic) (ADA) of a relevant faculty or the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) before contacting and/or distributing to students.

Once a survey is approved, the applicant or decision maker should check the Student Survey Calendar, before the distribution of the survey, to ensure there are no significant overlaps in survey distributions. The applicant or decision maker should then send the survey details (title, cohort surveyed and date of survey) to the Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation (ITaLI), Student Surveys and Evaluations Team (SSET) (evaluations@uq.edu.au) to allow the student survey calendar to be updated.

Applicants requesting to administer a student survey should provide the decision maker with details of the survey design, methodology, targeted cohort and timing. SSET is available to review and provide input on surveys should the applicant or decision maker require advice on survey design, methodology or possible timing.

3.1    Roles, Responsibilities, and Accountabilities

Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning)

  • decision maker for University-wide student surveys
  • advising the ITaLI SSET of the survey approval result and details of the survey (title, cohort surveyed and date of survey) to allow recording of the survey in the Student Survey Calendar.
  • advising applicants on the result of their survey request
  • monitoring compliance within the Guideline

Associate Deans (Academic), Heads of School and Organisational Units

  • decision maker for Faculty, School or Organisational unit student surveys
  • advising the ITaLI SSET of the survey approval result and details of the survey (title, cohort surveyed and date of survey) to allow recording of the survey in the Student Survey Calendar
  • advising applicants on the result of their survey request

ITaLI SSET

  • maintaining a Student Survey Calendar that allows the relevant decision maker to evaluate the proposed timing of the student survey
  • providing advice on the design and methodology of the survey when requested.

Applicants requesting to administer a survey

  • checking the Student Survey Calendar to ensure dates don’t conflict with other major surveys or fall in survey block out periods
  • provide the decision maker with details of the survey design, methodology, target cohort and timing so they can provide approval for the survey to be conducted.
  • ensuring the survey is administered in alignment with the Student Survey Guideline.

4.0    Monitoring, Review, and Assurance

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) will review this Guideline as required.

5.0    Recording and Reporting

The list of approved surveys will be tabled at the University’s Teaching, Learning and Student Experience Committee for noting biannually.

The person/organisational unit administering the survey is responsible for ensuring the storage of the data collected from the surveys aligns with the Information Management Policy.

Custodians
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) Professor Doune Macdonald

Guidelines

Assuring and Enhancing Course and Teaching Quality - Guidelines

Printer-friendly version
Body

1.0    Purpose and Scope

These guidelines supplement the Programs, Plans and Courses Quality Assurance Policy and support the application of the Student Evaluation of Course and Teaching Procedure.

The University of Queensland (the University or UQ) has a variety of mechanisms and processes in place to ensure its students’ educational experience is of the highest standard and quality. The University is also subject to various regulatory requirements, including the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards 2021, that require its accredited course and teaching to be continuously monitored, reviewed and improved.

The Annual Programs, Plans and Courses Quality Assurance Policy and Academic Program Review (APR) Procedure, establishes formal quality assurance mechanisms and processes to review and monitor the quality of Programs, Plans and Quality. The University also implements evaluation tools called Student Evaluation of Course and Teacher (SECaT) and Student Evaluation of Tutor (SETutor) surveys that are administered at the end of semester or at the completion of a course via standard questionnaires.

These formal quality assurance mechanisms and processes reflect the University’s commitment to “offer rich and varied educational experiences that are designed to foster a sense of belonging while equipping our students to be leaders within their fields with the agility to thrive in a global environment”. However, the University acknowledges the end of semester evaluations do not enable teaching staff to understand and make much-needed changes before the completion of courses, nor do standard questionnaires always help schools or staff identify targeted needs for developing teaching capacity and enhancing practice.

Additionally, some courses, for example, clinical courses, are exempt from the SECaT process. Evaluation of these courses is recommended, and the practices outlined in this guideline may be appropriate to gather feedback from students and/or colleagues.

This guideline suggests a framework for good practice around ensuring and enhancing course and teaching quality by explaining contrasting and complementary evaluation options. By outlining the different mechanisms available to measure minimum teaching standards, this guideline aims to help university staff develop their capacity as teachers while also providing supplementary evidence that satisfies the University’s quality assurance responsibilities.

The guideline also provides information about a variety of existing evaluation and enhancement methods that go beyond and before mandatory end of semester student evaluations. Faculties, schools, and academic staff may wish to consider using multiple methods when designing, reviewing, and developing courses and enhancing the quality of their courses and teaching. In addition to other strategies, staff can use self-reflection, peer-review (observation) of teaching, and interim evaluations of students’ feedback collected during the course to enhance their course content and quality of teaching.

To enable UQ’s strategic vision and quality assurance requirements, course and teaching quality assurance and enhancement mechanisms are outlined below and can also be used as formative evaluations. These mechanisms can collect data and inform the formal quality assurance processes such as APR and accreditation reviews. They are typically designed and administered at a school and faculty level, and address local needs and questions, rather than through a central organisational unit.

2.0    Evaluation Methods for Assuring and Enhancing Course and Teaching Quality

Interim evaluations typically respond to data collected while a course offering is in progress, helping teaching staff make appropriate adjustments and amendments before the course finishes.

