Skip to content

FEEDBACK FROM EXTERNAL REVIEWERS 2021/22

3.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:
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 scope of the Review was clear:
I was able to ask questions to clarify the Terms of Reference: 
The role of the External Reviewer was clearly communicated:
The role of the Internal Facilitator was clearly communicated:
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 content allowed the review team to undertake a constructive review:
The content was too detailed:
The appendices added value to the SAR:
There were too many appendices:
I was happy to access the Self Assessment Report (SAR) and Appendices online i.e. via SharePoint or HEA net:
I received sufficient briefing information on Trinity College and the Irish Higher Education Sector:
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:
2. The duration and structure of the meetings was adequate to allow constructive dialogue or discussion:
3. Meetings contained an appropriate range and number of attendees:
4. Meeting topics were relevant and addressed issues raised in the SAR:
6. Sufficient reflection time was allocated for reviewers each day:
7. If the review was conducted online or in hybrid format, online participation by meeting attendees was facilitated well:
8. Sufficient time was allocated for the Review:
4.External Reviewers’ Report
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1. The process of drafting the report was clearly explained to the reviewers:
2. The timelines for submission of the draft report were clear:
3. It is helpful to see sample Reviewers' reports from previous reviews:
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 pre-review dinner for review team members was useful (for onsite reviews) :
A lead reviewer/Chair should be appointed in advance of the Review who will take responsibility for co-ordinating the report:
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 in supporting the review team:
The standard and level of detail in the notes provided by the note-taker was appropriate:
The Internal Facilitator provided useful support to the review team:
7.I would suggest the following recommendations to enhance and improve the Quality Review Process at Trinity.
Privacy & Cookie Notice