Infonet, June 21, 2010, Issue 8

A publication of the Governorʼs DD Council & ID Action. It was first created nearly two decades ago as a print-only publication, sent to a few hundred people. Today we offer our nearly 3,000 direct subscribers and a variety of services

Collecting and using student feedback Date: A guide to good practice

The purpose of this Guide is to help higher education institutions make the best use of their student feedback. This guide is based on a HEFCE funded project undertaken by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI). The purpose of this Guide is to help higher education institutions make the best use of their student feedback. All institutions collect feedback from their students and in many different forms. They use it to improve the quality of the education they provide. In recent years, there has been a shift in the balance between informal and formal types of student feedback with a greater emphasis on the latter. Now, new devolved forms of national quality assurance promise to give an important role to students and there is also an expectation that information from student feedback will be used to inform the choices of students when applying to higher education. Thus, as the importance attached to student feedback increases, ensuring that feedback is collected effectively and used wisely becomes an increasing priority for higher education institutions. This Guide draws on the experiences of the sector to highlight some of the good practices that exist as well as some of the problems that institutions are experiencing in using student feedback. Its focus is upon the use of student feedback for the purpose of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Other purposes are acknowledged but are not the main emphasis of this publication

Results of a UK industrial tribological survey

During the summer of 2012, the National Centre for Advanced Tribology at Southampton (nCATS) undertook a UK-wide industrial tribological survey in order to assess the explicit need for tribological testing within the UK. The survey was designed and implemented by a summer intern student, Mr Simon King, under the supervision of Drs John Walker and Terry Harvey and supported by the director of nCATS, Professor Robert Wood. The survey built upon on two previous tribological surveys conducted through the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) during the 1990’s. The aim was to capture a snapshot of the current use of tribological testing within UK industry and its perceived reliability in terms of the test data generated. The survey also invited participants to speculate about how UK tribology could improve its approach to testing. The survey was distributed through the nCATS industrial contact list, which comprises of over 400 contacts from a broad spectrum of commercial industries. The Institute of Physics (IOP) tribology group also assisted by distributing the survey to its membership list. A total of 60 responses were received for the survey, out of which 39 had fully completed the questionnaire. Participants came from a broad spread of industrial backgrounds, with the energy sector having the highest representation. Only 40% of respondents were dedicated tribologists/surface engineers, again reflecting the multi-disciplinary nature of the field. It was found that the companies that had the highest annual turnover also appeared to expend the most on tribology. The majority of respondents indicated that as a percentage of turnover tribology accounted for less than 1%, however the lack of hard figures only for tribology make this a conservative estimate. The greatest concern in relation to tribology of those who responded was the cost; however the influence of legislation and product reliability were also driving factors. Abrasive wear was still considered the number one tribological wear mechanism, with sliding contacts ranking as the most common type of wear interface. Metallic and hard coated surfaces were the most commonly encountered type of material suffering from tribological wear phenomena. Laboratory scale testing was a significant part of introducing a new tribological component, however component specific testing was considered the most reliable form of testing a new component over standardised test geometries. Overall there appeared to be much potential for improving the reliability of tribological test data, with most respondents indicating that simply more testing was not the best perceived approach to improving tribological data but rather more reliable, representative tests with improved knowledge capture. Most companies possessed an internal database to assist them with tribological information; however, many also expressed a strong desire for the use of a commercial or national database, although the format this might take was less clear. Opinions appeared split as to whether there would be a collective willingness to contribute to a centralised database, presumably on the grounds on the sensitivity of data

Stakeholder views on publication bias in health services research

Objectives: While the presence of publication bias in clinical research is well documented, little is known about its role in the reporting of health services research. This paper explores stakeholder perceptions and experiences with regard to the role of publication and related biases in quantitative research relating to the quality, accessibility and organization of health services. Methods: We present findings from semi-structured interviews with those responsible for the funding, publishing and/or conduct of quantitative health services research, primarily in the UK. Additional data collection includes interviews with health care decision makers as ‘end users’ of health services research, and a focus group with patient and service user representatives. The final sample comprised 24 interviews and eight focus group participants. Results: Many study participants felt unable to say with any degree of certainty whether publication bias represents a significant problem in quantitative health services research. Participants drew broad contrasts between externally funded and peer reviewed research on the one hand, and end user funded quality improvement projects on the other, with the latter perceived as more vulnerable to selective publication and author over-claiming. Multiple study objectives, and a general acceptance of ‘mess and noise’ in the data and its interpretation was seen to reduce the importance attached to replicable estimates of effect sizes in health services research. The relative absence of external scrutiny, either from manufacturers of interventions or health system decision makers, added to this general sense of ‘low stakes’ of health services research. As a result, while many participants advocated study pre-registration and using protocols to pre-identify outcomes, others saw this as an unwarranted imposition. Conclusions: This study finds that incentives towards publication and related bias are likely to be present, but not to the same degree as in clinical research. In health services research, these were seen as being offset by other forms of ‘novelty’ bias in the reporting and publishing of research findings

How to produce an access agreement for 2012-13

"Following changes to graduate contributions, all publicly funded institutions wishing to charge fees of more than £6,000 for new full‐time undergraduate entrants in 2012‐13 must have a new access agreement approved by OFFA. Access agreements set out how institutions will sustain or improve access and student retention. This document sets out our [OFFA] guidance on how to draw up an access agreement, what you need to include in your agreement and what we will be looking for as regulators." - Page 5

Special Libraries, October 1954

Volume 45, Issue 8https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/sla_sl_1954/1007/thumbnail.jp