QoT Analysis Report - 2017

The University Quality of Teaching (QoT) Policy was approved by Senate in 2015, but no action was taken in its implementation and the Senate approved a delay in review until this occurred. Consequently, the Policy was rolled out as a measure of teaching quality in staff reviews in 2017.

The aggregated and averaged institutional performance on QoT provides some guidance as to how the University as a whole evaluates the quality of teaching.

Details of the QoT are available from the Policy Library, where the QoT Policy is available.


The data by Faculty are provided here, with staff names removed for reasons of confidentiality.

Analysis of the QoT submitted data to the Staff review Committee in 2017, reveals the following:

  1. Some 44 staff members submitted their QoT Staff Review in November compared to 10 (all FSTE) in May 2017;
  2. Effective Use of ICT-supported Pedagogies and Staff Professional Development average dropped below 3;
  3. Some 5 out of 44 staff scoring ‘0’ for Professional Development, meaning that they did not engage in any Professional Development during the review period;
  4. The FBE average for Professional Development was below 2, with 4 out of the 5 staff who scored ‘0’ coming from FBE; and
  5. A number of staff failed to provide responses to at least some of the criteria of the QoT (e.g., course pass rates), meaning the averages are low (a non-response scores 0 in the QoT scoring system.


It seems some staff are still choosing to ignore the requirements of the QoT Policy, and are therefore failing to provide a complete QoT response. This is different from staff who may, for example, not have engaged in any professional development, and their form is completed, but they have not achieved this. An outcome of this is that HR needs to refuse to consider any application for Staff review, unless the staff submits a complete QoT form.

Second, analysis of these data indicates that a number of staff are not engaging in Professional Development (PD), and that similarly a number of staff are not incorporating the use of ICT in their teaching. This suggests that relevant HOS should instruct such staff to work with the Centre for Flexible Learning (CFL), and take up opportunities such as the Open Education resources (OER) workshops and projects.

USP Chat Service
Lets start: