FEEDBACK FROM EXTERNAL REVIEWERS 2021/22

1. Survey of External Reviewers

Your feedback on your experience as an external reviewer is an important component of the College’s commitment towards quality assurance. The results of this anonymous survey will be used in reviewing and improving aspects of Quality Reviews and their delivery.

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

Question Title

* 1. Guidance on the review

	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree
The purpose of the review was clearly and comprehensively outlined in the Terms of Reference:	The purpose of the review was clearly and comprehensively outlined in the Terms of Reference: Strongly agree	The purpose of the review was clearly and comprehensively outlined in the Terms of Reference: Agree	The purpose of the review was clearly and comprehensively outlined in the Terms of Reference: Neutral	The purpose of the review was clearly and comprehensively outlined in the Terms of Reference: Disagree	The purpose of the review was clearly and comprehensively outlined in the Terms of Reference: Strongly disagree
The scope of the Review was clear:	The scope of the Review was clear: Strongly agree	The scope of the Review was clear: Agree	The scope of the Review was clear: Neutral	The scope of the Review was clear: Disagree	The scope of the Review was clear: Strongly disagree
I was able to ask questions to clarify the Terms of Reference:	I was able to ask questions to clarify the Terms of Reference: Strongly agree	I was able to ask questions to clarify the Terms of Reference: Agree	I was able to ask questions to clarify the Terms of Reference: Neutral	I was able to ask questions to clarify the Terms of Reference: Disagree	I was able to ask questions to clarify the Terms of Reference: Strongly disagree
The role of the External Reviewer was clearly communicated:	The role of the External Reviewer was clearly communicated: Strongly agree	The role of the External Reviewer was clearly communicated: Agree	The role of the External Reviewer was clearly communicated: Neutral	The role of the External Reviewer was clearly communicated: Disagree	The role of the External Reviewer was clearly communicated: Strongly disagree
The role of the Internal Facilitator was clearly communicated:	The role of the Internal Facilitator was clearly communicated: Strongly agree	The role of the Internal Facilitator was clearly communicated: Agree	The role of the Internal Facilitator was clearly communicated: Neutral	The role of the Internal Facilitator was clearly communicated: Disagree	The role of the Internal Facilitator was clearly communicated: Strongly disagree

I WOULD SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO THE REVIEWERS ABOUT THE REVIEW

Question Title

* 2. Self Assessment, Appendices and Supporting Documentation

	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) was structured in such a way as to make the information accessible:	The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) was structured in such a way as to make the information accessible: Strongly agree	The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) was structured in such a way as to make the information accessible: Agree	The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) was structured in such a way as to make the information accessible: Neutral	The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) was structured in such a way as to make the information accessible: Disagree	The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) was structured in such a way as to make the information accessible: Strongly Disagree
The content allowed the review team to undertake a constructive review:	The content allowed the review team to undertake a constructive review: Strongly agree	The content allowed the review team to undertake a constructive review: Agree	The content allowed the review team to undertake a constructive review: Neutral	The content allowed the review team to undertake a constructive review: Disagree	The content allowed the review team to undertake a constructive review: Strongly Disagree
The content was too detailed:	The content was too detailed: Strongly agree	The content was too detailed: Agree	The content was too detailed: Neutral	The content was too detailed: Disagree	The content was too detailed: Strongly Disagree
The appendices added value to the SAR:	The appendices added value to the SAR: Strongly agree	The appendices added value to the SAR: Agree	The appendices added value to the SAR: Neutral	The appendices added value to the SAR: Disagree	The appendices added value to the SAR: Strongly Disagree
There were too many appendices:	There were too many appendices: Strongly agree	There were too many appendices: Agree	There were too many appendices: Neutral	There were too many appendices: Disagree	There were too many appendices: Strongly Disagree
I was happy to access the Self Assessment Report (SAR) and Appendices online i.e. via SharePoint or HEA net:	I was happy to access the Self Assessment Report (SAR) and Appendices online i.e. via SharePoint or HEA net: Strongly agree	I was happy to access the Self Assessment Report (SAR) and Appendices online i.e. via SharePoint or HEA net: Agree	I was happy to access the Self Assessment Report (SAR) and Appendices online i.e. via SharePoint or HEA net: Neutral	I was happy to access the Self Assessment Report (SAR) and Appendices online i.e. via SharePoint or HEA net: Disagree	I was happy to access the Self Assessment Report (SAR) and Appendices online i.e. via SharePoint or HEA net: Strongly Disagree
I received sufficient briefing information on Trinity College and the Irish Higher Education Sector:	I received sufficient briefing information on Trinity College and the Irish Higher Education Sector: Strongly agree	I received sufficient briefing information on Trinity College and the Irish Higher Education Sector: Agree	I received sufficient briefing information on Trinity College and the Irish Higher Education Sector: Neutral	I received sufficient briefing information on Trinity College and the Irish Higher Education Sector: Disagree	I received sufficient briefing information on Trinity College and the Irish Higher Education Sector: Strongly Disagree

I WOULD SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT (SAR), APPENDICES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Question Title

* 3. Site Visit & Schedule of Meetings:

