1 Course and Unit Evaluation Procedure (Month, 2014)
Related Policy Learning and Teaching Evaluation Policy Reviews Policy
Responsible Officer Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Students and Education)
Approved by Vice-Chancellor Approved and commenced TBC, 2014
Review by TBC, 2017
Responsible Organisational Unit
Learning and Teaching Evaluation Sub-Committee
Student Evaluation Review and Reporting Unit (SERRU) CONTENTS
1
Objective ... 2
2
Scope ... 2
3
Procedure ... 2
3.1
eVALUate ... 2
3.2
Administration of eVALUate ... 2
3.3
Use of eVALUate data ... 3
3.4
Feedback to students ... 3
3.5
Support for teaching staff ... 3
4
Unit evaluation reports ... 3
4.1
Quality assurance of units ... 4
4.2
Unit evaluation reporting ... 4
5
Annual course evaluation reports ... 4
5.1
Quality assurance of courses... 5
5.2
Annual course reporting ... 5
6
Process for assuring courses meet AQF compliance ... 5
6.1
Faculty evaluation of courses ... 5
6.2
Course approval process ... 6
6.3
Course evaluation and alignment to AQF ... 6
7
Definitions and acronyms ... 6
8
Supporting documentation ... 7
9
Template for assessing AQF compliance ... 7
6
Versioning ... 8
Course and Unit Evaluation Procedure
2 Course and Unit Evaluation Procedure (Month, 2014) 1 Objective
The objectives of this Procedure are to:
Inform staff on the processes for student evaluation;
Inform staff on the processes for reporting the evaluation of units and courses at the University.
Inform staff on the processes for assuring that all courses meet and comply with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF).
2 Scope
This Procedure applies to all staff involved in the delivery of teaching of courses and units.
3 Procedure 3.1 eVALUate
eVALUate is a centrally administered electronic survey which generates student feedback on the quality of the units and teaching experienced by students. The data generated about student experience is for improving the design of units and teaching practice. The eVALuate data will inform the following processes:
Teaching performance expectations;
Promotion and probation decisions;
Unit and course reporting;
Course and School reviews.
Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning Reports (SETL) will still be used to inform teaching practice, particularly for promotion decisions.
3.2 Administration of eVALUate
a. eVALUate will be administered online to all units across the university.
b. eVALUate will be administered online to academic staff, including tutors, who request a teaching evaluation survey.
c. The Student Evaluation, Review and Reporting Unit (SERRU) is responsible for the administration of online student evaluation surveys.
d. SERRU in consultation with Centres and Schools will administer eVALUate across all unit offerings, every time the unit is conducted, irrespective of when, how or where the unit is taught.
e. Heads of School or Discipline Leaders may authorise a unit to be delivered in a particular teaching period where evaluation may be beneficial.
f. An institutional response rate strategy will be administered during every evaluation period which includes a shared commitment by academic staff and SERRU staff to increase response rates.
g. Staff are encouraged to inform students on the importance of constructive feedback to improve student learning and teaching practice.
h. Student representatives from the TUU will liaise with SERRU staff on communicating the importance of constructive feedback to improve student learning and teaching practice.
3 Course and Unit Evaluation Procedure (Month, 2014) 3.3 Use of eVALUate data
a. Student evaluation data will be available in the following forms:
Individual lecturer and tutor evaluations;
Individual unit evaluations;
Aggregated evaluations by unit, school and faculty; including percentage of agreement; percentage of disagreement; and response rates.
b. Student evaluation data will be used to inform the regular evaluation of learning and teaching in all units.
c. The Head of School or equivalent will use eVALUate unit data for the following purposes:
To improve the quality of teaching and learning in all units;
To inform full course and school reviews;
To provide data for benchmarking learning and teaching quality within and beyond the University;
To improve the performance of individual staff in the Faculty/School in relation to the quality of teaching; and
To inform the assessment of academic staff in processes such as academic promotion, individual career discussions on performance and academic probation.
d. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Students & Education) will use eVALUate unit data for the following purposes:
To identify areas of good practice;
To identify areas for improvement;
To inform discussions with Heads of School on individual units flagged for improvement.
3.4 Feedback to students
a. Unit coordinators will include information in the unit outline about how results from student evaluation have improved the unit, the next time the unit is offered.
Data aggregated to School and Faculty levels will be publicly available on the SERRU website: see http://www.utas.edu.au/student-evaluation-review-and-reporting-unit/
3.5 Support for teaching staff
a. Support for teaching staff will be provided through SERRU on:
Explanation of eVALUate unit and teaching results;
Optional teaching items;
Adhoc reports for course reviews and accreditation. 4 Unit evaluation reports
a. Unit evaluation is an academic activity, not an administrative task.
b. All units, regardless of size, are to be evaluated by the Unit Coordinator and unit team every semester in which they are offered.
c. Units taught in blocks or have short timeframes (such as 5 weeks in length and taught a couple of times over the semester) may be summarised in one unit evaluation.
