QAA INSTITUTIONAL, STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION

Presented by Warwick Students’ UnionOctober 2012

Introduction and Aim

1

Part A

Section 1: Introduction to the Student Representative Body.This document has been submitted to the QAA by Warwick Students’ Union on behalf of students at Warwick. Warwick Students’ Union represents over 23,000 students who make up the Warwick student population and is a relatively large, well-developed Union with around 100 permanent members of staff and a leadership team consisting of seven sabbatical officer and six senior managers. The Union supports over 250 societies, over 70 Sports clubs and has a Student Advice Centre with four full-time advisers covering academic, housing, immigration, and financial issues. Our representation structures include 15 part-time officers including four undergraduate, three postgraduate and a medical faculty representatives.

In the context of academic representation, the Education Officer coordinates the structure within the Union, with a separate but interrelated system for postgraduate students led by our new Postgraduate Sabbatical Officer. The Student-Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC) system is jointly coordinated by the Union and the Teaching Quality section of the University’s Academic Office. Four Coordinators, two academics and the Education and Postgraduate Sabbatical Officers, oversee the system and consider common issues arising from SSLCs throughout the institution. They are supported by the Assistant Registrar for Teaching Quality at the University and the Academic Representation Coordinator from the Students’ Union.

The Education Officer, Postgraduate Officer and President sit on nearly all of the University’s central academic decision-making committees including the highest academic decision-making body Senate, and the President sits on the University’s Steering Committee, unique in the UK. It is through membership of these committees and working relationships with senior academics and administrators such as the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education, the Academic Registrar, the Teaching Quality section and other departments and individuals that the Students’ Union maintains a strong collaborative relationship with the University focused on academic quality assurance and enhancement.

More broadly the Union has a strong relationship with the University and a good level of cooperation in the areas of student activities, welfare and support, and commercial provision.

The primary authors of this submission are the Education Officer of the 2010-11 and 2011-12 academic years, Sean Ruston, and the Education Officer for 2012-13, the year of the review, James Entwistle. They have been assisted by the Union’s Academic Representation Coordinator Sam Sandilands and with support from other sabbatical officers.

(Democratic Mandate)

2

The document was shared with the University at the end of October 2012, at the same time as the Students’ Union received the University’s Self-Evaluation Document.

Section 2: How effectively has the institution addressed the recommendations of its last audit?Institutional Audit Report 2008: Recommendation 1: It is advisable for the University to review its management of joint honours courses, including the application of additional credit to such courses.

In November 2008, the Education Officer convened a Joint Degree Student Forum in response to student concerns and the institutional review. The findings of this forum contributed to the work of a Joint Working Group of the Board of Undergraduate Studies and Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC), that had existed prior to the previous institutional audit, which resulted in the production of a ‘Good Practice Guide’ on the management of joint courses and guidance on SSLC arrangements for students on joint and cross-departmental courses that was approved by AQSC in May 2010 for the 2010-11 academic year.1

The results of this good practice guide are monitored by Teaching Quality and are raised at meetings between joint and cross-departmental degree course directors and liaison officers for discussion.

During the academic year 2011-12, the University pushed for equity in degree classifications, in particular the incentive structure for additional credits, which was finally ratified at Senate July 2012. The reform produced a notable student dissent, represented by the ‘Save Seymour’ Campaign2; however the institution has suggested that a wider review of incentives for additional credits will be produced over the next two academic years.

Recommendation 2: It would be desirable for the University to review the operation at departmental level of the new central guidelines on personal tutoring with a view to enhancing consistency of implementation.

Revised guidelines were approved by the Steering Committee on behalf of the Senate in September 2010.3 From March 2011 the Senior Tutor, Professor Stephen Lamb began a review of the implementation of these guidelines.

In the Autumn Term of 2011 he consulted several key stakeholders including the Education Officer of the Students’ Union on the appropriate questions to ask in a survey of students and staff which sought views on the how the Personal Tutor system was performing at Warwick. AQSC saw the results of this survey in

1 http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/academicoffice/quality/categories/jcdc/jcdc_gpg_may_2010.pdf2 http://www.warwicksu.com/education/saveseymour/3

3

December 2011 and a working group was formed to look at the survey results in more detail and come up with recommendations for changes to the system.

