Academic Performance Evaluation.

1. Academic PerformanceEvaluation. Departmental Presentation: 2014

4. Possibilities • Monitor the performance of the same students for the same subject for all assessments through the year. • Compare performance of same group of students for different subjects for every assessment. • Compare the performance of different groups for the same subject, including different lecturers as well as different learning sites. • Compare the different subjects offered by the same lecturer. • Compare subject performance for a student with performance in other subjects. • Monitor “Bottleneck” subjects or subjects with low throughput rate.

11. Statistics ? Pass Rates? Tendency to look at numbers and percentages to determine good and bad performance of lecturer / students. There are some factors to consider that influence the stats.

12. 120 students registered for Subject ABC 100T in same group.

13. There has been 12 official cancellations of the 120 students registered for subject ABC 110T. If these students are reflected in group Z they do not have a negative effect on the average / pass rate. Then the situation is as follow:

14. A further 7 students were not attending any classes and also do not write the tests. These students are THEN moved to group X WHERE they can be accounted for, and followed up by the relevant department/s. Therefore they do not have a further negative effect on the average / pass rate.

15. Summary of group allocation

16. Performance Evaluation every Test, assignment, predicate and exam

17. Problems / disadvantages • MIS • Interface between Excel and ITS • Manual process • Correct Class groups MUST • Benefits /Advantages • Better management of students numbers, active cancelled and non attenders • Lecturer comparison / Evaluation • Lecturer development (PDP) • Subject comparison • Student performance evaluation • Learning site comparison • Early corrective action and measures for both Staff and students • Financial implications Funding • Non attending students identified and followed up by SDS and Finance cause less hassles at end of year • Yardstick / Measurement tool for faculty and department and individual

18. HEDA / MIS: • Fruitful discussions to implement on system. • Internal via HEDA vs ITS Cost and time? • First stage Available soon • Half Year Mark • Predicate • Exam Mark • Final Mark • Might look something like ……

20. BREAKING NEWS HEDA / MIS HAVE JUST COMPLETED THE PROGRAMMING AND WE ARE CONDUCTING THE TESTS THE NEXT TWO WEEKS AND THEN IT WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR ALL FACULTIES, DEPARTMENTS AND LECTURERS TO USE.

22. 2013 “Bottle neck subjects”

28. Data vs hemis data • HEMIS DATA – cleaned up data for submission to DHET after Special and Exit examination. • Then the work of the Success Rate Representative will be to go through the data for the Department / Learning Site and compile report that will be incorporated to Faculty report for submission to SRS. • 4 Meetings per year SRS and FSRC distance site via network link up. • Using current data Problem Subject were identified that Dept. Reps need to look at and report back.

32. Feedback Success Rate meeting. • Bottle Neck subjects: identify, control and feedback • Problem subjects : identify, control and feedback • Success rate committee to render results and must identify measures , implement and follow up for Success rate improvement Plans for the Institution, Faculty , Department (Distance Sites), Qualification. • Mentors, Tutors, risk profiling, Extra Classes …….. • Definitions – Standardise Internal and with DHET (E.g. Pass rate, Success-rate, throughput rate, • QEP from DHET at all tertiary institutions, for comparison, benchmarking and use best practise. TUT ???

33. Faculty decisions • Standardisation on assessment • Types • Frequency • Group allocation • Done for all subjects • Standardise as far as possible / ensure correct group for students?) • All courses to open and implement GR X and Z • Bottle Neck subjects • Definition • Criteria • Follow up measures • Recourse

34. Faculty decisions: continued • Problem subjects • Definition • Criteria (exam Entrance, success rate, throughput rate, class average, subject comparisons) • Follow up measures • Success Chain • Selection criteria (APS scores to be revised ASAP, (1st come 1st serve vs best students), Quotas vs waiting lists • Application system • Registration system ( self register vs class group allocation) • Receiving of students and orientation process • Class groups allocation • Standardised assessment • Mentors and assistance (SDS, T&L, ) • Service Subjects • Facilities . • More ?? [lease identify and send through

35. Success rate analysis HEMis data

36. Success rate responsibility • Representative get information and or request from Faculty Chairperson (Dean and or Central Success Rate Committee) • They collate information from HOD, Lecturers and who might be in position to provide, and draft report and send through. • Tight deadlines and these reports serve on Academic Committee, if not supplied not include with note as such. And AND ???? • Staff please understand and support Success rate Representative • Supervisor to understand additional responsibility and cut some slack, PLEASE !!!

37. Thank You Any Questions