University of Sunderland
School of Education and Lifeong Learning
A suggested approach to Nominal Group Technique
The School of Education and Lifelong Learning has a policy of gathering Student feedback of Programmes through Nominal Group Technique. However, it is evident from recent Programme Monitoring Reports that there are several approaches to the scoring, so that it is difficult to make comparisons. Of the many approaches available, the following is suggested as a standard approach. It has been found to be efficient and effective, and requires minimum administration time. It is also transparent to users, ensuring that there is no hint of laundering of scoring being done by tutors - this can arise when 'voting' is done on slips of paper. This paper is not intended to explain the method or its advantages, only to put forward a method of operating it:
1. 'Mind shower' with the group, asking them to identify areas of strength of the programme, and areas for attention.
2. Make two lists (on whiteboard or similar) of the points. While doing this, try to group issues, perhaps suggesting that some similar issues can be combined. It is important that anyone who wants a 'say', gets one. However, it is equally important to Chair the session so that vociferous individuals with hobby horses don't dominate. It is also important that the group understands that 'issues for attention' should already have been raised with the Module or Programme Leader, perhaps through the SSCC, before being raised at final programme feedback time. Only if the Module or Programme Leader is unable (or unwilling) to address the issue, should it be included in formal programme feedback of this kind.
3. When the group has run out of ideas, explain the marking system, and begin to score the issues. It is important that the group understands that they have three votes, and that they may not vote for an issue more than once.
4. Ask the individuals in the group to look at the two lists, and choose from them their three most important issues from each list. Explain that each individual is to be given three 'votes', the first carrying three points, the second two points and the third one point.
5. Go down the 'strengths' list, asking the group to raise their hands if an issue is their first choice. For each issue, count the responses, multiply by three (because these are first choices) and note the score beside the issue. Repeat the strengths list again, this time asking for their second choices. Count the responses and multiply by two this time. Go through a third time asking for third choices, simply taking the number of responses.
6. Add up the score for each issue. The total score for the list should equal six times the number of people in the room.
7. Repeat 5 and 6 for the 'areas for attention'.
In reporting the results, ignore any issues for which there is no vote. These should not even be noted down. (This is important. If even the person putting the point forward wouldn't vote for it, it couldn't have been very important, could it.) Rank all those issues from each list that have gained a score. The report to the Board of Studies should include the two lists, the date of the meeting and the number of people present.
A contentious issue is how far down the list to go in considering issues to be important. It seems to me that all issues receiving a vote should be reported, but Boards do need to consider whether to address all the issues in their meetings. A rule of thumb is to take the issues for which ¾ of the total score has been applied, but this is really up to each Board to decide.
Ian Neal