The Education and Welfare Officers of the Students’ Union were members of this working group and had the opportunity to feed into the recommendations made. In May and June AQSC and the Senate Steering Committee agreed the recommendations put forward by the working group.4

Enhancement of the Student Experience through the personal tutor system was also included in the refreshed Vision 2015 University Strategy.5

Minimum requirements for personal tutoring are established and visible on the Senior Tutor’s website.6

Section 3: How effectively the institution sets and maintains the threshold standards of its academic awards:1) Each qualification (including those awarded under collaborative arrangements) is allocated to the appropriate level in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications

The availability of comments on the development in the difficulty across qualifications is limited. It can be assumed that this suggests the student body is satisfied with the current progression as there is a lack of concern at an SSLC level.

2) Use of external examiners is strong and scrupulous

External Examiners reports for undergraduate courses are considered annually by a special working group of the Board of Undergraduate Studies which includes the Union’s Education Officer and a Undergraduate Faculty Representative.

External Examiner’s reports for postgraduate courses are considered on a rolling basis by the External Examiner Report Working Group a sub-group of the Board of Graduate Studies on which the Education Officer sat up to and including 2011/12, and on which the Postgraduate Sabbatical Officer will sit from 2012/13 onwards. Postgraduate Faculty representatives also sit on the Board of Graduate Studies and thus have access to External Examiners reports for postgraduate courses as well.

The availability of these reports to the general student body is limited to representatives, and they are not accessible online for the student body. They are occasionally available at a SSLC level, however this is not always the case.

4 5 6

4

3) Design, approval, monitoring and review of assessment strategies is effective in ensuring that students have the opportunity to demonstrate learning outcomes of the award.

A number of sources, including the minutes of SSLC meetings, the Student Experience Survey, and, most clearly, the NSS results indicated that Assessment and Feedback is an area of key concern to students.

The ability of sabbatical officers or faculty representatives sitting on central academic committees to monitor assessment strategies is improving through the new initiative to monitor feedback through the Assignment Management System, however given departments autonomy to set those strategies at a modular level this has been limited in the past. Discussion of particular assessment methods with students can and does take place at SSLC committee meetings.

While it is difficult to draw out any institution-wide or faculty-wide issues of note regarding the design of assessments, the quality and timeliness of feedback on summative and formative assessment and examinations is definitely an on-going issue that is raised consistently in both qualitative and quantitative feedback from students throughout the institution.

Feedback

The issues surrounding feedback can be split into three broad categories: the lack of opportunity for feedback on exams, the speed with which feedback is returned and the level of detail/quality of the feedback. This is reflected in both qualitative and quantitative data.

In the 2012 NSS results the university obtained an average agreement score on Assessment and Feedback of 61%, a 1% decrease from the previous year but still markedly lower than scores in other areas.

There has been a positive shift towards tackling the issue of feedback and assessment, through the Enhancing Student Satisfaction Action Plan, passed at Senate in October 2012. The President sits on the ESS Strategy Group and the Education Officer sits on the ESS Operations Group. The impact of the new strategy is currently being measured; however it is reassuring for the University to be visibly tackling the issue.

It is important to emphasise that the problem is currently not uniform across the institution and there are wide variances between departments in how students perceive feedback. The NSS from 2012 can be used to identify some of the departments which perform most poorly in this area. The following is quantitative and qualitative data to highlight the current issue facing Warwick University.

Overall Feedback & Assessment Satisfaction

5

Biological Sciences – 35%Psychology – 44%Early Childhood Studies –48%Law and Business – 49%History of Art – 49%

Feedback on my work has been prompt

Biochemistry – 17% (up from 12% previous year)Biomedical Science – 16 % (up from 13% previous year)Biological Science – 13% (down from 19% previous year)Early Childhood Studies – 21% (down from 22% previous year)History of Art – 25% (down from 50% previous year)

I have received detailed comments on my work

International Business – 45%Biological Sciences – 30%Psychology – 36%European Law – 42% Economics– 52%Management – 47%

The Student Experience Report, prepared for Senate in February 2011, reported that:7

“(There) were a significant number of students wanting to have improved feedback. Students may want to have a much more personalised experience than what is currently being offered and would expect greater opportunities for interaction, assessment and informative feedback” (p.6).

Comments from students about their expectations, taken from the survey that formed the basis of the report, included:

“I would expect one-to-one essay feedback sessions instead of just a few lines and some ticks in boxes. Ideally the same feedback would be available after exams. Good feedback is crucial to improvement and I feel that throughout my degree I have not improved my essay writing style purely because I do not know what I need change.” – Undergraduate Social Science student

“More detailed and helpful feedback. Feedback received before the majority of assessed work has been submitted.” – Undergraduate Sciences student

“A much deeper investment by all tutors in terms of essay feedback and general course advice. A one hour seminar a week isn't long enough and doesn't build up a proper relationship between students and tutors so that you can feel embarrassed or as if you're taking up their time when you ask for extra help.” – Undergraduate Arts student

7

6

Feedback was also raised as an issue of concern in the International Student Barometer Autumn Wave 2011. ‘Performance feedback’ and ‘marking Criteria’ had the 3rd and 2nd lowest scores respectively amongst the learning satisfaction elements, with only work experience coming lower.

In May 2012 the Students’ Union carried out an online campaign focused on feedback.8 As part of this we invited comments from students on how their academic feedback could be improved.

“The comments at the bottom of essays should explain the strengths and weaknesses and how they can improve. Or give ideas about ways they could have expanded/improved their arguments.” - Second year undergraduate English student.

“Greater details and promptness would be at the top of the agenda. Currently for a standard essay I might receive one or two sentences feedback which are extremely vague and general. We also might get marked out of 4 (1 being the highest) for a set of attributes the work has, such as “is it well presented?” “Does the work have an appropriate use of analysis?” This does not count as useful feedback it gives absolutely no insight into what was wrong with the presentation, what was inappropriate about the analysis etc. Regarding promptness I have had assignments (1,500 word essays) which have taken well over a month to mark, It also annoys me that I won’t get any feedback for assignments I’ve handed in for 2nd term modules until after I’ve taken the exam, how am I suppose have a chance to learn and improve if I’ve already taken the exam? All in all not the best experience.” - Final year undergraduate Economics student.

However it is important to emphasise that this view varies widely by department. For instance the History department comes out well in both qualitative and quantitative data.

“History Department is very good. The chance to sit down with tutors is very good and essays comeback very quickly” Finally year undergraduate History student.

Plagiarism and Assessment Regulations

Over the last five years the Students’ Union Advice centre has seen a marked increase in the volume of academic cases relating to plagiarism.9 One can speculate that this is due to a greater focus amongst students on degree outcomes given the rising costs of a degree and the poor graduate employment outlook in the UK, although this is uncertain.

In terms of plagiarism, at the undergraduate level there are a limited number of cases with seemingly no systemic problem. However at postgraduate level we 8 http://www.warwicksu.com/education/feedback/9

7

can be less sure that this is the case with similar cases arising from certain postgraduate taught course with highly international cohorts.

A particular issue that has arisen surrounds the use of the Turnitin plagiarism detection software. Turnitin should appropriately be used in a formative as well as summative manner to help students to avoid plagiarism as well as to detect it for disciplinary purposes. However some departments enter students’ assignments through the software only near the end of a one year masters course. If the software detects a percentage of ‘copied’ text higher than a certain level an allegation of plagiarism is made and previous assignments are tested with the software. There are a number of departments who give access to Turnitin to students while writing their essays, however this is not available across the institution.

The problem with using the software in such a summative manner is that by that point it is too late for students rectify their poor academic scholarship, something that for many international students is often more a cultural issue rather than an intentional deception.

