16. What HEI Feedback rules are we going to display in the prototype, e.g. one HEI may agree to provide Feedback within 28 days and another may agree to provide Feedback within 20 working days …… similar, but different ?
17. Is it worth considering a 'limited' set of responses, which meet the needs of those institutions who elect to join the pilot scheme and, at the same time, experiment with the idea of it becoming a global, but comprehensive, list of potential feedback replies ?
N.B.1. This may eliminate the need for the prototype to provide the facility for Code and associated text maintenance by the institutions.
N.B.2. Don't over-simplify, but don't invite litigation.
N.B.3. This approach could be very positive for institutions that have courses that are, largely, over-subscribed.
18. From the "Applicant Feedback Study Final Report / 29 March 2007", which asked employers about feedback, the most significant item upon which feedback was given was "Performance at interview". However, the sample feedback letter in the Schwartz report (14 September 2004) makes particular reference to the applicants' personal statements. Many institutions don't, or only rarely, interview applicants, so the personal statement assumes the same significance as the employer interview for an HEI applicant and this should be made very clear in the Entry Profile, possibly with examples of what the institution is looking for.
N.B. This is not so much a function of the prototype as the operation within the institutions. However the production of the Letter/Email is a function of the prototype.
19. HEs, FEs and Applicants appear to agree, from the survey results that 'standard' paragraphs combined with more specific free text provide the best form of Feedback.
20. How do we ensure the prototype is expandable to be used by FE admissions, Post Graduate admissions and employers providing feedback to job applicants ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment