Index
academic perceptions, student feedback and, 7–13
alumni questionnaire (AQ), 92–3
assessment guidelines and marking criteria, 195
assessment of teaching area, 120
assessment task feedback, 175
Australian Graduate Survey (AGS), 30
diversification of feedback forms, 52–4
electronic feedback, 59–61
emerging trends in, 51–61
fast feedback, 53–4
free access policy, 48–9
GEKo model, 58
institutional quality management systems, 54–6
learning processes and learning outcomes, 56–9
overview of, 47–9
quality assurance, 54–6
student feedback, 49–51
system, 47–9
teaching censorship, 49
TELOS model, 57–8
Austrian social science, student feedback on, 61–4
Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CATL) project, 173
findings, 34–9
instrument and participants, 33–4
feedback mechanism and processes, 91
learning and teaching in, 87–8
collaboration, peer, 135
for educational value improvement, 1–23
Rhodes University and, 4–5
course coordinators, 10–1
data analysis, 151–3
diagnostic feedback, 91
dialogic feedback, 91
distance learning programmes, and new technologies, 69–80
evaluation strategies in South Africa, 3
for students, 19–21
Elluminate Live, 73
electronic communication and Austrian higher education institutions, 59–61
electronic feedback, 59–61
end-of-programme evaluations, 116
institutions in South Africa, 3
student feedback, 3
Fachhochschulen (FH), 47–8
fast feedback, 53
adopting to cover all types of learners, 197–8
alerting students and effective use of, 192–3
assessment guidelines and marking criteria, 195
awareness of students’ use of, 182–3
delivering, 75–6
different forms according to Race, 172
effects on students, 72
on examination performance, 196–7
formative See formative feedback
good, 186–7
mechanisms and processes, 89–92
moderation of, 180–1
non-threatening, 194
overall aim of, 183
personal and specific, 193–4
poor, 187–8
provision for regular, 192
purpose of, 173–4
structured, 180
students’ satisfaction with, 183–5
students’ suggestions for improvements or changes to, 185–6
synchronous See synchronous feedback
timeliness of, 190–1
types of, 179
from The University of Western Australia, 171–199
ways to provide, 180
role of the lecturer/tutor in, 188–9
role of the student in, 189
focus group interviews, 186
formative evaluation, 122
formative feedback, definition of, 174–5
suggestions for improvement, 190–8
importance of, 174–5
improvements to, 171–99
staff views on, 176–86
student views on, 186–90
suggestions for improvement, 190–8
timing of, 175
GEKo model on teaching assessment, 58
Graduate Capabilities Questionnaire (GCQ), annual, 92–3
Graduate Destination Survey (GDS), 30
graduate surveys, 53
in Austria See Austria, higher education
in South Africa, 1–23
in UK, 69–80
Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC), 2
identity, student, 117–18
institutional context, 86–8
institutional quality management systems, 54–6
instrument and participants, 33–4
interactive communication, 73–5
new technologies and, 69–80
support by tutors, 70–2
decline, 146–7
Ministry of Education, 146–9
student evaluation of teaching See student evaluation of teaching, Japan
learning dispositions to, 118
learning emotional aspects, 116–18
learning outcomes, feedback on, 56–9
learning processes, feedback on, 56–9
Learning and Teaching Performance Fund (LTPF), 30–1
mid-programme experience (MPE) survey, 115–16
design, 124–6
principles, 122–3
Ministry of Education (MEXT), Japan, 146–9
Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, 111, 119–20 See also National Institute of Education, student feedback survey
aim of, 122
areas for improvement, 136–8
background of, 119–22
clubs and societies, 134–5
course reviews, 120
data collection and analysis, 126
design of, 122
discussion and implications of, 133–8
faculty performance appraisal, 119–20
findings of, 127–31
methodology of, 122–6
peer collaboration, 135
strengths of, 136
student satisfaction surveys, 121
teaching evaluation, 121
neo-liberal approach to student feedback, 3
new technologies for distance learning programmes in UK, 69–80
Pädagogische Hochschulen, 47
peer collaboration, 135
performance-based funding, 31
Policy on the Evaluation of Teaching and Courses, Rhodes University, 5
programme-level student feedback, 83–107
quality enhancement (QE), 84–6
in higher education, 2–4
of student learning, 3
teaching and student learning, 10–13
recency effect, in student feedback, 158
reflective teaching, 17
reporting feedback, 204
reporting officer, 120
Ryan, to support international students, 70–1
Skype, distance education and, 69–80
social justice approach to student feedback, 3
social science, programmes for, 98–103
‘social situatedness’ of learning, 117
South Africa, educational value evaluation strategies, 1–23
student attrition surveys, 40
student engagement, 11–13
student evaluation of teaching (SET), Japan, 146–65
data analysis, 151–3
data collection, 150–1
feedback for improvement, 159–61
findings of, 153–61
implications for improvement, 161–5
introduction to, 148–9
participation in, 151
purpose of, 153–5
research focus, 149–50
teacher’s participation in, 157–9
timing of evaluation, 155–7
student experience, analysis, 30–41
student experience questionnaire (SEQ), 92–6
in learning and teaching, 96–102
academic perceptions and, 7–13
aims for gathering, 9
in Austrian higher education, 53–64
on Austrian social science, 61–4
closing the loop, 205
collection and utilisation of, 3
E-feedback boxes, 60
enabling teacher growth, 162
end-of-programme evaluations, 116
as evaluation strategy, 2–6
fast feedback, 53–4
GEKo model, 58
graduate surveys, 53–4
how, when and to whom, 92–6
institutional quality management systems, 54–6
instrument design, 123–6
in Japanese tertiary education, 146–65
key features and future actions, 103–5
learning processes and learning outcomes, 56–9
National Institute of Education survey, 30–41 See also National Institute of Education, student feedback survey
online student evaluations of teaching, 60
participants’ understanding of, 178
perceived, collected and utilised, 16
programme-level, 83–107
purpose of, 202
qualitative and quantitative tools, 206
qualitative comments, 32–9
quality assurance, 54–6
questionnaires for, 92–3
reasons for, 113
recency effect, 158
relevance of, 61–4
repercussions of, 8–9
response to, 102–3
for learning and teaching strategy, 70
TELOS model, 57–8
timing and reporting of, 204
tools of the trade, 204–5
training and development, 205–6
types and importance, 112–16
student ownership, 15–19
student retention, 40
student support, 118–19
student survey, in Japan, 159
developmental vs summative purpose, 203
effectiveness, 39
enabling, 13–15
key trends, issues and approaches, 202–6
need, purpose and use of, 203–4
synchronous feedback See also feedback
for distance learning programmes in UK, 69–80
effects on international students, 69–80
problems with online, 76–7
in Chinese University of Hong Kong, 87–8
integrated framework and feedback mechanisms, 90
reflections on practice, 105–7
TELOS model (Teaching Evaluation, Learning Outcome Sustained), 57–8
The Evaluation Assistant, for student feedback evaluation, 7
Universities Act 2002, Austria, 51
University Experience Survey, 30
University of Applied Arts, Vienna, 57
University of Graz, 57
University of Western Australia (UWA), The, 171–99
Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching, 171–3
feedback, definition of, 175–6
feedback on student’s examination performance, 196
staff views on, 176–86
student views on, 186–90
suggestions for improvement, 190–8
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.