Student involvement in the design, approval, monitoring and review of assessment strategies

As aforementioned, departments have considerable autonomy over the assessment strategies set at modular level so any description of student involvement in the design, approval, monitoring and review of assessment strategies should make the distinction between central, faculty and departmental processes, however there is some oversight at Board of Undergraduate Studies and Board of Graduate Studies.

Feedback at a departmental level takes place normally through the SSLC committee meetings. Students who are not SSLC representatives also have the opportunity to comment through module questionnaires at the end of the year and the NSS.

At a faculty and central level Faculty Representatives and Sabbatical Officer have the opportunity to comment on the design and approval of new courses, but also on the monitoring and review of courses and departments through process such as the recent Institutional Teaching and Learning Review (ITLR).

The Institutional Teaching and Learning Review also allowed another form of student involvement through the student panel members who helped review departments’ taught provision, including assessment strategies.

The various Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Board reports on particular courses are tabled at central committees such as AQSC or the Board of Undergraduate Studies, thus Sabbatical Officers do have access to them.

8

5) Subject benchmark statements are used effectively in programme design, approval, delivery and review to inform standards of awards

Subject Benchmark Statements are used for all Warwick honours and foundation degrees. Course approval would go to BUGS/BGS and Faculty Boards, with Faculty Rep representation present, with a final report to AQSC for discussion, on which the Education Officer and Postgraduate Officer sit.

Section 4: How effectively does the institution manage the quality of students’ learning opportunities?

1) Professional standards for teaching and support of learning are supported.

The University scored 89% on the most recent NSS in regards to ‘The teaching on my course’ which is indicative of a high level of satisfaction in this area.10

The University has 10 National Teaching Fellows and through the work of the Institute of Advanced Teaching and Learning (IATL) and the Learning and Development Centre (LDC) innovative and excellent teaching is supported and best practice is disseminated.

The University’s Warwick Award for Teaching Excellence and the newly instituted but highly successful Students’ Union Student-Led Teaching Awards (STARS of Warwick) both help to identify, reward and incentivise good teaching.

Warwick provides training through the Learning and Development Centre and demands that all new staff and PGRs who teach more than 20 hours take the PCAP course, which includes a PGA award. There are also faculty showcases which highlight excellence in teaching.

However the Students’ Union sometimes feels that these centres of excellence may not always reach those who need it most. Often, the same people attend events aimed at disseminating best practice and there is a feeling that more could be done to reach those academics with less motivation to improve their teaching.

Students are usually able to feedback on the quality of their lectures via questionnaires at the end of their studies. However a common complaint is that departments do not inform students about the consequences of their feedback or what is done with it. Often this feedback is collected at a point in which it is unconstructive to the cohort answering the questionnaires.

2) Learning resources are appropriate to allow students to achieve the learning outcomes of their programmes.

10

9

Learning resources are central to the academic experience and it is inevitable that the provision of them will become more of an issue under the new funding regime.

Warwick has, in many areas, state-of-the-art facilities and the Library is notably extremely popular with students. However concerns about learning resources amongst students can be grouped into the following categories.

Online resources: The view was expressed by many departments through the Institutional Teaching and Learning Review that the University should develop a Virtual Learning Environment and this is now happening in 2012-13.

The 2011 Undergraduate SSLC report stated “Several SSLCs commented that lecturers were not uploading slides or podcasts of their lectures to the internet.” This has been a growing issue for a number of years and was reflected in the NSS open comments and the Students Experience Report.

The Library and other study spaces: There has lately been a distinct shortage of available study space on campus, with overcrowding in the library becoming a key issue of concern in student feedback. It is important to note that the University has invested recently in study space with the Leamington Study Grid and Rootes Study Grid coming online in the 2012/13 academic year; however the impact of these new areas on the space shortage is yet to be measured. The investment itself is a sign of the University responding to student concerns.

