This procedure supports and mandates the implementation of the Student Feedback Survey Campaign (SFSC) includes the Student Feedback Survey – Unit (SFS – U), the Student Feedback Survey – Teacher (SFS – T) and the Student Feedback Survey – Unit Placement (SFS-UP), particularly the key principles associated with the collection, reporting, distribution and actions relevant to student feedback. The purpose of this procedure is to affirm the institutional commitment of obtaining student feedback as a legitimate mechanism in ongoing institutional quality assurance regarding learning and teaching. This procedure details processes that relate to the following: collection of student feedback; the analyses process; the report framework structure; the reporting distributed pattern; closure of the student feedback loop and evidence of action relevant to the student feedback. All student feedback must remain de-identified.

Scope

This procedure applies to students enrolled in Higher Education HE by coursework programs and their unit coordinators and teachers.

Legislative Context

Definitions

Term	Definition
Student Feedback Survey Campaign (SFSC)	A pre-determined schedule formalising the evaluation process within the institution. This schedule is set for the full year. The online feedback tool for collating, analysing and reporting student feedback on their learning and teaching and unit experiences at the institution and its associated providers.
*Associate Dean, Learning and Teaching (ADLT)*	The ADLT is a key leadership position located within each Institute and is an important part of the Institute Executive Group. The ADLT is a university staff member who plays an integral role in learning and teaching quality assurance, peer review and professional development of all staff within their Institute. The ADLT works closely with the senior Institute staff across the Institute and the institution.
Unit	Subsidiary element of a higher education HE course.
Unit Coordinator (UC)	A university staff member responsible for the delivery, assessment and structure of a unit. This staff member may also teach the unit or delegate this responsibility to another university staff member.
Unit evaluation	The evaluation process primarily concerned with the unit structure and its associated components.
Unit Survey Action Plan (USAP)	There are three types of USAP depending on the parameters. These documents provide an opportunity for Unit Coordinators to reflect on student feedback. It forms a crucial part of continuous quality assurance at the unit level for units that have been flagged for improvement. It captures potential challenges and strategies for enhancement. It provides a record as part of scholarship of learning and teaching and should be documented as part of the annual “Your Growth Matters” process.
Evaluation	The collection of student feedback, analysis process, reporting and interpretation of data to relevant staff and students of the institution regarding the quality of learning and teaching.
Course	A course of study/research leading to the granting of an official award or qualification of the University contained in Current Course schedule. A course contains subsidiary elements variously referred to as units.
Course Coordinator (CC)	A university staff member responsible for the oversight of a course.
Institute Unit Action Summary (IUAS)	A compilation of the recommended actions of the individual Unit Survey Action Plans. This is captured on the ‘dedicated proforma’ (template listed within this procedure) as an overarching summary of the unit continuous improvement strategies.
*Student Feedback Survey - Unit (SFS-U) and Student* Feedback Survey Unit Placement (SFS-UP)**	A survey that asks students to reflect and provide feedback relevant to the unit structure including meeting learning outcomes, assessment, unit structure and design. There are two sets of specific questions: one for non-placement units and the other for placement units.
Student Feedback Survey-Teacher (SFS-T)	A survey that asks students to reflect and provide feedback on individual teachers involved with the delivery of a unit.
Teacher	A university staff member responsible for the actual delivery of a unit. A unit can also be delivered by more than one teacher (i.e. team teaching).
Teacher evaluation	The evaluation process is primarily concerned with the teacher delivering the unit.

Actions

Step 1 Review and confirmation of Student Feedback Survey (SFS) questions

	Activity	Responsibility	Steps
A	Review and confirm SFSC survey questions	Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) (PVC, L&T)	Questions will be reviewed in line with procedure review dates. Where feedback is received or statistical data analysis indicates that changes to the questions may be beneficial prior to the next scheduled review date, the PVC (L&T) will follow procedural update protocol.

Step 2 Preparing for a Student Feedback Survey Campaign (SFSC)

The SFS provides students with the opportunity to provide both quantitative and qualitative feedback on their satisfaction with their unit delivery and their teacher’s effectiveness in supporting and motivating them to achieve the unit learning outcomes.

The survey questions can be accessed through the Supporting Documents section of this procedure.

