E2.2.5

=Consistent evaluation procedures are used. =

Evidence
Attwell (2006) shows that there are different approaches to evaluation. We can take an objectivist ‘finding the facts’ approach, or a subjectivist ‘appeal to experience’. Also there are utilitarian approaches attempting to maximize the average good for all, and pluralist/intuitionist approaches with no common index of ‘good’ but rather a plurality of criteria and judges. However, what must be realised is that consistency of the evaluation approach is needed to ensure ongoing comparison of findings.

Resources
Policy and guidelines should require that staff evaluations to be independently conducted and provide standard forms that they should take.

Norris and Conn (2005) investigated student response rates in online course feedback and they identify three simple strategies for achieving response rates equivalent to those of conventional classroom feedback: 1. announce the availability and location of the evaluation promptly after the completion of the course; 2. explain the value of the evaluations and feedback; 3. remind students to give feedback (pp. 26-7). In conclusion they add that, after overcoming concerns about response rates ‘the real work of developing useful course evaluation instruments that will inform reliable and valid interpretations about instruction can begin’ (p. 27).

RMIT University has a policy document setting out the way that student feedback ought to be consistently collected: http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=9pp3ic9obks7

Monash University has some standard forms for collecting feedback from teaching staff, such as peer review forms: http://opq.monash.edu.au/cheq/evaluations/index.html

http://opq.monash.edu.au/cheq/evaluations/teaching-eval/peer-rev-lect-criteria.doc