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.


Question Title

* 1. Quality Review Guidelines

  Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
The guidelines provide clear, concise & comprehensive information on the quality review process:
The purpose of the review was clearly and comprehensively outlined in the guidelines:
The role of External Reviewer was clearly outlined:
The Terms of Reference of the review were clear:

Question Title

* 2. Self Assessment, Appendices and Supporting Documentation

  Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) followed the suggested format in the Review Guidelines:
The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) was structured in such a way as to make the information accessible:
The content was informative and allowed the review team to undertake a constructive review:
The content was too detailed:
The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) contained all relevant appendices:
The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) contained too many appendices:
I was happy to access the Self Assessment Report (SAR) and Appendices in soft copy via a USB drive. 
The Review Process would benefit from a central electronic repository where access to review documentation would be granted by Trinity to External Reviewers
The supporting documentation provided sufficient information on Trinity College and the Irish Higher Education Sector:

Question Title

* 3. Site Visit & Schedule of Meetings:

  Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
The scope of the Review was clear prior to the site visit:
It was useful to meet fellow reviewers at the pre-review dinner/breakfast (if attended):
The Introductory meeting with College Officers on Day 1 was useful:
The dinner with College Officers on Day 1 of review was useful:
It was useful to meet with the Head of School/Head of Area for dinner on Day 2 (if attended):
Sufficient time was allocated for the Review:
There was sufficient opportunity for the reviewers to provide feedback on the draft schedule prior to the site visit:
The duration and structure of the meetings was adequate to allow constructive dialogue or discussion:
Meetings contained an appropriate range and number of staff and students:
Meeting topics were relevant and addressed issues raised in the SAR:
Sufficient reflection time was allocated for reviewers each day:

Question Title

* 4. External Reviewers’ Report

  Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
A more structured report template would be helpful:
It would be helpful if the structure of the Self-Assessment document mapped the headings for the External Reviewers' report:
The process of drafting the report and the timelines for submission were appropriate:
It would be helpful to see sample Reviewers' reports from previous reviews:

Question Title

* 5. The Review Team

  Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
The review team was balanced in terms of experience and expertise:
A lead reviewer/Chair should be appointed in advance of the Review who will take responsibility for co-ordinating the report:
The role of the Internal Facilitator was clearly articulated:
The presence of the Internal Facilitator was useful:

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:
Advice and support was available from the Quality Office when requested:
The pre-review conference call was useful in supporting the process:
The presence of a note-taker was useful:
The standard and level of detail in the notes provided by the note-taker was appropriate:

Question Title

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