- Things that impede or are not practical.

- Not delivering desired results.

- Things that are disliked with good reason.

- Recognition for positive modelling.

- Achievements and accomplishments.

- Good news stories.

- Things that we want to keep or expand upon.

- Worth continuing to see if they are worthwhile.

- We like or need.

- Conversations with Manager about performance – continue, but seek staff input on what they consider to be the right format of such conversations

- Things to begin doing to get better results.

- Things worth trying or experimenting for better results.

_ What would support staff comfort in voicing opinions different to others? E.g new platforms.

The addition of support staff (e.g. assistant Unit Assessors) in large units. This takes a lot of burden from the UA and provides more support to students - things like having an extra person to monitor Discussion Boards means students can get faster responses to queries. This also fosters sustainability in our teams - assistant UAs learn the ropes behind the scenes and can develop their skills to take on the role themselves in the future.

For staff to share opinions, they need truly anonymous platforms to share opinions. I think there's also a lot of challenge for newcomers in knowing the chain of command - who to ask for help, where to go for questions... it's very confusing and overwhelming especially for remote staff. One idea might be a printable "faces" page for new staff - who the main players are, what their roles are, photos, etc

Casual or new staff may not feel their voice is valid but sometimes they have fresh insights or can give good feedback on recruitment and induction. This is perhaps an untapped wealth of feedback. Let them know when seeking feedback that we want theirs, not to just delete emails thinking it's not for them ;)

Using Teams as a way to connect remote staff has had a huge impact, mostly positive but it also creates balance challenges for staff who only work casual hours. We need to reinforce for them that it's okay to snooze these and catch up when it suits them - we don't expect markers to be fielding Teams chat messages at all hours before assignments are even due!

Markers' training was fabulous - what happened to that? There seems to be new markers coming in again who don't know how; are unit staff supposed to be teaching them again?

Tutors being provided amazing resources for their tutorials and workshops is absolutely incredible! Other unis don't necessarily do this. The quality of slides and preparation Unit Assessors put in is remarkable.

Vetting of placement sites seems non-existent. I realise this is challenging but it seems any site that says yes gets a student; uni advisors are constantly discovering sites have no ECT or are manipulating the system to have their employees pretending to be on placement. Stop signing up sites without any kind of vetting.

Turnaround times for assessments aren't on par with other institutions' expectations. Many staff could take on far more marking if longer turnarounds were considered. Staff marking outside their specialist teaching area to fill the marker shortages is concerning in terms of consistency. Stop expecting 1000 students to be marked in one week or with a team of 30+ markers (both are impossible to manage).

Collaborate has such limited functionality in terms of presentations. PDF seems to be the only stable format and tutes seem bland without anything graphic or animated. Another reason to consider recorded tutes - tutors can create amazing presentations with other software and present more engaging slides if they aren't reliant on Collaborate Ultra. Stop relying on Collaborate Ultra for delivery.

Workshops with hundreds of students is a contradiction-in-terms and creates technical glitches, students unable to sign in and then unit staff scrambling to respond to their questions. Students will have very negative feedback about this and they deserve better. Stop the unlimited cap on unit numbers without any consideration for logistics.

Learners thrive in tutorials where they feel they are heard; perhaps capping tutorial numbers would support that interaction, so that all learners feel heard and valued, and not just part of the system. In very content-heavy units, such as units focused on the new syllabus, drop-in sessions and active discussion boards foster shared knowledge, experience and understanding which benefits everyone.

Casual academics also need to be recognised as professionals. Not all students will pass; this is not a reflection on the teaching staff, but is often an indicator of the effort and engagement of the individual student. Don't look for extra marks to pass a student, let them fail if it is deserved and don't undermine markers if their grade is justified by the rubric.

Engagement and participation by some students is clearly an ongoing issue. We need to encourage learners to meaningfully engage with unit materials and participate in the offered tutorials and workshops. Allowing students to pass without a minimum engagement damages our reputation as these students barely scrape through and graduate from SCU without the knowledge and skills to teach the next generation.

I have accepted feedback from UAs about my grading, and I've evolved and changed as the uni has changed too. This feedback is essential to maintaining high professional standards, but it is another burden for UAs and other staff.