Interim evaluations require additional time and resources but should not be a barrier to engagement. They should be viewed as a valuable investment that improves the likelihood of achieving a successful and productive iteration of the course.

UQ supports a range of evaluation methods for course and teaching quality assurance and enhancement, including;

  • peer feedback on teaching and self-reflection;
  • informal student feedback

    • custom designed surveys administered during the course

    • qualitative data

  • external surveys or moderation required or requested by external agencies including federal government and professional/accreditation agencies.

2.1    Peer feedback and self-reflection

2.1.1    Peer Feedback

Peer feedback is a voluntary and collaborative process in which academic partners work together to understand and improve their teaching practices. Comprehensive peer feedback on teaching quality can address classroom teaching as well as intellectual and scholarly work. A peer might provide comment on an academic’s course-related written materials, teaching and assessment practices, scholarly work around teaching, professional development, and educational research. School communities may commit to introducing peer observation schemes as part of their own internal processes. Peer feedback can be organised and conducted at school and/or faculty levels, as well as through services provided by Institute of Teaching and Learning Innovation (ITaLI) for professional development purposes.

UQ supports mechanisms for peer feedback, including:

  • Peer Observation
    Teachers invite colleagues (internal and external to UQ) into their classes to observe what their students are doing before reflecting and meeting to discuss ways to enhance teaching and learning. Peer observers assist in the reviewing and reflection processes, with the aim of improving teaching and highlighting good practice for wider dissemination. Peer observation materials can be found on the ITaLI website - Peer Observation.

  • Peer Review through Higher Education Academy (HEA) Fellowship
    The HEA Fellowship Scheme, offered through ITaLI, provides recognition of expertise in academic practice through a robust peer review process. The HEA Fellowship is a form of international recognition and staff may apply for recognition as a HEA Fellow at one of several levels depending on their expertise, experience, and impact. Application for HEA Fellowship recognition involves writing of a reflective portfolio of achievement; this writing process is a valuable professional development opportunity. The portfolio is benchmarked and reviewed against accepted standards of practice. For more information, visit ITaLI HEA.

Peer feedback provides an important stimulus for self-reflection. The process of self-reflection is individual and support is available from the ITaLI website.

2.1.2    Open Course Scheme

The Open Course Scheme (OSC) provides an opportunity for staff to visit classrooms to observe high standards of teaching at UQ. Observing colleagues allows staff to witness new ideas, see pedagogies being implemented, rediscover traditional approaches, or validate current practices.

For more information, visit: ITaLI - Open Course Scheme.

2.2    Informal student feedback

Methods to collect informal student feedback can be administered by schools or teachers with the aim of improving course design and teaching during course implementation. Staff can seek advice and consultation from the Student Surveys and Evaluations Team to assist in the designing and administering of in-class student feedback using the survey method.

Staff do not need to seek approval for the administration of surveys, qualitative data collection, or polls, that seek in class student feedback, but may need to seek UQ ethics approval if there is consideration of future publications or presentations of any data collected in this manner. Please refer to the details in the Student Survey Guideline.

The University supports tools that invite and collect student feedback. See ITaLI’s website for University-licenced tools and platforms that can be employed for in-class student feedback.

2.2.1    Interviews

Interviews can be one-on-one interactions between an interviewer and an interviewee or a group interview. Unlike a focus group, an interview is designed to extract individualised experiences, not a consensus. Interviews can be conducted via telephone, video conference (like Zoom), or face-to-face.

Interviews may be used for:

  • eliciting narratives

  • verification of facts in context

  • measuring attitudes

  • exploring individual differences between participants' experiences and outcomes

  • understanding the meaning of a program to its participants.

2.2.2    Focus groups

Focus groups usually involve 8-10 people but the minimum effective size is 5-6. They are highly structured, interactive, and the facilitator needs to be attentive to group interaction. Unlike group interviews, the focus group aims to attain a consensus view. Focus groups should be conducted face-to-face or via video conference as the interactions and non-verbal responses are as important as the verbal.

Focus groups may be used for:

  • informing the design of survey instruments

  • drawing insights on specific issues

  • accessing perspectives of the reluctant

  • examining or investigating events as they unfold

  • testing new ideas/products/services.

2.2.3    Students as Partners activities

Students as Partners (SaP) can provide crucial insights and evidence of learning. When students are positioned as partners in learning, they become active participants with valuable expertise to shape learning, teaching, and assessment.

The Faculty of Science has a formalised student partner activity whereby students are employed to observe a course or initiative to provide a fuller picture of learning and engagement within the course.

These in-class observations by trained student observers, combined with surveys and focus groups, can be used to gather evidence and share observations and data with course teachers.

2.2.4    Open Response Questionnaire

The Open Response Questionnaire consists of five open-ended questions: two relating to the teaching, and three relating to the course.

Academics may use the completed Open Response Questionnaire to receive feedback. The University will ensure that all data is collected and managed in accordance with the relevant University policies and privacy legislation, including the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld).

Custodians
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) Professor Doune Macdonald
Custodians
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) Professor Doune Macdonald