	Activity	Responsibility	Steps
A	Confirm unit delivery and preliminary academic staff planning/delivery alignment	Manager, Partner Quality and Accreditation Services Fed Services/ Registrar Deputy Deans Institute	Before commencement of the semester/delivery period ensure that course coordinators, unit coordinators, lecturers and/or teachers and tutors and associated workloads have been assigned to adequately cover course/qualification requirements. Identify any unit codes to be excluded from the data set. Examples of excluded units include some placement or exchange placeholder unit codes. The Cooperative Placement team need to provide a list of the wholly Unit Placement units that form part of the SFSC.
B	Confirm SFSC	Senior Surveys and Student Data Analyst	Confirm campaign delivery locations and semesters. Campaign delivery should occur at the 75% mark, rounded down, through a teaching period, unless there is reason to do otherwise (eg: student exams or holiday periods). Campaign duration should run until the end of the week following the lecture period, unless there is reason to do otherwise (eg: accelerated reporting requirements). Liaise with ITS to identify any technical support needs, upcoming upgrades or scheduled outages that might impact the conduct of the survey campaign. Prepare and communicate the SFSC for the specified period.
C	Configure academic staff delivery information in the Student Management System	Deputy Dean (Institutes) Heads of Discipline (or nominee)	Ensure that all teacher and tutor details are updated in appropriate fields within the Student Management System platform by the deadline specified in the SFSC.
D	Request to combine units	ADLT	Where a unit combination is required the ADLT should complete a Combined Unit Request Form (see supporting documents) and send to Manager (Course Support and Technical Services), or nominee and timetabling staff by the deadline specified in the SFSC to communicate this change. ADLT will receive an email confirming this has been actioned.
E	Generate survey data file	Senior Surveys and Student Data Analyst	Generate survey data file for the relevant teaching period. Data file generation should be automated, and account for student and unit exceptions. Such exceptions include, but are not limited to: students who are excluded, deceased or on approved leave of absence. units requested for exclusion.
F	Validate academic delivery assignment	Senior Surveys and Student Data Analyst	Validate the data extracts for correctness so that individual teacher reports can be accurately produced for all relevant teaching activities within the campaign period. Consult with relevant ADLT to resolve any gaps or inaccurate data.
G	Develop SFSC Communication Plan	Senior Survey and Student Data Officer Senior Surveys and Student Data Analyst Partners ADLT	For surveys running in Semester 1 and 2, work with Student Communication to develop and execute a direct student communication plan to promote the survey at appropriate milestones in the lead up to the campaign opening, during the campaign and as the close approaches designed to optimise student response rates. Work with ADLT and Manager (Course Support and Technical Services) or nominee to develop and execute an academic staff communication plan to promote the survey at appropriate milestones in the lead up to the campaign opening, during the campaign and at the close approaches designed to optimise student response rate. Partners have a responsibility to develop and execute student communication plans and campaigns, as well as an academic communication plan and campaign.
H	Test and release SFSC	Senior Survey and Student Data Officer	Compile, test and load campaigns into the survey system.
I	Activate the student and staff communication plan to promote the SFSC	Senior Survey and Student Data Officer Student Communications Officer ADLT Manager, PQ&AS	Advise Student Communications of go live and activate the student communication plan. Advise the ADLT and Manager (Course Support and Technical Services) of Survey Go Live and activate the academic staff communication plan. Partners having a responsibility to activate communication plans and advise the Manager, Partner Quality and Accreditation Services (Manager, PQ&AS).
J	Provide weekly campaign updates	Senior Surveys and Student Data Analyst	Provide weekly response rate updates on to ADLTs, Executive and Deputy Deans, and Heads of Discipline, comparing all disciplines. Response rates should be broken down by institute and discipline (where possible).
K	Review weekly campaign response rates and identify and initiate further targeted promotional activity where required	ADLT Manager, PQ&AS	Where response rates are low, work with the Senior Surveys and Student Data Analyst and Student Communications to review the survey communication plan and identify and initiate further targeted promotional activity designed to increase participation. The higher the response rate the better. At a minimum, response rates should be at least 20% per unit. The Manager, PQ&AS follows up partner response rates and actions.
L	Close Campaign	Senior Surveys and Student Data Analyst	Turn off campaign in survey platform and consolidate data ready for reporting.