Many SSLCs commented on the issue with the 2011 Undergraduate SSLC report stating “It is clear that there is still a serious problem [with library overcrowding], with a large volume of complaints about the issue”

“There is a clear need for additional workplaces on campus with many students complaining of overcrowding in the library and the need for additional computer stations.” - Student Experience Report p. 7.11

Access to core course texts is also a recurring issue, and is raised consistently in SSLCs. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that only 40% of module leaders submit reading lists to the library to purchase the texts.12

The University has been successful in developing spaces for postgraduate taught and research students through the PG Hub and Research Exchange respectively.

One area of concern is the lack of space available for distance learners and 2+2 students, who have distinct needs that are not always covered by current study spaces.

Course costs: Students express concern about the inconsistency in the provision of learning resources between departments. For instance some departments provide free printer credits, while others do not. Equally

11 12

10

departments provide greatly varying levels of support for placements and exchanges.

The Student Experience Report comments on the findings of the survey from which the report was written “In addition, hidden course costs were another major concern. A Warwick SU Survey conducted last year found that the biggest concern of students was money. Given higher graduate contributions, this concern is likely to be exacerbated. An incredibly large number of students responded that they would either want the core course books to be included in the cost of tuition or for additional copies to be available in the library (since they were perceived to be currently in short supply) and for free printing credits to be available. Students also mentioned that they would like to have more resources available such as lecture hand-outs, interactive study areas or videos and recommended reading material available to view online.” p. 7.

The variance of cover for hidden course costs is noted, with many SSLC representatives expressing concern at the lack of support from their own departments in comparison to the excellent support from other areas of the University.

The Students’ Union Education Officer and President have opportunities to discuss learning resources issues with senior University managers as well as service departments such as the Library and IT services, and the Education Officer sits on the Information Policy and Strategy Committee which oversees both these departments.

The Education Officer also has the power to convene a special Resources SSLC which has a membership that includes representatives of the Library, IT services and Careers & Skills.

3) There is an effective contribution of students to quality assurance.

The effective contribution of students to quality assurance is expanded and analysed in part B.

4) There is effective use of management information to safeguard quality and standards and to promote enhancement of student learning opportunities.

The Sabbatical Officers; especially the Education Officer, Postgraduates Officer and President, sit on most of the central academic decision making bodies, including the highest-decision making bodies Senate, Council and uniquely Steering Committee. Thus they have access to management information including data on applications, cases of plagiarism, academic resourcing, NSS results etc. Through the Widening Participation Working group the Union has access to more in-depth data on the University’s access and retention statistics.

11

5) Policies and procedures used to admit students are clear, fair, explicit and consistently applied.

Prior to 2011 the Students’ Union has minimal input into decisions around admissions apart from at a very broad level through Senate, Steering and University Council. With the advent of the Widening Participation Working Group and the more in-depth discussion of this topic triggered by the Office for Fair Access’ requirement that the University discusses the Access Agreement with the Students’ Union on an annual basis, we have had more involvement with this area.

The University’s admissions process is seemingly very efficiently run and no complaints about procedure reaching the Students’ Union. In the context of discussions about widening access we have encouraged the use of contextual data in admissions and this will be piloted in three departments in 2012-13. We have also advocated many changes to policy that we feel would aid the widening participation agenda. There is on-going discussion over many of these measures and amicable disagreement over some policies.

The University’s Careers & Skills department, in conjunction with academic departments and the Students’ Union, has recently redesigned the induction process with improvements which will be implemented beginning in 2012-13.

The Students’ Union has a long-standing belief that a week without academic commitments would aid students’ induction into the University but this has not, as of yet, been implemented.

In the recent discussions over personal tutoring there has been agreement that many departments need to improve the induction of students into the personal tutor system by, for instance, arranging compulsory meetings between tutors and their tutees at the beginning of the course. The recommendations of the Personal Tutoring working group chaired by the Senior Tutor reflected these discussions.13

Through the numerous outreach programmes run by the University and the Inspire outreach scheme run by the Students’ Union, students have numerous opportunities to get involved in widening participation. Recently the University has moved to provide more opportunities for postgraduate research students to become involved in outreach work which has been particularly positive development.

6) There are effective complaints and appeals procedures.

