1 / 11

NUS Student Engagement Toolkit: The Course Rep Benchmarking Tool

NUS Student Engagement Toolkit: The Course Rep Benchmarking Tool University of Sheffield Students’ Union Neil Mackenzie Representation & Democracy Manager. Why?. Why do we measure? What do we measure? How do we measure it?. Before.

tgolden
Download Presentation

NUS Student Engagement Toolkit: The Course Rep Benchmarking Tool

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NUS Student Engagement Toolkit: The Course Rep Benchmarking Tool University of Sheffield Students’ Union Neil Mackenzie Representation & Democracy Manager

  2. Why? • Why do we measure? • What do we measure? • How do we measure it?

  3. Before • Organisation required targets that were measurable (preferably numbers) • Measured the easy things to measure, no discussion of why or what these numbers meant • Distorted focus

  4. Solution • Course Rep Benchmarking tool offers a more strategic view of student representation • Measures the things that show impact and effectiveness • Allows focus on the areas that need attention

  5. Solution • However, institution wide snapshot was insufficient • Provision for reps varied wildly across institution • Institution wide targets were one of the problems of our previous work • Needed to drive down to a departmental level

  6. Solution • Adapted questions and criteria where necessary to fit departmental level discussion • Got departmental level reps, university staff and course reps to complete self-assessment • Took averages to see departmental score and breakdown each criteria

  7. Review • Some excellent data, confirmed some of our assumptions, revealed significant strengths and weaknesses • Completion in some areas was patchy, principally the departments that we were most interested in, these need more hands on work • Time consuming and overly complex

  8. Outcomes • Gave us ‘mission groups’ of departments to tailor our work • Allowed us to see our strengths and weaknesses more clearly and prioritise work • Revealed particular weakness in our work with departmental staff and their understanding of representation

  9. What now? • Led to a large review of course representatives and departmental level representation • Training will be overhauled • Measures for the department are more useful and fixed on progress

  10. Lessons • We wouldn’t do it the same way again • Needs to be simple, possibly based on face to face interviews in each department • Confirmed the departmental variation issue • Best practice is gold dust at departmental level – if one can do it, so can the others (except medicine...)

  11. Questions/Comments The key is to be confident enough to ask the questions, no where has this right yet but we have to up our game, and fast Neil Mackenzie University of Sheffield Students’ Union n.mackenzie@shef.ac.uk 0114 222 8589

More Related