4 Course and Unit Evaluation Procedure (Month, 2014)
d. Unit evaluation reports are to include information on the role of the unit, effectiveness, issues, innovations and assessment in the unit.
e. Unit evaluation reports must align with information in the Course and Unit Handbook. f. Data used to inform the Unit Evaluation Report should come from a variety of sources
including eVALUate responses, peer review and informal feedback.
g. The evaluation outcomes are to be entered electronically through the Course and Unit Evaluation webpage on the SERRU website.
4.1 Quality assurance of units
a. Unit evaluation reports once submitted on the Course and Unit Evaluation webpage will be sent to the Associate Deans (Learning and Teaching) for distribution to Course /Major/Discipline Coordinators for final sign off.
b. Units that do not belong to a School/Centre but are taught by other teaching staff, including sessional staff, are to be submitted through the above process (4.1 a). Responsibility for the quality assurance of that unit lies with the owning Faculty. c. Each School/Centre will adopt a process quality assuring these units (such as unit
review meetings, Course Coordinator/Head of School signoff, unit portfolio and assessors/moderation meetings).
d. Staff can request previous unit evaluation reports but approval has to be given by the Course/Major/Discipline Coordinator or Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching) if they have not taught into that unit before.
e. Unit evaluation reports can be used to inform course reviews, accreditation and school reviews.
4.2 Unit evaluation reporting
a. Unit evaluation reports can be used to inform academic performance management, probation, promotion and teaching awards.
b. Unit evaluation reports are due one month after the end of the semester.
c. Late submissions or incomplete reports will be reported to the Learning and Teaching Evaluation Sub-Committee.
d. A summary of the Unit Evaluation Reports will be prepared each semester by SERRU and will be reported to the Learning and Teaching Evaluation Sub-Committee.
e. Support for underperforming units will be provided by faculty senior academic staff in mentoring roles with some assistance from TILT.
5 Annual course evaluation reports
a. All courses, regardless of size, are to be evaluated annually.
b. The annual Course Evaluation Report must be completed for each Major within a course.
c. Large courses, such as Arts and Science, are to be reviewed by Faculty course teams led by the respective Associate Deans (Learning and Teaching).
d. Each course/major/discipline team will adopt a systematic process for evaluating the course over the year to ensure the timely submission of the report and consideration of staff workload.
e. Course/major/discipline teams have three major tasks in the course evaluation:
Prepare an Annual Statement of Curriculum Philosophy (ASCP);
Map course curricula; and
5 Course and Unit Evaluation Procedure (Month, 2014)
f. The University Standards Framework (USF) can be used as an evaluation and planning tool by courses to identify course initiatives.
g. Data used to inform the Course Evaluation Report should come from a variety of sources including unit review reports; eVALUate responses; and feedback from other stakeholders involved in the implementation of the course.
h. Information on external advisory committees or other external sources such as accrediting bodies and benchmarking are to be included in the report.
i. The unit evaluation outcomes are to be entered electronically through the Course and Unit Evaluation webpage on the SERRU website.
5.1 Quality assurance of courses
a. An annual course evaluation report must be completed and submitted by the Course/Major/Discipline Coordinator by January 31st of the following year. b. Course evaluation reports will be sent to the Associate Deans (Learning and
Teaching) for final sign off.
c. Each School/Centre will adopt a process for assuring the quality of courses (such as course portfolio, assessors meetings, learning and teaching planning day).
d. Staff can request previous course evaluation reports but should seek approval from either the previous Course/Major/Discipline Coordinator or Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching) if they have not had prior experience with the course.
e. Course evaluation reports can inform full course reviews, accreditation and school reviews.
5.2 Annual course reporting
a. A summary of the Course Evaluation Reports will be prepared each semester by SERRU and will be reported to the Learning and Teaching Evaluation Sub-Committee.
b. Support for underperforming courses will be provided by faculty senior academic staff in mentoring roles and some assistance from TILT.
6 Process for assuring courses meet AQF compliance a. All courses must meet AQF requirements by January 2015.
b. The process for assuring courses meet AQF compliance has three components:
Faculty evaluation of courses;
Course approval process;
Course evaluation and alignment to AQF. 6.1 Faculty evaluation of courses
a. Faculty evaluation of courses involves the Faculty’s evaluation of existing courses against the relevant AQF Qualification Type specifications. To achieve this in a systematic manner, the following steps are;
Faculties set up a timeline for individual courses on the UTAS AQFCompliance Register (Attachment A). It is recommended that sufficient time is given to complete all the processes relevant to each course that is to be AQF assured.