13

12

The University’s website has information on complaints and appeals procedures.14 If a student is faced with a termination of their registration on a course or is asked to temporarily withdrawal they then are usually notified that they can seek assistance from the Students’ Union or the University’s Senior Tutor.

The Union’s Student Advice Centre has Advice pages on the Student’s’ Union website that provide details of the complaints and appeals procedures. Students can make appointments with the Education Officer and/or Student Advice Centre staff to get further advice and assistance making an appeal or complaint.

7) There is an approach to career education, information, advice and guidance (CEIAG) that is adequately quality assured.

The University is currently conducting a review of how employability is embedded in the curriculum via the development of an employability diploma to complement students’ academic study.

The recent creation of the Placement Learning Unit is a positive development that will support students’ take up of work experience opportunities. The Careers & Skills Department’s Work Experience Bursaries provide financial support for students so that those without the financial means can take unpaid work placements during the Christmas, Easter or Summer break. The proliferation of unpaid internships amongst graduate employers in recent years means that many more students could possibly benefit from this fund if it were to be expanded.

There is a marked concern amongst international students about opportunities for work experience as demonstrated by the International Student Barometer.15 ‘Work Experience’ received the lowest satisfaction score amongst the learning elements listed in the Entry Wave 2011 ISB survey, although this is in line with comparatively low scores nationally and internationally for this element.

8) The quality of learning opportunities is managed to enable the entitlements of disabled students to be met.

The evidence from feedback from the SU’s Welfare and Advice Centre suggests it is apparent that there is disparity between departments in terms of provision and the making of appropriate and reasonable adjustments for their students.  A move towards more uniformity across departmental processes and procedures would be welcome.  This could take the form of a more open communication between departmental staff and the University’s Disability Services team, making the student experience as seamless as possible, whilst alleviating frustration and anxiety that can occur when having to deal with a multi-faceted 14 15

13

organisation.  Whilst many departments are very good at liaising with Disability Services, a lack of communication was cited as a creating a negative experience by some.

The last few years have seen significant improvements in the University’s Mental Health provision.  The increase in the number of Mental Health Coordinators (from one to three in recent years) is a positive change; however, this should only represent the start of a trend.  As many as one in four people experience some mental health issues and it is important for the University to increase their offering as the stigmas previously associated with mental health issues reduce, and the demand for services respectively rises.    

9) The quality of learning opportunities for international students is appropriate.

According to the results of the International Student Barometer Entry Wave 2011, Warwick is either at or above the average for most of the learning satisfaction indicators.16 This to an extent confirms the quality of a Warwick education to an international cohort. The only indicator markedly lower than the average is marking criteria, significantly so for departments such as Life Sciences which received poor results on feedback and assessment in the National Student Survey.

Support for international students at Warwick is supported by the work of the International Office. 93% of 2011 entry wave students who completed the International Student Barometer were satisfied with the International Office, which is responsible for the bulk of pre-arrival information and advice as well as the induction programme. The Students’ Union works in conjunction with the International Office on the induction programme, and shares much of the casework that arises concerning visas and accommodation. Feedback for the Students’ Union in this respect is 2% lower than the national level, though still high at 91%.

The Students’ Union has an excellent working relationship with the International Office.  Since 2010/11 we have co-edited the Go Global Guide; a document that aims to bring all international opportunities together into one publication which is circulated all around campus.17 The International Office also funds the Go Global Fund, to which student groups can bid. A particularly good example of this is the ‘World@Warwick’ society, which is formally supported through the Students’ Union’s official 2011-14 strategy and was funded in 2011/12 by the International Office. World@Warwick aims to integrate home and international students and runs free language classes, language cafes, trips and tours, and socials with a view to internationalising the Warwick experience.

The notable areas for concern surrounding international students as a single body ‘financial support’ and ‘earning money’, which received average 16 17

14

satisfaction rates of 53% and 51% respectively in the 2011/12 ISB. Indeed, the vast majority of the casework the Students’ Union Advice Centre receives from international students is related to severe financial constraints.18

10) Appropriate support and guidance is provided to enable postgraduate research students to complete their programmes and to enable staff involved in research programmes to fulfil their responsibilities.

In a similar fashion to undergraduate students, postgraduate taught (PGT) students at Warwick University receive support through the allocation of a Personal Tutor from within their academic department of study. Tutors provide advice on academic and pastoral matters through regular meetings. According to the PTES 2011 results, only 54.8% of postgraduate taught students found their personal tutor ‘very helpful’ and 25% did not use the service at all.19 Postgraduate research students (PGR’s) receive support from their supervisor wherein 87% of students felt their supervisor had the skills and subject knowledge to support them.

The Careers and Skills services are available to both PGR and PGT students alike. This service includes careers guidance, career and job fairs, workshops and skills programmes. Only 31.8% of PGT’s found this support service very helpful with the majority (57%) not using the service.20 One fifth of PGR’s expressed dissatisfaction with the encouragement they received to think about and develop career opportunities.

There are bespoke study spaces for both PGR and PGT students. The recently opened Postgraduate Hub is a multipurpose space for all Warwick postgraduate students and can be used for collaborative, individual and social needs. The Research Exchange facility is designed specifically for PGR students; it is a staffed space for collaborative and interdisciplinary research and holds a number of events throughout the year. The Teaching Grid is also available for PGR teachers. It is a place for discussions and teaching-focused workshops. In terms of satisfaction, almost 77% of PGR students are satisfied with library facilities while 73% of PGT’s found the resources met their needs.21 However, only 55% of PGT’s felt they had been able to access social learning spaces and only 45% said they had been able to access specialised equipment.

The Graduate School provides information to both PGT and PGR students with regard to funding and scholarships, advises on regulations and provides support to students. However, according to the 2012 PTES results, only 53% rated their experience of the Graduate School as helpful.22 Importantly, a number of

18 19 20 21 22

15

students reported that they were unaware of the service and what it provided; this dissatisfaction could derive from miscommunication.

All postgraduate students are represented by the Student’s Union. The Postgraduate Sabbatical Officer is the lead full-time student representative and was elected by the full student body, and has responsibility for postgraduates and other distance groups. There are Postgraduate Faculty Representatives for each faculty who liaise between SSLC’s and departments and sit on various University committees including faculty boards. There is also a Postgraduate Association which is a representative body chaired by the Postgraduate Sabbatical Officer and attended by faculty reps, a social secretary and a PGR representative (depending on the PG Officer’s academic background).

11) The quality of learning opportunities delivered as part of collaborative arrangements is managed effectively to enable students to achieve their awards.

The University does not have large scale collaborative provision such as an overseas campus, but, mainly at postgraduate level, it does have a number of collaborative courses on an international and local level. This includes, for instance, degrees run through partner institutions in East Asia, including Hong Kong, the courses with the University of Monash in Australia and the 2 + 2 courses with local FE colleges in the West Midlands. The collaborative courses are overseen by the Collaborative, Flexible, and Distributed Learning Sub-Committee (CFDLSC), of which the Education Officer is a member.

Apart from SSLC committees which cover all courses includes those with partner institution, the Union has no formal relationship with students studying in collaborative institutions, however there may be discussion of this in regards to Monash which is a larger collaboration than any previously instigated by the University.

Reports from the SSLCs of those on collaborative courses are collated into the aggregated report by the Education Officer in a similar way to any other SSLC. Furthermore the Education Officer can monitor quality assurance processes associated with the collaborative degrees through the CFDLSC.

As such the SSLC reports at the end of the year are the key way for student representatives to monitor the experience of students on these courses. There is nothing to suggest that this experience is poor but the quality and detail of the SSLC reports from these courses can be limited, particularly for the WMG collaborative postgraduate taught programmes. Of course this is understandable given the irregular nature of the courses involved.

12) The quality of learning opportunities delivered through flexible and distributed arrangements, including e-learning, is managed effectively.