Step 3 Generation and distribution of STUF Survey reports

	Activity	Responsibility	Steps
A	Provide dashboard reports and/or Unit Heat Maps	Senior Surveys and Student Data Analyst ADLT Heads of Discipline	Provide dashboard reports and/or Unit Heat Maps that identify the level of student response (% of students responding out of the total enrolled) and student agreement using a likert scale: 1 (Strongly disagree, 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neutral), 4 (Agree) and 5 (Strongly agree). These Unit Heat Maps are developed into Institute Unit Heat Maps for wider distribution. Unit evaluations should only be reported in cases that at least two student responses are present for a unit. Teacher evaluations should only be reported in cases that at least two student responses are present for a unit/teacher combination. Performance heat maps will align with the following coding colours: Outstanding (green): [4.5-5.0] Doing well (blue): [4.0-4.5) Monitor (orange): [3.5-4.0) Action plan (red): [1.0-3.5) Notes Square bracket signifies inclusion of a number Round bracket signifies exclusion of a number An average of all “Unit survey” items will also be available to aggregate scores across all questions. Provide the ADLTs and Teaching Heads of Disciplines (HoD) at least 10 business days prior to student result release to review dashboards. Develop and distribute the pre-release email script that accompanies heatmaps/dashboard sharing to the broader university audience Prior to release of heatmaps/dashboards to the broader university audience, confirmation from the ADLTs must be received.
B	Provide Full Unit and Teacher Evaluations including qualitative comments	Senior Surveys and Student Data Analyst	Unit Evaluations: Once students' final unit grades have been published Unit Evaluations are to be provided to: the Unit Coordinator for all campuses where the unit has been taught specific Course Coordinator specific Head of Discipline specific Executive Dean specific Deputy Deans specific ADLTs Dean GraduateResearch School for research units Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) Nominated representative at specific partner providers* Teacher Evaluations: Once students' final unit grades have been published, Teacher Evaluations are to be provided to: specific teacher specific Course Coordinator specific Head of Discipline specific Executive Dean specific Deputy Deans specific ADLTs Dean Graduate Research School for research units Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) Nominated representative at partner providers* Institute Unit Heat Maps: are disseminated to the following stakeholders: Chair, Learning and Teaching Quality Committee LTQC members Executive Deans Deputy Deans ADLTs Heads of Discipline Course Coordinators Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) nominated representatives at partner providers* Dean, Quality and Accreditation * Partners use their evaluations for management meetings before semester closes. Reports should be delivered in Partner Provider with an embargo until after results have been published. All qualitative comments should be shared regardless of response rates with prior review for appropriate language use. Partner survey results need to be tabled at the next possible Institute Board meeting. For the purpose of Academic Promotions, the Executive Officer of the promotions committee will request Teacher Evaluations (quantitative and qualitative) and Unit Evaluations (quantitative and qualitative) from the Senior Surveys and Student Data Analyst to verify information provided by the applicant (ie unit code, title, mode of delivery and semester offering) as well as SFS-U and SFS -T. Where Unit Evaluations are requested, an appropriate time period should be specified. All SFS – P (Student Feedback Survey – Placement) will be provided to the Director-Cooperative Placements.
C	Sharing student feedback contained in reports	All staff All partner staff	Unit Coordinators and teachers receiving student feedback have the responsibility to ensure the information is utilised in an effective, ethical manner and should conform to the University's People and Culture Policy and Information Privacy Procedure. Misuse of data from SFS reports will be dealt with in accordance with official University Policies and Procedures which may include disciplinary action. Staff suspecting that data from SFS reports has been shared inappropriately, should report the matter directly to their supervisor in the first instance, or if this is not appropriate, their Deputy Dean. Comments which are general in nature (that is, in which staff are not identifiable) may be shared with all staff teaching in the unit. Comments that identify, or could identify, staff can be shared only with the identifiable staff member and those detailed in Activity B, Step 4 above. While it is expected that in the qualitative items, students will only comment on the teaching of the nominated teacher, a student could feasibly name and comment on a different teacher. In this case, the recipients of this report are under obligation to treat comments about other staff as confidential. As students were not invited to comment on teachers other than the participating teacher, any comments about nonparticipating teachers should not be passed on to anyone. Where comments refer directly to another teacher engaged in the unit delivery but who was not specifically identified within the co-teaching team and will not therefore receive the report, the comments will be forwarded to the Head of Discipline for sharing with the teacher as appropriate. Every effort will be made to remove student feedback which is considered offensive or defamatory (e.g. racist, sexist, personal or abusive, or allegations of criminal activity. This feedback should NOT be passed on to any staff member or any student. Where a breach of student conduct is suspected, the Director, Retention, Innovation and Student Experience or nominee may identify and contact the student to initiate disciplinary measures. Under no circumstances will the identity of a student be made available to teaching or unit administration staff.
D	Recognition and reward of exemplar performance	Senior Surveys and Student Data Analyst ADLT	Identify exemplary performance in Unit and Teacher response and reward this outcome. Where Unit and Teacher Overall responses meet the qualifying metrics of “Overall Unit Quality” is at least 4.5 in the Outstanding Category. For a unit to be considered, it must have at least 15 students enrolled and at least 20% response rate. Letters of commendation are generated, and achievements are recognised at the Institute level. Identify and send letters to individual staff and/or teaching teams and courses with copies to the Executive Deans and ADLT. Staffassociated with exemplary practice will be encouraged to nominate for Institute and/or institutional (ie Vice-Chancellor Learning and Teaching Awards) and/or national learning and teaching awards. This includes all partner staff.
E	Quality assurance improvement strategies	ADLTs	Ensure that units where Unit Survey Action Plans are required are identified and that plans are developed in line with Step 4 below.