	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	N/A
1. There was sufficient opportunity for the reviewers to provide feedback on the draft schedule prior to the site visit:	1. There was sufficient opportunity for the reviewers to provide feedback on the draft schedule prior to the site visit: Strongly agree	1. There was sufficient opportunity for the reviewers to provide feedback on the draft schedule prior to the site visit: Agree	1. There was sufficient opportunity for the reviewers to provide feedback on the draft schedule prior to the site visit: Neutral	1. There was sufficient opportunity for the reviewers to provide feedback on the draft schedule prior to the site visit: Disagree	1. There was sufficient opportunity for the reviewers to provide feedback on the draft schedule prior to the site visit: Strongly disagree	1. There was sufficient opportunity for the reviewers to provide feedback on the draft schedule prior to the site visit: N/A
2. The duration and structure of the meetings was adequate to allow constructive dialogue or discussion:	2. The duration and structure of the meetings was adequate to allow constructive dialogue or discussion: Strongly agree	2. The duration and structure of the meetings was adequate to allow constructive dialogue or discussion: Agree	2. The duration and structure of the meetings was adequate to allow constructive dialogue or discussion: Neutral	2. The duration and structure of the meetings was adequate to allow constructive dialogue or discussion: Disagree	2. The duration and structure of the meetings was adequate to allow constructive dialogue or discussion: Strongly disagree	2. The duration and structure of the meetings was adequate to allow constructive dialogue or discussion: N/A
3. Meetings contained an appropriate range and number of attendees:	3. Meetings contained an appropriate range and number of attendees: Strongly agree	3. Meetings contained an appropriate range and number of attendees: Agree	3. Meetings contained an appropriate range and number of attendees: Neutral	3. Meetings contained an appropriate range and number of attendees: Disagree	3. Meetings contained an appropriate range and number of attendees: Strongly disagree	3. Meetings contained an appropriate range and number of attendees: N/A
4. Meeting topics were relevant and addressed issues raised in the SAR:	4. Meeting topics were relevant and addressed issues raised in the SAR: Strongly agree	4. Meeting topics were relevant and addressed issues raised in the SAR: Agree	4. Meeting topics were relevant and addressed issues raised in the SAR: Neutral	4. Meeting topics were relevant and addressed issues raised in the SAR: Disagree	4. Meeting topics were relevant and addressed issues raised in the SAR: Strongly disagree	4. Meeting topics were relevant and addressed issues raised in the SAR: N/A
6. Sufficient reflection time was allocated for reviewers each day:	6. Sufficient reflection time was allocated for reviewers each day: Strongly agree	6. Sufficient reflection time was allocated for reviewers each day: Agree	6. Sufficient reflection time was allocated for reviewers each day: Neutral	6. Sufficient reflection time was allocated for reviewers each day: Disagree	6. Sufficient reflection time was allocated for reviewers each day: Strongly disagree	6. Sufficient reflection time was allocated for reviewers each day: N/A
7. If the review was conducted online or in hybrid format, online participation by meeting attendees was facilitated well:	7. If the review was conducted online or in hybrid format, online participation by meeting attendees was facilitated well: Strongly agree	7. If the review was conducted online or in hybrid format, online participation by meeting attendees was facilitated well: Agree	7. If the review was conducted online or in hybrid format, online participation by meeting attendees was facilitated well: Neutral	7. If the review was conducted online or in hybrid format, online participation by meeting attendees was facilitated well: Disagree	7. If the review was conducted online or in hybrid format, online participation by meeting attendees was facilitated well: Strongly disagree	7. If the review was conducted online or in hybrid format, online participation by meeting attendees was facilitated well: N/A
8. Sufficient time was allocated for the Review:	8. Sufficient time was allocated for the Review: Strongly agree	8. Sufficient time was allocated for the Review: Agree	8. Sufficient time was allocated for the Review: Neutral	8. Sufficient time was allocated for the Review: Disagree	8. Sufficient time was allocated for the Review: Strongly disagree	8. Sufficient time was allocated for the Review: N/A

I WOULD SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE SITE VISIT, THE SCHEDULING OF MEETINGS AND IF APPLICABLE, THE FACILITATION OF ONLINE REVIEWS.

Question Title

* 4. External Reviewers’ Report

	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree
1. The process of drafting the report was clearly explained to the reviewers:	1. The process of drafting the report was clearly explained to the reviewers: Strongly agree	1. The process of drafting the report was clearly explained to the reviewers: Agree	1. The process of drafting the report was clearly explained to the reviewers: Neutral	1. The process of drafting the report was clearly explained to the reviewers: Disagree	1. The process of drafting the report was clearly explained to the reviewers: Strongly disagree
2. The timelines for submission of the draft report were clear:	2. The timelines for submission of the draft report were clear: Strongly agree	2. The timelines for submission of the draft report were clear: Agree	2. The timelines for submission of the draft report were clear: Neutral	2. The timelines for submission of the draft report were clear: Disagree	2. The timelines for submission of the draft report were clear: Strongly disagree
3. It is helpful to see sample Reviewers' reports from previous reviews:	3. It is helpful to see sample Reviewers' reports from previous reviews: Strongly agree	3. It is helpful to see sample Reviewers' reports from previous reviews: Agree	3. It is helpful to see sample Reviewers' reports from previous reviews: Neutral	3. It is helpful to see sample Reviewers' reports from previous reviews: Disagree	3. It is helpful to see sample Reviewers' reports from previous reviews: Strongly disagree

