Section 3.2.2.1 Promotions in UCD

Section 3.2.2.1 Promotions in UCD

Section 3.2.2.1 Promotions in UCD

The University Committee for Academic Appointments, Tenure, and Promotion (UCAATP) are responsible for reviewing and evaluating the academic promotion system within UCD, and are currently in the final stages of finalising revised benchmarks for upcoming promotions criteria.


Due to the variability in SET methods, items, and data quality the advent of the UCD SFM process (see Section 9) and the standardisation this enabled addressed many of the concerns relating to confounding variables, reliability, and validity (Section 8) that had previously accompanied SET as evidence of quality teaching.


While the SFM feedback is accepted as standardised, objective evidence of quality teaching by UCAATP the focus of the survey on the module rather than the teacher means that it should be used in conjunction with other sources to demonstrate excellence in teaching.


In relation to the interpretation of ratings (based on the scale of 1-5, where 1 is negative and 5 is positive) mean Likert scores of three or less suggests there is an issue to be inspected or addressed; a mean score of 3-4 suggests student are generally satisfied with the module; and scores above four indicate quality teaching/satisfaction with teaching.


It is anticipated that a history of SFM scores will provide a basic overview of student satisfaction over time, indicating lecturer commitment to improvement within a given module. This overview may be accompanied by an explanation for lower scores, such as attempts to implement new teaching strategies, initial cycles of new modules, or changes in delivery method.


The precise guidelines are available on the promotion webpage.


Activity 3.2.2.1

What are the UCD guidelines for the use of SET data in promotions? How does this compare with the type of evaluation and data you’ve gathered about your teaching to date?

To what extent do you feel the guidelines/criteria serves as an accurate reflection of the quality of your teaching or your personal pedagogic ethos?

Submit your answers


Back to 3.2.1 Continue to Section 3.2.3 Back To Section 3

Page tools