Add your evaluation to the repository
Questions:
Q. What are the benefits of submitting an item to this evaluation repository?Q. What evaluation items are accepted?
Q. How do I submit to the repository?
Q. I do not understand parts of the submission process, or what I am required to do. What should I do?
Q. What should I do if I do not understand some of the terminology?
Q. What are the benefits of submitting an item to this evaluation repository
Staff and students involved in conducting evaluations have an active role in helping others to understand the evidence and its implications, such as through the dissemination of evidence. Submitting evaluation outputs to this repository will enable others at Sheffield Hallam and across the sector to use the learning for their own practice. It also provides an opportunity for authors to gain greater recognition and visibility for their work, for example, the item will appear on scholarly indexes such as Google Scholar.
Q. What evaluation items are accepted?
The evaluation repository is particularly focused on interventions that aim to enhance some element of the student lifecycle (access, success and progression). There are no restrictions on the types of evaluation items that are accepted for the repository, so it could be an evaluation report, a briefing, a presentation or something else. However, it is important that the evaluation is communicated in a way that is credible and clear for audiences so that they can assess the evidence and determine whether it can inform their own practice. As a minimum, audiences should be able to understand what has been undertaken (the intervention), why this happened and what change (the outcome) is expected, or being attributed, to the intervention. Evidence to support any claims that are made should also be provided.
Q. How do I submit to the repository?
Step 1: Read the guidance and contact STEERA detailed overview of the process of submitting items to the evaluation repository is provided in this document and within this video. Prior to submitting, we encourage authors to look at this guidance and, if they have not already done so, to arrange to speak with a member of STEER by contacting us at evaluationrepository@shu.ac.uk. This will provide an opportunity to ask any questions about the repository and to clarify any expectations about the submission process.
Step 2: Complete the online submission form
Authors
are required to outline the key details of the evaluation and to upload any
relevant outputs (e.g. report, briefing, presentation) by submitting this
online form.
·
the title and authors of the evaluation; ·
key terms (ideas and topics) that define the evaluation; ·
the start and finish dates of the evaluation; ·
stage of the student lifecycle the evaluation relates to (if any); ·
the type of evaluation evidence and the claims that are being made in the evaluation; ·
the abstract, which briefly highlights the evaluation purpose, key evaluation questions, evaluation findings and recommendations;
·
any relevant documentation and outputs, such as the evaluation report or briefing. Once submitted, the submission will be ‘screened’ by a member of STEER to ensure that the submission is broadly suitable for inclusion. The following criteria must be met: the project or work that has been undertaken is focused on the evaluation of an intervention; the author must be a staff member or student at Sheffield Hallam University or a partnership organisation (e.g. Sheffield Hallam Students’ Union, HePP, HeppSY); the item being submitted is the work of the author; the evaluation must be written in English; the phase or entire evaluation must have been completed; and the evaluation item must be unpublished (i.e. it has not been published elsewhere); the evaluation has received ethical approval where it is required. Authors will be notified if the submission has not been accepted or if further information is required for it to be accepted at this stage. Following the initial screening, the content of the output will be checked more thoroughly by a reviewer. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the submission is sufficiently detailed to help users understand the evaluation and the evidence that was generated. Each submission also needs to demonstrate that it meets a set of expectations relating to evaluation practices, which are in place to ensure that the evidence base on the repository is relatively robust. The reviewer will follow a set of guidelines based around these evaluative standards of practice and the author will be notified of the outcome. If the reviewer has identified any areas where the evaluative standards have not been met, the author will have the opportunity to resubmit or provide further information. If there is a disagreement about the outcome, the reviewer and/or the author will have the option to escalate the review to the Head of Research and Evaluation to resolve the matter.
If the submission is accepted, the item will be uploaded onto the evaluation repository and the author will be notified by email when this has happened. At this point, the evaluation will have a unique page on the site that will display its details and it will appear on external scholarly indexes. This will hopefully help audiences use the learning for their own practice, provide greater visibility, awareness and take up of ‘what works’ in different contexts, and raise the profile of the work that has been undertaken.
Q. I do not understand parts of the submission process, or what I am required to do. What should I do?
If you have not done so already, please access all the guidance on this page, including watching the video which is shown above, and arrange to speak with a member of STEER by contacting us at evaluationrepository@shu.ac.uk. This will provide an opportunity to ask any questions about the repository and to clarify any expectations about the submission process.
Q. What should I do if I do not understand some of the terminology?
It is crucial that the evaluation repository is accessible to staff in the university, regardless of their prior knowledge and experience of evaluation. Please visit the ‘Glossary’ page to learn more about the key terms and concepts used throughout the repository. If this is not helpful, please speak with a member of STEER by contacting us at evaluationrepository@shu.ac.uk, where we will be happy to clarify any terms used.