PowerPoint presentation relating to the best practice in writing Self Evaluation Documents (2008)

1. Writing
self-evaluation documents
June 2008

2. Aim
• Readers of the report should be left with a
clear impression of the views the self-
evaluation group has of itself: its strengths
and how these will be maintained or
enhanced; and a frank appraisal of its
weaknesses, how it is intended to
eradicate them, or if this is not possible,
what improvements it intends to make

3. Questions
• What do you do?
• Why do you do it?
• How well do you do it?
• How do you know how well you do it?

4. Think about your audience
• Who is going to read your document?
• What knowledge do they have
– of the subject area?
– of the Scottish system?
• What power do they have?

5. Who should be involved?
Course team, students, others in UHI, externals…
Issues to consider
• Ownership
• Responsibilities
• Timing
• Consistency
• Preparing for the review / event

6. Managing perceptions
• The self-evaluation document can set the
tone for the review; it also sets the initial
area for review
• What impression do you want to make?
• (But it’s only part of the process!)

7. Strengths and weaknesses
• Identify weaknesses honestly (but not in a
destructive way!)
• Don’t forget to identify strengths too
• Tone is important – think about language
and structure
• Remember that reviewers will use your
document as their starting point

8. Evidence and description
• Self-evaluation should be both evaluative
and descriptive. A self-evaluation will
need to contain sufficient description to
provide the intended audience with
context and understanding. ‘Persuasive’
self-evaluations may need to contain more
description as external readers will lack
the insider knowledge of the self-
evaluation group.

9. Making judgements
• Self-evaluation involves judgement: that something
is good, might be improved, should be changed etc.
Judgements can only be made on the basis of
evidence (i.e., information related to criteria). It is a
common failing to leave the judgement implicit, to
provide a description of activity that is intended self-
evidently to point to a particular judgement. Such
an approach assumes shared criteria and values
with external readers that may not be there. Self-
evaluations should contain judgements and reasons
for them.

10. Thinking like a reviewer
• ‘there is an identified need for staff
development which is more subject based’
• ‘teaching and learning is also being
reassessed’
• ‘student support is inadequate’

11. Thinking like a reviewer
• ‘there is a plan to use thin client technology
in a few years’
• ‘learning resources are considered in the
annual course reports’
.

12. Evidence
• From the beginning, think about how
you’re going to organise your evidence
• Use referencing and document lists
• Direct reviewers to the most appropriate
source of evidence

13. Be kind to your reader!
• Your document should be well structured
and easy to read
• Think about
– Spacing
– Paragraph length and structure
– Order and numbering
• Try to keep your reader’s interest

14. Consider
• language
• abbreviations
• length
• clarity
• sense
• purpose
• punctuation
• tools
• style
• lists
• diagrams
• redrafting
• checking
presentation and content are both important

15. Benefits of an evaluative document
• may influence the amount of time the team
spends in the institution
• reviewers arrive at the institution with a clear
view understanding of the provision
• reviewers are aware of the environment in which
the subject is operating
• may reduce the amount of additional
documentation requested by the team
• enables the establishment of a clear agenda for
the review