EDAF Process Questionnaire for the Peer Advisors: Online PAV

GENERAL

Name *

First

Last

Date of the online Peer Advisory Visit *

ADMINISTRATION

Please rate the following areas

Effectiveness of the EDAF staff in organising your participation in the oPAV *

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Adequacy of the information given in advance of your participation *

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Any additional comments you would like to share:

EDAF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Please rate the following areas

Clarity and completeness of the EDAF assessment criteria *

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Relevance and applicability *

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Any additional comments you would like to share:

PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

Please rate the following areas

Adequacy of the process documentation *

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Timely delivery of the documents *

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Any additional comments you would like to share:

THE ONLINE PEER ADVISORY VISIT

Please rate the following areas

Logic of the schedule of interviews during the oPAV *

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Time sufficiency to ask/answer questions *

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Quality of the chairing (N/A to the Chair)

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Effectiveness of the decision-making process in determining the final recommendations *

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Any additional comments you would like to share:

QUALITY OF THE PAT MEMBERS AS ADVISORS (N/A for your own role)

Please rate the following areas

Chair

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

(Local) Academic Advisor

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Mentor

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Any additional comments you would like to share:

THE ONLINE PROCESS

Please help us improve the oPAV process by answering the following questions

Was it possible to conduct the oPAV with the necessary thoroughness? *

Was the overall duration of the oPAV too long or too short? *

Which session(s) could be shortened? *

Were the breaks long enough, too long or too short? *

Did the responsible person from the EDAF office support the process well? *

Did the School provide adequate support for the online review and base room access? (timely delivery of data and documents?) *

Did you experience technical problems? *

Which suggestions for improvement would you like to make? *

Any additional comments you would like to share:

THE PEER ADVISORY REPORT (to be completed once the PAR is finalised and received)

Please rate the following areas

Opportunity to provide input to the report (N/A to the Chair)

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Quality of the report as a reflection of your experience *

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Timely contribution of individual advisors to the report *

Very poor	Poor	Average	Good	Very good
Very poorItem #1 Very poor	PoorItem #1 Poor	AverageItem #1 Average	GoodItem #1 Good	Very goodItem #1 Very good

Any additional comments you would like to share:

SURVEYS

GENERAL

ADMINISTRATION

EDAF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

THE ONLINE PEER ADVISORY VISIT

QUALITY OF THE PAT MEMBERS AS ADVISORS (N/A for your own role)

THE ONLINE PROCESS

THE PEER ADVISORY REPORT (to be completed once the PAR is finalised and received)