Afdeling Institusionele Navorsisng en Beplanninig Division for Institutional Research and Planning FROM EVALUATION REPORTS TO ACTION – CLOSING THE LOOP WITH DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS AT STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY Junay Adams

Outline of presentation 1.Introduction 2.Overview: Core elements of review process a)Self-evaluation b)External review c)Follow-up reporting 3.Resources used 4.Resources generated 5.Categories of actions to be taken 6.Analysis 7.Deductions/conclusions

1. INTRODUCTION Compulsory quinquennial external evaluation of academic departments and Third cycle Academic as well as support environments Objective of review – development and improvement Purpose of the analysis To determine whether objective of review processes are achieved Do review processes just generate reports, or does it affect change/development/improvement? Data sources Reports of Quality Committee ( ) (incl. summaries of external panel reports, response of unit, Dean’s response, QC’s response) Results from 2009 feedback survey

2. CORE ELEMENTS OF REVIEW PROCESS External panel appointed Self-evaluation based on criteria Academic departments – generic criteria Support services – develop own Report submitted to external panel Panel conducts site Panel report Departmental /Division response Quality Committee Executive Committee of Senate Follow-up report (after 2 years)

3. RESOURCES USED More resources used than previous cycles More detailed core statistics (incl. SMIs) Support service reviews included in review framework More international panel members 2 previous cycles combined – only cycle – 38 More money spent Cycle 1 – average R3500 per department Cycle 2 – average R5200 per department Cycle 3 – average R per department Criteria more detailed More administrative support provided Assistance with development of criteria Scribe services for external panels

4. RESOURCES GENERATED On average, 4 reports generated per review SE report External panel report Department/division’s formal response Follow-up report 75 departments and division reviewed Therefore 300 reports Excluding reports of the Quality Committee and criteria documents developed by support units

5. CATEGORIES OF ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN Category 1 – To be addressed by department/division Within their control, e.g. changes to curriculum staff mentoring publishing in accredited journals, etc Category 2 – To be addressed by institution (management) Cross-cutting issues Requires inputs at central budgeting and planning level, e.g. need for improved coordination of enrolment planning Need for succession planning Attention to physical facilities strategies for recruiting black staff and students challenges with regards to institutional culture, etc.

6(a). ANALYSIS: CATEGORY 1 ISSUES a.Self-evaluation viewed as valuable by departments and divisions 100% of respondents of feedback survey agree b.Action taken even prior to external visit “Anticipatory action” (Fredericks & de Haan, 1997) However, not merely to please panel but for own conviction of value added c.Agreement that external panels add value as well as international panel members d.Thorough discussion of recommendations by unit, line managers and QC “passive utilisation” (Fredricks & de Haan, 1997) e.Incorporation of action plans into strategic planning of department/division (“active utilisation”) 50% - strongly agree 42% - agree 8% - disagree f.Value added justifies resources used 25% - strongly agrees 58% - agrees 17% - disagrees

6(b). ANALYSIS: CATEGORY 2 ISSUES Evidence of issues being addressed, e.g. Development of faculty personnel plans to address succession planning and planning for diversity Institutional facilities plan Processes and structures in place for improved enrolment planning Not clear whether these actions for change was due to review processes or other processes, e.g. Budgeting and planning considerations HEQC audit and plans identified in Quality Development Plan Other central processes highlighting specific needs to be addressed

7. DEDUCTIONS /CONCLUSIONS Category 1 issues (addressed by department/division) Much evidence of (value adding) action taken Often direct correlation between actions taken and review process Easier to trace “active utilization” to review process Goal of review, i.e. improvement – achieved Category 2 issues (for institutional attention) Evidence that most issues addressed to certain degree Not clear whether changes necessarily due as result of review, but definitely increases institutional awareness along with other factors But this is consonant with international research System efficiency Generally, 3 building blocks and feedback structures are effective and should be maintained in next cycle But not necessarily efficient – should be more streamlined, focused

THANK YOU QUESTIONS?