Skip to content | Change text size

Unit Evaluation Procedures

Parent Policy

Unit Evaluation Policy

Student unit evaluation policy requires that each unit is evaluated at least once annually using the agreed unit evaluation instrument comprising ten common items.   The Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ) is responsible for preparing unit evaluation reports and publishing them on a common website.  Reports are published four weeks from the end of the evaluation period.  Raw data files are made available by CHEQ to a nominated faculty contact for further analysis.  This procedure describes the steps taken within faculties on release of unit evaluation data.

See also the Guide to Interpreting Unit Evaluation and MonQueST.

  1. The Associate Dean (Teaching) (or equivalent) receives notification from CHEQ that unit evaluation reports are online and receives the raw data file.

    Responsibility

    Associate Dean (Teaching)

  2. CHEQ sends an email to staff and students informing them of the release of reports, with reference to the appropriate URL.

    Responsibility

    Centre for Higher Education Quality

  3. The AD (T) analyses faculty unit evaluation performance in various ways which may include:

    1. identifying units performing below faculty and university means on the eight common quantitative items;
    2. identifying units performing below a faculty-agreed target (where relevant);
    3. analysing by campus, for units offered on more than one campus;
    4. identifying patterns in sequential units or units within the same year level or within a course;
    5. analysing open-ended comments for themes (for example, using CEQuery).

    Typically, emphasis is placed on undertaking quantitative analysis rapidly, with qualitative analyses undertaken later.

    Thoughtful interpretation of unit evaluation results is required that takes sufficient regard of the context.  CHEQ’s Guide to Interpreting Unit Evaluation and MonQueST provides further information.

    Responsibility

    Associate Dean (Teaching)

  4. The AD (T) communicates results of analyses to relevant parties which may include:

    1. the faculty executive and/or education committee and /or quality committee – for follow-up of systemic/policy issues;
    2. Heads of Department/School – for follow-up of issues in particular units;
    3. unit leaders – letters of congratulation from the Dean may be sent for units performing well;
    4. students – to inform them of improvement actions being implemented.

    Responsibility

    Associate Dean (Teaching)

  5. The AD (T) may approach the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching for assistance/advice in addressing systemic issues across several units.

    Responsibility

    Associate Dean (Teaching)

  6. Each relevant Head of Department/School:

    1. investigates and discusses with relevant academic staff;
    2. agrees and oversees implementation of an action plan (including notification to students of changes made through the unit guide at the next offering);
    3. seeks input/advice from the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching, where necessary;
    4. reports to AD (T) on outcomes of action taken;
    5. ensures that improvements made as a consequence of unit evaluation are included in the subsequent unit guide.

    Responsibility

    Heads of Departments/Schools

Contact Person: Education Policy