Step 4 Actioning Student Feedback

	ACTIVITY	RESPONSIBILITY	STEPS
A.	Developing Unit Survey Action Plans (USAP).	Unit Coordinators Course Coordinators ADLTs Head of Disciplines Co-Operative Placement Team	A Unit Survey Action Plan (USAP) needs completing if a unit meets any of the following criteria: Type 1 – USAP: Red colour indicator and at least 20% response rate and at least 2 responses Type 2 – USAP: Any colour indicator and at least 15 enrolments and less than 20% response rate Type 3 – USAP: Not red and at least 20% response rate and at least 5 responses and score has dropped by 0.5 or more since last survey The USAP provides an opportunity for unit reflection enhancements for future delivery and supportive conversations and actions with key stakeholders including Institute ADLT, Learning Designers, Course Coordinators, Head of Disciplines and Learning Skills Advisors. The USAP provides an opportunity for unit reflection enhancements for future delivery. The Unit Coordinator creates a USAP using these four key prompts: Acknowledgement of key issues identified through such feedback. Summary of improvements or unit modifications to address the student feedback, peer review and/or unit review. A delivery semester when any resulting changes will be included in the unit. Feedback that will be provided to students through the unit moodle shell and within the Unit Description for future cohort deliveries. The Unit Coordinator must meet with their line manager and Head of Discipline and Course Coordinator. and so that changes are in context of the course, including potential changes that may be linked to course learning outcomes and/or accreditation requirements. The Unit Coordinator submits the USAP to the ADLT for endorsement who then submits it to the relevant Institute Board. The ADLT can also offer additional support to the teacher. Each Course Coordinator is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the USAP findings into the future including completion prior to the next delivery and its impact on the student experience. A tracking system will be explored within a university system (FDL and/or Curriculum Centre). The Co-Operative Placement team can also provide key information and suggestions to the Unit Coordinator for unit enhancement.
B.	Developing Institute Unit Action Summary (IUAS)	ADLTs	The ADLT is responsible for summarising the USAP reports provided to Institute Board into an Institute Course Action Summary (IUAS). The ADLT submits the IUAS to the University Learning and Teaching Committee as evidence of continuous quality assurance.
C	Addressing student feedback by completing the “Closing the Loop” section of the Unit Description. This is to be completed for each unit after each delivery.	Unit Coordinators Note: Where there are changes in Unit Coordinators, the Course Coordinator will ensure the completion of the “Closing the Loop” to meet this quality assurance need.	At the end of each teaching delivery, it is the responsibility of Unit Coordinators to review the feedback received from students through a variety of mechanisms, including STUF Survey Tool. All Unit Coordinators/Teachers need to ensure future students have access to comments relevant to the ongoing improvement of a unit. For all HE units, the Unit Description template section specific to addressing student feedback and “Closing the Loop” must give an overview of the feedback received and the actions completed to address the feedback prior to the next delivery of the unit. Unit Coordinators and teachers should look for trends rather than focusing on isolated comments and reflect on what can be done to maintain the strengths and improve learning for students. Unit Coordinators should use the four key prompts in section 4 (A) Number 2. Enhancements should be aligned with timely implementation and clearly communicated to key stakeholders (prior to the next delivery). Professional development support to assist staff in addressing survey feedback, will be available to staff through the ADLT, and appropriate professional development centres throughout the university.
D.	Planning improvements to a unit	Unit Coordinators, Course Coordinators, ADLTs	Unit Coordinators and Course Coordinators are expected to reflect on the findings and use the data to plan improvements to a unit. ADLTs and other learning and teaching support staff can also guide improvements relative to feedback. Head of Disciplines and the ADLTs can also utilise data to identify Unit Coordinators or teachers who require added support in a variety of areas and also celebrate exemplar learning and teaching. Where support is required, the ADLT and their supervisor may need to be involved to identify what support best suits the situation (i.e. peer review, mentoring etc).
E.	Documenting areas for unit improvement via Your Growth Matters (YGM)	Supervisors/Coordinators	Unit Coordinators/lecturers and/or teachers must provide evidence of unit and teacher feedback as part of annual YGM discussions. Unit Coordinators are expected to discuss SFS feedback with supervisees during the YGM process. This discussion needs to be documented at the annual YGM process including a focus on corrective action (if required). This process should allow for setting appropriate goals related to learning and teaching performance and quality assurance.
F.	Addressing teacher feedback where necessary	Teacher Supervisor Head of Discipline Partners	If student feedback regarding a teacher's performance needs addressing, a teacher must meet with their Head of Discipline and Supervisor to discuss the feedback. The teacher develops improvement strategies within an acceptable time frame (within and no later than eight weeks after the feedback has been received) and actions any improvement agreed to with the Head of Discipline. The teacher is responsible for identifying key area(s) of improvement and providing a strategy to improve performance. This is documented within their YGM cycle and in the Unit Description section relevant to student feedback. This is also discussed with the Unit Coordinator and/or teaching team (where appropriate). The strategies need to be approved by the Head of Discipline and may include peer review by the Institute ADLT or nominee. Strategies may include benchmarking against the Blended Online Digital (BOLD) Learning and Teaching Practice standards and redesign elements of the unit with support from institute learning designers. Partners must meet with teaching staff and address any feedback they have on their teaching.
G.	Reviewing and continuously improving	ADLT	The impact of the new strategies is reviewed prior to the next delivery of the unit. Updates to the units are also reviewed as part of 5 yearly Course Reviews and as part of the continuous quality assurance cycle. Together with the Institute Unit Action Summary, the ADLT prepares a report for the relevant Institute Board at the end of each semester specifically on the performance of units with action plans in the previous delivery.

