HE Course and Module Evaluation Conference - Suzanne Cholerton
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like754 views
This document discusses Newcastle University's approach to module evaluation as a tool to improve teaching quality. It provides an overview of the university and the context for module evaluations. It describes the process of implementing online module evaluations across the university using a centralized system with common questions. It discusses challenges engaging both staff and students, and strategies used. It concludes by reflecting on lessons learned and plans for continued improvements.
HE Course and Module Evaluation Conference - Suzanne Cholerton
- 1. A consistent approach to the evaluation of teaching: a tool for ‘Raising the Bar’ Professor Suzanne Cholerton PVC (Learning and Teaching)
- 2. What’s included • Overview of Newcastle University • Module evaluation in context • Process and outcomes • Challenges for staff and students • Engaging staff and students • What have we learned? • What’s next?
- 3. 3 Newcastle University • Vision • We aim to be a world-class, research-intensive university, to deliver teaching and facilitate learning of the highest quality, and to play a leading role in the economic, social and cultural development of the North East of England. • Structure • 3 Faculties; 24 Schools; 11 Research Institutes • Students • UG - 16,000 (+1000 at overseas campuses) • PG – 6000 (4000 Taught) • Staff • 5300 (+120 at overseas campuses)
- 4. Module Evaluation in Context • Project 2012 – Institutional response to the significant changes in HE – What do I get in return for my £9k fee? • Drivers – Quality assurance of provision – Reward and recognition – Students as partners • Approach – Consistency – The use of a single system – A common set of questions (including staff-specific) – Migration away from paper to online – Academic Unit ownership 4
- 5. Module evaluation - the process • 2011/12: – Development of core questions including staff specific – Began to re-consider policy Purchase of Evasys • 2012/13: – All modules evaluated using core questions – Piloted in eight schools in Semester 1 and 14 in Semester 2 – Introduced wider range of question sets – Evaluation of core questions and system by staff though Evasys • 2013/14: – EvaSys use a requirement for all modules – Included staff specific questions – All campuses involved – All evaluation online – Additional questions sets and module specific question facility available 5
- 6. 6 Fieldtrip Core Summary Staff specific Module specific 3. Fieldtrip modules Design, Studio or Performance Core Summary Staff specific Module specific 4. Design, Studio or performance modules Module Evaluation Question Structures Supervision focussed Clinical CBPS Core Summary Staff specific Module specific 5. Clinical CBPS modules Independent study Core Summary Module specific 2. Independent Study modules Supervision focussed Staff specific Supervision focussed Core Summary Staff specific Seminar core Module specific Practical sessions core School staff specific 1. Most modules School or Subject specific Group/ Team work core Compulsory set of centrally owned questions Optional set of centrally owned questions School can choose whether to write and use these questions
- 7. Module evaluation - the process continued • 2014/15: – 1068 modules evaluated in Semester 1 – 695 staff contributors – 105,387 individual evaluations – 52,774 responses = average response rate 50% (48% in 2013/14)
- 8. Success is dependent upon winning hearts and minds
- 9. Challenges for staff • Change management – System – Access and data use – Standardisation • Staff concerns about use of online rather than paper evaluations. Common worries include: – Response rates – Electronic interface encourages students to write inappropriate comments – Which students respond 9
- 10. Engaging staff throughout the process • Involvement of academic and administrative staff at all stages (including sceptics) • Broad consultation • Treating concerns sensitively • Explain the rationale and demonstrate the benefits • Work with academic units and individuals to address issues • Provision of supporting materials for academic and administrative staff for their use and for use with students
- 12. Challenges for students • Barriers to student understanding and engagement with evaluation process - Concerns about anonymity - Lack of knowledge about how feedback is used - ‘Survey fatigue’ • Skills gap: lack of guidance/support for students about how to give constructive feedback 12
- 13. Engaging students: central support • Invitation emails • ‘You Said, We Did’ webpage • Video interviews • Staff Student Committees • ‘Thinking About My Evaluation’ campaign week, in collaboration with NUSU 13
- 15. Thinking About My Evaluation Campaign 15
- 16. Engaging students: good practice in Schools • Induction lectures • Shout outs in teaching sessions • Staff photos on VLE • Student newsletters • Discussion forums and text messaging 16
- 17. What have we learned? • That investing in the system gets you only part of the way • More about culture change than system implementation • Getting policy right is crucial • Impossible to get core questions agreed by all • Efforts need to be sustained • Collecting staff specific feedback presents challenges and opportunities • Students need to see their feedback is being considered
- 18. What’s next? • Continue to support schools with implementation and use of outputs • Benchmarking and interpretation of scores • Continued work with EvaSys on information flow and reporting • Increased use of data in promotions and annual PDR • The use of Evasys for consistency in stage evaluation • MyImpact (T) 18
- 19. THANK YOU 19