I WOULD SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROCESS FOR DRAFTING THE EXTERNAL REVIEWERS' REPORT

Question Title

* 5. The Review Team

	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	N/A
The review team was balanced in terms of experience and expertise:	The review team was balanced in terms of experience and expertise: Strongly agree	The review team was balanced in terms of experience and expertise: Agree	The review team was balanced in terms of experience and expertise: Neutral	The review team was balanced in terms of experience and expertise: Disagree	The review team was balanced in terms of experience and expertise: Strongly disagree	The review team was balanced in terms of experience and expertise: N/A
The pre-review dinner for review team members was useful (for onsite reviews) :	The pre-review dinner for review team members was useful (for onsite reviews) : Strongly agree	The pre-review dinner for review team members was useful (for onsite reviews) : Agree	The pre-review dinner for review team members was useful (for onsite reviews) : Neutral	The pre-review dinner for review team members was useful (for onsite reviews) : Disagree	The pre-review dinner for review team members was useful (for onsite reviews) : Strongly disagree	The pre-review dinner for review team members was useful (for onsite reviews) : N/A
A lead reviewer/Chair should be appointed in advance of the Review who will take responsibility for co-ordinating the report:	A lead reviewer/Chair should be appointed in advance of the Review who will take responsibility for co-ordinating the report: Strongly agree	A lead reviewer/Chair should be appointed in advance of the Review who will take responsibility for co-ordinating the report: Agree	A lead reviewer/Chair should be appointed in advance of the Review who will take responsibility for co-ordinating the report: Neutral	A lead reviewer/Chair should be appointed in advance of the Review who will take responsibility for co-ordinating the report: Disagree	A lead reviewer/Chair should be appointed in advance of the Review who will take responsibility for co-ordinating the report: Strongly disagree	A lead reviewer/Chair should be appointed in advance of the Review who will take responsibility for co-ordinating the report: N/A

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE FOLLOWING BE CONSIDERED WHEN APPOINTING REVIEW TEAMS:

Question Title

* 6. Support Provided to Review Team

	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Overall the review team was well supported by the School/Area during the review process:	Overall the review team was well supported by the School/Area during the review process: Strongly agree	Overall the review team was well supported by the School/Area during the review process: Agree	Overall the review team was well supported by the School/Area during the review process: Neutral	Overall the review team was well supported by the School/Area during the review process: Disagree	Overall the review team was well supported by the School/Area during the review process: Strongly disagree
Advice and support was available from the Quality Office when requested:	Advice and support was available from the Quality Office when requested: Strongly agree	Advice and support was available from the Quality Office when requested: Agree	Advice and support was available from the Quality Office when requested: Neutral	Advice and support was available from the Quality Office when requested: Disagree	Advice and support was available from the Quality Office when requested: Strongly disagree
The pre-review conference call was useful in supporting the process:	The pre-review conference call was useful in supporting the process: Strongly agree	The pre-review conference call was useful in supporting the process: Agree	The pre-review conference call was useful in supporting the process: Neutral	The pre-review conference call was useful in supporting the process: Disagree	The pre-review conference call was useful in supporting the process: Strongly disagree
The presence of a note-taker was useful in supporting the review team:	The presence of a note-taker was useful in supporting the review team: Strongly agree	The presence of a note-taker was useful in supporting the review team: Agree	The presence of a note-taker was useful in supporting the review team: Neutral	The presence of a note-taker was useful in supporting the review team: Disagree	The presence of a note-taker was useful in supporting the review team: Strongly disagree
The standard and level of detail in the notes provided by the note-taker was appropriate:	The standard and level of detail in the notes provided by the note-taker was appropriate: Strongly agree	The standard and level of detail in the notes provided by the note-taker was appropriate: Agree	The standard and level of detail in the notes provided by the note-taker was appropriate: Neutral	The standard and level of detail in the notes provided by the note-taker was appropriate: Disagree	The standard and level of detail in the notes provided by the note-taker was appropriate: Strongly disagree
The Internal Facilitator provided useful support to the review team:	The Internal Facilitator provided useful support to the review team: Strongly agree	The Internal Facilitator provided useful support to the review team: Agree	The Internal Facilitator provided useful support to the review team: Neutral	The Internal Facilitator provided useful support to the review team: Disagree	The Internal Facilitator provided useful support to the review team: Strongly disagree

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS BE MADE IN SUPPORTING THE REVIEW TEAM:

Question Title

* 1. Guidance on the review

Question Title

* 2. Self Assessment, Appendices and Supporting Documentation

Question Title

* 3. Site Visit & Schedule of Meetings:

Question Title

* 4. External Reviewers’ Report

Question Title

* 5. The Review Team

Question Title

* 6. Support Provided to Review Team

Question Title

* 7. I would suggest the following recommendations to enhance and improve the Quality Review Process at Trinity.