Supporting Documents

Forms

Combined Unit Request Form (DOCX 65.4kb)
Institute Unit Action Plan (DOCX 87.5kb)
Student Feedback Survey (SFS) Questions (DOCX 72.4kb)
Type 1 - Unit Survey Action Plan (DOCX 88.1kb)
Type 2 - Unit Survey Action Plan (DOCX 88.0kb)
Type 3 - Unit Survey Action Plan (DOCX 85.3kb)
Unit Removal Request Form (DOCX 73.4kb)

Responsibility

Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) is responsible for monitoring the implementation, outcomes and scheduled review of this procedure.
Deputy Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) is responsible for maintaining the content of this procedure as delegated by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching).

Promulgation

The Student Feedback Survey (SFS) Procedure will be communicated throughout the University via:

Specific advice to Partner Providers and Institutes;
General advice on the University Website;
Inclusion on the university's Policy Central; and
Specialised marketing and information materials.

Implementation

The Student Feedback Survey (SFS) Procedure will be implemented throughout the University via:

Administration and reporting of the survey via the Survey Team, Data Analysis and Reporting.
Implementation of the communication plan to engage students.
Continuous improvement of units and courses through the application of feedback and reflective practice.
Discussions at Institute and institutional level meetings and with key Institute stakeholders.

Records Management

Owning organisation units and recipients of survey reports are responsible for the secure storage of survey reports

Title	Location	Responsible Officer	*Minimum retention* period**
Survey data	Central drive	Coordinator, Student Engagement and Experience Surveys	Destroy 7 years after action completed
Unit Survey Action Plan	Institute Drive Submitted to Institute Learning and Teaching Committee or equivalent on a cyclic basis	ADLT	Destroy two years after organisational use has concluded
Institute Unit Action Summary	Institute Drive Submitted to FedUni Learning and Teaching Quality Committee on a cyclic basis	ADLT	Destroy two years after organisational use has concluded

Prev	Up	Next
Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching		Glossary

Policy Glossary

Approval Authority:	Pro Vice-Chancellor, Learning and Teaching		Original Issue	14/12/2012
Policy Sponsor:	Deputy Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)		Current Version:	27/03/2025
CRICOS Provider Number	00103D		Review Date:	20/03/2028
TEQSA Provider ID:	PRV12151		Provider Category:	Australian University
RTO Code	4909	Policy Code	CG1703

Warning - Uncontrolled when printed! The current version of this document is kept on the FedUni website.

Approval Authority:	Pro Vice-Chancellor, Learning and Teaching	Original Issue	14/12/2012
Policy Sponsor:	Deputy Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)	Current Version:	27/03/2025
CRICOS Provider Number	00103D	Review Date:	20/03/2028
Policy Code	CG1703

Policy code:	CG1703
Policy owner:	Deputy Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)
Approval authority:	Pro Vice-Chancellor, Learning and Teaching
Approval date:	27 March 2025
Next review date:	20 March 2028

University governance document

Student Feedback Survey (SFS) Procedure

Policy code: CG1703 Policy owner: Deputy Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) Approval authority: Pro Vice-Chancellor, Learning and Teaching Approval date: 27 March 2025 Next review date: 20 March 2028

Purpose