Beyond SELT updates

New SELT Pilot

  • Pilot progress

      The Beyond SELT Steering Committee has decided that the SELT pilot will finish at the end of May 2019. The decision about the future state will be taken then. This means that Semester 1 and Autumn SELT will be deployed using the new survey and processes.

  • Academic testing

      We are currently testing the new SELT survey results with academic volunteers who have Summer SELT surveys that have closed. This testing will inform the end of Pilot report to be considered by the Beyond SELT Steering Committee.

  • Release of Summer survey results

      PPM will deploy all Summer session survey results at the end of Semester 1. Any College that has Summer courses with marks released before then, and wishes the survey results released before the end of Semester 1, needs to send confirmation (individually or as a bulk request) to the Evaluations Team.

    Proposed Policy and Procedure Revisions

  • Mandatory deployment in sessions

      Currently, SELT surveys are mandatory for all courses taught during semesters but are optional during the seasonal sessions. It is the responsibility of the course convener to ‘request’ a seasonal sessional SELT. However, with the improvements to the exemption processes, and in the systems and processes more generally, there is no longer a technical impediment to utilising every course offering to enhance the quality of teaching, learning, and the student experience, as long as the course data in SAS is complete and accurate.

      It is therefore proposed that SELT becomes mandatory for all courses, no matter when in the year the class is taught. If approved, when exactly this will be fully implemented will be dependent on relevant process and systems changes to take place over 2019.

  • Mandatory teaching surveys

      Currently, SELT teaching surveys are optional and the onus is on the relevant course convener to identify which teaching staff should receive the survey. These survey results are important not only to inform the enhancement of an individual’s teaching, they are also a useful evidence set in promotions. However, the data may not be available if the survey has not been requested by the course convener, thereby having an unintended detrimental impact on colleagues.

      It is therefore proposed that course conveners are no longer required to decide which teaching staff should receive the survey and instead they just need to advise who was involved in teaching the course, including tutors. Participation becomes automatic. If approved, when exactly this is will be fully implemented will be dependent on relevant process and systems changes to take place over 2019.

  • Nomenclature to class surveys

      Currently, SELT is delivered at the level of class but is referred to as a course survey. This is a reflection of the aggregated reporting done at course level. It is also a reflection of the role that the course convener has in the SELT process. If the other policy and procedure changes are approved then we are no longer constrained in our nomenclature. Further, changes to the results reporting structure are currently being explored.

      It is therefore proposed that course evaluations and their associated results are renamed class evaluations.

  • Change to confidential student responses

      Student responses to SELT surveys are currently anonymous. That is, the individual author of a response cannot be identified unless the student chooses to give identifiable information in the qualitative comments or if there are very few respondents. The intent of anonymous responding is that it creates a safe space for honest feedback. There are disadvantages to anonymous responses, however, including that it is very difficult to adequately follow up on responses that indicate:

    • a risk of self-harm
    • a risk of harm to other students or staff
    • the respondent has not met their survey responsibilities as detailed in the policy
    •  

      Confidential responses would mean that while the University would be able to identify which evaluation response was given by a specific student, this information would not be available to the teaching staff. The information would be held in the strictest of confidence in PPM, with extremely limited access.

      The information would only be released to limited key personnel within the University such as the Dean of Students or the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and only where circumstances warranted it.

      It is critically important to ensure the process for confidential surveys gives confidence to students and staff alike, so detailed procedures will be developed and brought to Academic Board via AQAC for approval at its first meeting of 2020. The proposal is to make the change to policy now in order to enable PPM to develop and test the new process through a pilot in Semester 2 2019.

  • Change to distribution of class survey results

      Currently, class survey results are shared with all lecturers involved in the class, regardless of the number of survey responses. This means that tutors and the course convener must rely on the lecturer sharing the results or seek a copy online (if there were sufficient responses for a report to be available online). This does not encourage or support discussion around the quality of the teaching and learning experience amongst the teaching staff.

      It is therefore proposed that class survey results be shared with all staff known to be teaching the class, and the relevant course convener, regardless of the number of responses.

  • Change to distribution of teaching survey results

      Currently, teaching evaluation reports (quantitative and qualitative) are provided only to the immediate staff concerned. In keeping with the new principles, procedures and processes approved by Academic Board (4/17) it is proposed to modify the policy to make teaching evaluation reports (quantitative and qualitative) available to the staff member’s relevant management line. For example, their supervisor, Head of School, Dean, PVC (Education), DVC (Academic).

      Course conveners are no longer required to decide which teaching staff should receive the survey and instead participation becomes automatic. When exactly this is will be fully implemented will be dependent on relevant process and systems changes to take place over 2019.

    Teaching Staff Survey

  • Click for more information

      This working group is chaired by Michael Martin. It has developed a first draft of a survey aimed at collecting feedback from teaching staff. We are now looking to review this draft with some focus groups.

    Peer Course Evaluation Process

  • Click for more information

      This working group is chaired by Glen O’Grady and is progressing a first draft of a proposed process.

    Review of Diagnostic Triggers

  • Click for more information

      This working group is chaired by Anna Cowan. It is developing a suite of triggers that can be used to initiate a course review, as well as considering the evidence required to support and review.

      Triggers being considered include:
      - In line with the Beyond SELT paper considered by Academic Board, the trigger should be the bottom 5% of course satisfaction within a subject area (ideally defined by Alpha code) and College.
      - Accreditation requires that all courses are reviewed at least once every five years.
      - A Dean or Associate Dean (Education) can trigger a course review for a number of reasons including:
    • Grievance
    • Student withdrawals
    • Exit survey (once available)
    • Staff award application
    • Promotion application
    • Moderation history
    • Professional development

    SELT Reporting Review

  • Click for more information

      This is a project run by the Student Survey Working Group, chaired by the PVC (Education). It is in the early stages of exploring the following:

    • elimination of duplication
    • increasing self-service functionality for commonly used reports
    • effectiveness of aggregated reports

    Further Information

    If you need any further information, please contact the Evaluations team.

Updated:  20 March 2019/ Responsible Officer:  Director, Planning & Performance Measurement/ Page Contact:  Evaluations Team