Determine if the course is to be continued beyond 2015-this should include consideration of and outcomes of the Course Review Report6 Course and Unit Evaluation Procedure (Month, 2014)
For courses that are to be continued beyond 2015: determine if the course is fully/not compliant (using the template shown in Attachment 1).
If it is not compliant, determine the modifications needed to achieve compliance and put an appropriate course modification plan in place.
Significant course modifications need to be approved in accordance with the University’s Course Approval Process (include webpage).
Each faculty will be asked to submit their AQF compliance timetable to the DVC (Students & Education) for sign off.6.2 Course approval process
a. All courses submitted through the course approval process must align ensure that they meet AQF compliance (see Template for Assessing AQF Compliance). b. Significant course modifications to existing units on AQF compliance need to be
approved in accordance with the University’s Course Approval Process (include webpage).
6.3 Course evaluation and alignment to AQF
a. All courses must complete an evaluation of AQF compliance by January 2015. b. Course/Major/Discipline Coordinators need to ensure the course aligns with the AQF
level, purpose, knowledge, skills, application of knowledge and volume of learning. c. Course/Major/Discipline Coordinators of preparation units need to ensure that the
course aligns with the AQF Pathways Policy.
d. Course evaluation reports will be submitted to the Associate Dean (Learning & Teaching) meeting for feedback on AQF compliance.
e. All courses will be reported to Academic Senate on AQF compliance.
7 Definitions and acronyms Australian
Qualifications Framework (AQF)
The AQF is the national policy for regulated qualifications in Australian education and training. It incorporates the
qualifications from each education and training sector into a single national qualifications framework.
Annual Statement of Curriculum Philosophy (ASCP)
Course/major teams are to develop overarching
course/major/discipline learning outcomes (no more than 10). These high-level threshold learning outcomes should
demonstrate what a student would achieve by the end of the course/major study. Where appropriate, the overall learning outcomes required for accreditation and/or professional recognition should be clearly identified.
Course A course is a program of learning or units of study that leads to the award of a qualification.
Organisational Unit
Faculty, School, Centre, University Institute, other University Entity, Division, Section or University Business Enterprise. SERRU Student Evaluation, Review and Reporting Unit
TILT Tasmanian Institute of Learning and Teaching TUU Tasmania University Union
7 Course and Unit Evaluation Procedure (Month, 2014)
Unit A unit is a single component of a qualification, or a stand-alone unit, that has been accredited by the same process as for a whole AQF qualification. A unit may be called a module, subject, unit of competency or unit.
University Standards Framework (USF)
The University uses the USF as an evaluation and planning tool. The USF has six dimensions- Learning, Teaching, Curriculum, Student Experience, Research and Research Training.
8 Supporting documentation
Australian Qualification Framework: see http://www.aqf.edu.au/
University Standards Framework: see http://www.utas.edu.au/student-evaluation-review-and-reporting-unit/
University of Tasmania Strategic Plan for Learning and Teaching (2012-2014) 9 Template for assessing AQF compliance
Critical Question Evidence
Are all AQF learning outcomes (knowledge, skills and application of knowledge and skills) clearly evident in the course level learning outcomes/and or Statement of Curriculum Philosophy? Statement of Curriculum Philosophy Curriculum Map Course Evaluation Report
Are the course level learning outcomes:
Consistent with the AQF Level for the
qualification- noting the Level 7-10 specifications for knowledge, skills and application of
knowledge and skills?
Inclusive of the generic graduate attributes (knowledge, communication skills, problem-solving skills, global perspective and social responsibility)
Curriculum Map
Will the course design provide coherent learning
outcomes for the level and qualification type, and enable graduates to demonstrate them?
Are there clear relationships between the course level learning outcomes, unit learning outcomes and assessment tasks?
Will assessment within the course allow students to provide evidence of their achievement of the CLOs?
Course Evaluation Report
Is the volume of learning appropriate for the level and type of qualification?
Course Evaluation Report
Are formal articulation pathways, where relevant, consistent with AQF Pathways Policy?
Exit awards and nested qualifications must have course level learning outcomes, consistent with the AQF level of the Qualification Type.
Course Evaluation Report
8 Course and Unit Evaluation Procedure (Month, 2014)
8, 9, 10)? Unit Outlines
Unit Evaluation Reports
6 Versioning
Former Version(s) Version 1 – X Procedure; approved Month, 20xx; reviewed Month, 201x.
Version 2 – X Procedure (current document); approved Month, 201x.
Attachment A
