Bringing Quality to Feedback Mechanism in HEIs

When anything is taken for granted, it's genuineness is killed. It gradually turns to a ritual. As part of the documentation ritual we have unleashed in the name of accreditation in the HEIs, feedback has become a casualty. It is true that majority of HEIs initiated the habit of collecting structured feedback only in the wake of accreditation as it was mandated. Feedback has since joined the legion of reports which are mechanically generated, printed and filed, often followed up with requisite action taken reports. Many institutions ensure that the responses gathered through feedback will not be made to interfere with the regular functioning of the HEI!        Feedback-effectiveness is strongly tied to the follow-up actions. In any context, leave alone academic, if feedback doesn't lead to change, then it becomes a mere practice which doesn't benefit the person who spends her time on it or improve the whole process in one way or another. Once the Feedback-giver is convinced that her input will not bring about changes, that it will not help improve the practices in place, she will take it casually. Rather than seriously analyse the experiences and services and give prompt input, the idea will be to get it done with as quick as possible. No sincerity will be invested in an act which promises no productive return.         

Here are a set of suggestions which will help the HEIs make their academic feedback productive: 

1. Establish an accountable ecosystem in the institution. This doesn't pertain specifically to follow ups to feedback, but in everything. The general reputation that an institution enjoys in terms of quality and efficiency contributes hugely to the activities of the institution being taken seriously at all levels. This applies to feedback-credibility too. 

2. Pay attention to the feedback questions or the factors on which feedback is taken. Make sure that there is relevance and specificity to the questions asked. If the questions do not address areas specifically, neither will the responses be helpful and nor can it be acted upon.

3. Before framing the feedback-questions, be clear about the reasons: why is the input taken? What aspect of, for instance, teaching -learning process, is targeted to receive inputs. Make sure that the information sought is clearly related to it. 

4. Avoid statements/questions which are merely designed to generate only 'feel-good feedback’. Such feedback will be in the multiple choice questions and the purpose will be evident in the way the answer-choices are provided. It will not allow the responses to fall below 'good'! It will ask you to pick one among: excellent, very good, and good. The confidence that there's not much to improve and that everything we do is above 'good', is against the very idea of feedback! No wonder that sensible respondents will choose not to be part of this gimmick. 

5. Be brief. Reduce the quantum of input sought. The more the information sought, the less the chance of response or effective response. If more personal information is made mandatory in the feedback, the less the chances of getting people to do it honestly.         6. Include space for taking descriptive input wherever required. Too many Yes/No responses or one word tick the box choices will be insufficient to bring in required improvement. Targeted and general questions provide space for the respondent to bring in quality, actionable inputs. 

7. When the questionnaire /form to collect feedback is designed, make it really related to the event/service/department which is being assessed. The tendency to use the same feedback template for multiple purposes can make it generic and rather 'loose'. Such exercises hardly help receive what Simon Sinek calls 'feed forward': feedback which help drive the process constructively forward with quality inputs.

8. Make it a regular exercise to have analysis of feedback responses and action taken reports gathered, following up on feedback collection. Make it part of the agenda for the next meeting of the body concerned. 

9. Communicate the value of feedback to the relevant target stakeholders groups and inform them how it will help improve the system. This must be done citing specific cases of feedback and the resultant actions taken. Mention the person/s or groups which provided the feedback too. This will make the stakeholders take the whole exercise more seriously, and can urge them to be an agent in quality enhancement processes. 

10. Let there be a mechanism to periodically publicize the feedback and let the community know the changes brought in as a result of the feedback received. It is a good practice to have follow-ups of feedback publicized so that the credibility of the exercise is never doubted. 

The power of feedback in improving the quality of institutional practices and facilities is significant. If the HEIs can firm up the confidence of the stakeholders through effective follow-ups, especially students, to provide quality feedback, it sure can be one key resource towards institutional quality enhancement.

Babu. P. K., Ph D.