Narrative of Possible Future Practice relating to HE Applicants

NameNarrative of Possible Future Practice relating to HE Applicants
ProjectStudy 1: Improving the provision of feedback to applicants
AuthorAlan Paull
Creation date27 February 2007
Last update date29 March 2007
Version1.0



Introduction

Improving HE Applicant Feedback
“The Steering Group believes that universities and colleges should provide feedback on request to unsuccessful applicants. In the first instance, ‘feedback’ means explaining why an applicant was unsuccessful. The Steering Group recognises that there will be practical constraints on the form of feedback that can be given (some courses attract 30 applicants for every place). The Steering Group recommends that each institution decide for itself the form of the feedback it can offer applicants. The QAA Code of Practice on Recruitment and Admissions recommends that all institutions should consider how decisions and the reasons for these decisions are recorded. The Steering Group considers that it is essential for institutions to have an audit trail documenting reasons for admissions decisions and that this audit trail provide the basis for feedback. In many cases feedback is likely to be straightforward (as when an applicant does not have appropriate grades or levels of achievement).”
From 'Fair admissions to higher education: recommendations for good practice' (Schwartz report 2004)

1. This document describes a narrative for an applicant for an undergraduate Higher Education course, who seeks and obtains feedback about his or her application. It is based on user requirements for an HE applicant feedback system, informed by systems in place for job applicants. The purpose of the document is to illustrate some possible improvements to existing systems of giving feedback to applicants. It is emphasised again that this narrative is aspirational and illustrates an ideal situation given the resources, support from senior management and polices and procedures are in place in an HEI.

2. The narrative sets out the relevant context of the HE application, building on the eP4LL Reference Model work, in particular the "Narrative for a learner making an application to a higher education institution". Our research indicated that provision of high quality information to applicants about the course and how to get feedback on their application at the start of the application process was likely to satisfy much of the demand for feedback at the end. Therefore this narrative starts with the provision of information and continues through the processes whereby an applicant receives personalised feedback. The model includes examples of how an applicant might receive generic or standardised (i.e. non-personalised) feedback.

3. The focus of this narrative is on the processes involved, rather than the content of the feedback. The study is particularly interested in any electronic tools that might be used, so the narrative and associated scenarios attempt to cover these.

4. Part of our work was to gather information about the potential requirements of HEIs from a feedback system, bearing in mind concerns that the more feedback that was expected, the more the volume of the increased feedback would mean it was unrealistic for HEIs to be able to provide meaningful feedback to applicants and, of even greater concern, the higher the risk of litigation. There is a fine balance that needs to be achieved: there is a widely held belief that over-simplified responses would be of limited value for the student and student advisers; there is also great concern that the requirement to provide detailed feedback would be administratively unworkable and costly for those institutions that had courses that were largely over-subscribed. We consulted in depth with two institutions and admissions experts at SPA and UCAS, as well as referring to material from responses received by the DfES from HEIs, to the Consultation 2005 into 'Improving the HE application process', in which HEIs were invited to respond to the issue: "HEIs to develop more informative letters to feedback to students, detailing particularly why their applications have been rejected."


Overall narrative

5. Anne has expressed a desire to progress from FE college to Higher Education, probably studying Law. She searches for courses, mapping her own academic and non-academic profile against the Entry Profiles of different courses located within the UCAS website Course Search facility. She applies to her chosen courses at selected HEIs, one of which gives her a log in to the university website, where she finds targeted information relevant to her circumstances.

6. The university Anne applied to is a popular one and the course selects from a large pool of applicants. The university has well developed procedures for providing feedback to applicants, but does not normally interview applicants for this course. Anne applies online through UCAS using her ePortfolio system, which has an integrated interface with various UCAS services.

7. Her application to this university is rejected, and she does not feel that the general information the university supplies to her helps her to understand why she has been unsuccessful. She makes a formal request for feedback, which the university routes to Jane, the Admissions Officer responsible for this course. Jane retrieves the electronic records of Anne's application, which includes all the notes that the Admissions Tutor made when assessing it. Jane reviews the records and writes the feedback, stressing the high number of applications for the course and giving reasons for her rejection. She updates Anne's electronic records and finally sends the feedback off in an email. Anne receives the feedback, which enables her to learn from the experience, and she subsequently makes a successful application.

8. Environment: The individuals involved have access to good quality electronic resources, e.g. email, and sufficient knowledge to make effective use of them. Anne has her personal information captured electronically in her college ePortfolio system. The university has an extensive electronic infrastructure, with good quality integrated systems and an admissions policy and code of practice, which require the publication of Entry Profiles for each course and the recording of application and assessment information electronically. Developments in the UCAS system and investment in its own infrastructure have enabled the university to implement an entirely electronic application and admissions system. While much of the decision-making is de-centralised, the university's central admissions department liaises with UCAS and provides support to departmental admissions staff.

9. Constraints: The central admissions department imposes professional constraints upon the applications and admissions process by encouraging, supporting, monitoring and evaluating the university's admissions and recruitment policies. These include avoiding unlawful discrimination, ensuring that an equal opportunities policy is adhered to, maintaining confidentiality, and using a transparent, rigorous and structured approach to selection.

10. Processes not covered: application for the course, details of assessment, decision processing and notification.

UML overview
     Use Case diagram: Overview of relevant use cases

Scenario 1: Gets information

Scenario description

11. From within her college ePortfolio Anne accesses information about the university's Law LLB course and looks at the Entry Profile, noting that she needs the equivalent of 3 A levels, preferably including at least one Arts subject; the university also requires GCSEs in English, Mathematics and a modern foreign language. There is also a section about how the university assesses applicants, which Anne finds interesting. She makes some notes in her ePortfolio. Finally she decides it would be useful to take up the university's offer of a log in on their website, so that she can receive more in depth information about the course and the university, should she be successful.

12. The university now knows that Anne is interested in the course and can send her updates and further information by email to encourage her to apply formally.

13. Anne now makes a formal application through UCAS.

UML model references

Only 'Record information about the applicant' has been described in detail here. The others are to do with publishing information, which will be a specific process for each HEI.
     Use Case Diagram     Use Case Description

Scenario 2: Assesses Applicants

Scenario description

14. The central admissions department checks that each applicant meets the minimum entry requirements for each course. For most applicants this is done automatically and only in a small number of cases is a member of staff required to intervene manually.

15. Those applicants that do not meet the minimum entry requirements and have no circumstances that might enable them to be considered further are allocated a standard code. All such rejected applicants are then automatically sent a communication by UCAS, which advises them of the rejection and encourages them to seek further IAG. UCAS, advised by admissions practitioners, maintains a vocabulary of standard terms, codes and definitions for use by HEIs.

16. This university also has a policy of providing similar information to the applicant's account on the university website, so that the applicant can read it when they next log in.

17. Anne's application does meet the minimum entry requirements, so it is referred (electronically) to the Law Department for assessment. Howard MacDonald, the Admissions Tutor for the LLB in Law assesses Anne's application by logging in to the university's secure website from home at the weekend. He notes that she has not made clear in her Personal Statement why she wants to study Law, and, as one of the assessment criteria for the course is 'ability to express ideas clearly and effectively', she does not score as highly in this area as other applicants. Admissions staff later code the reason for rejection with a standard code referring to the Personal Statement.

UML model references

"Check minimum requirements met" and "Assess applicants" are not described in detail here, because they are beyond the remit of this study.

Send standard response
     Use Case Diagram: Send standard response
Indicate reason for rejection
     Use Case Description
Initiate standard response
     Use Case Description

Scenario 3: Requests feedback

Scenario description

18. On receiving the information that she has been rejected, Anne does not understand why her Personal Statement was not considered up to scratch. She remembers that the Entry Profile referred to the process of getting feedback about an application, so she checks up how to go about it.

19. The university has a policy through which enquirers are encouraged to refer to guidance on the university's website; formal responses are made only to written or emailed requests for feedback. Anne sends an email to the central admissions department, giving her Unique Learner Number and requesting feedback on the reasons for the rejection of her application.

20. John Smith, a member of staff in the department, receives Anne's email and the university's email system automatically acknowledges receipt.

UML model references
     Use Case Diagram     Use Case Description

Scenario 4: University gives feedback

Scenario description

21. John Smith in the central admissions department, checks Anne's identity (via the ULN) in the applications database, so that he knows which Admissions Officer was in charge of the selection process. He passes on the email request to Jane in the Law Department.

22. Jane receives the email, checks Anne's details in the applicant database and refers to the details of the selection.

23. Jane reviews the comments from the Admissions Tutor, including the scoring sheet and notes. From this information she notes that although Anne did meet the minimum requirements for the course and seemed a strong candidate in a very large field, the Tutor had a reservation about Anne's ability to express ideas clearly and effectively, specifically regarding why she wants to study Law. She calls up an email template for feedback enquiries from the university back office system and completes the relevant free text section. The template also includes standard information, which includes the suggestion that she seeks IAG support.

24. Jane sends the email to Anne.

25. Jane attaches a copy of the email to Anne's electronic records and ticks a box to indicate that personalised feedback has been sent, so that an audit trail is maintained.

26. Anne receives Jane's email. She stores the information in her ePortfolio.

UML model references
     Use Case Diagram: Give feedback
Pass requests to departmental admissions staff
     Use Case Description
Retrieve records
     Use Case Description
Update records
     Use Case Description
Write feedback
     Use Case Description
Send feedback
     Use Case Description