16

The University is unusual in that it does not have a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), but instead most departments make use of the module software system provided by IT services called Site-builder, with some larger departments like the Warwick Business School and Economics having their own departmental VLE systems.

After strong feedback through the Institutional Teaching and Learning Review that a University-wide VLE would be beneficial, the University will be introducing ‘Moodle’ for the 2012-13 academic year.

The Students’ Union has been heavily involved in the development of Student Assignment Management System, which is new software created by IT Services that will provide a cohesive online submission and e-feedback system for departments to utilise. The hope is that this system will bring about improvements in how students receive feedback on their assignments, both in terms of quality and timeliness. This system will be offered to all departments as part of the implementation of the Student Satisfaction Strategy 2012-13.

As aforementioned, SSLC reports year on year detail student requests that lecturers upload slides or podcasts of their lectures to the internet. This is corroborated by the Student Experience Report that states ‘Students also mentioned that they would like to have more resources available such as lecture hand-outs, interactive study areas or videos and recommended reading material available to view online.’ p. 7. This is not always available and is very rarely supported by actions from the department, and is dependent on the interest of individual academics.

12) The quality of learning opportunities delivered through work-based and placement learning is effective.

A number of courses offer opportunities for intercalated years in industry, particularly in the Sciences. During negotiations over the fee structure for the 2012-13 the Students’ Union strongly advocated a flexible fee rate for intercalated years in industry (rather than a fixed rate of 50% of normal fees) due to the relatively limited support some students receive from their department during the placement. This was supported by the Science Faculty and departments are now allowed to charge below the 50% rate for such placements.

This episode raised the issue of how much support departments provide for students on such placements. At the undergraduate level those doing intercalated years in industry in the Science Faculty usually only receive one visit from their personal tutor and are required to write a report at the end of the year. It is still true that they will most likely be charged in excess of £1500 for this.

A problem at postgraduate level that has affected students seeking to do placements is the inflexible nature of Warwick Accommodation residential

17

contracts. Students who take placements part way through the year are not allowed to leave their accommodation contracts and are thus forced to incur considerable expenses. We understand that this issue is now being looked at by the University but it provides a disincentive to students to take up work-based learning opportunities.

As aforementioned the new Placement learning Unit established by the University is a positive development and we hope it will enable increasing numbers of students to take up such opportunities.

13) A student charter, or equivalent document, setting out the mutual expectations of the institution and its students, is available.

The University has recently developed the Warwick Student Community Agreement, which received approval from Senate in August 2012.23 Although significant input was given by the Students’ Union, there was a disagreement with the final draft on the issue of feedback and assessment. Through negotiations at the start of the 2012-13 academic year, a positive consensus was achieved, and the final draft was signed by the President of the Students’ Union to a high level of encouraging responses from the student body.

We know from the NSS, numerous Students’ Union surveys, SSLCs and anecdotal evidence that certain departments often flout the four weeks guidance that was best practice until October 2012. The implementation of a maximum four week policy was crucial in reaching an settlement on the Community Agreement and the Students’ Union was encouraged by the involvement and support the institution demonstrated in the introduction of the new policy.

The new policy was supported through an ambitious new strategy on student satisfaction that will see educational standards integrated into academic resourcing and the institution wide introduction of e-feedback and submission systems.

Section 5: How effectively the institution manages the quality of the public information that it provides, including for student and applicants. The quality of the public data provided by Warwick University is of growing significance as a result of the new fees environment, however there is limited data collected by the Students’ Union to assess its effectiveness.

Warwick University has an effective Communications Team that produces an extremely professional and informative prospectus to incoming and applicant students. It also maintains a large online presence, with both an external and internal website and multiple departmental and section areas, which are often 23

18

integrated with an e-learning presence. Any reports or minutes that are publically available are easily accessible on the University Calendar on the internal website.

Each department and course produces a handbook, which is either given or easily available on the departmental webpages. There are occasional concerns through the SSLC system about the impact, utility and effectiveness of this information; however these are addressed at a departmental level. The handbooks set out the specifications for the programme.

The development of the Warwick Student Community Agreement has been combined with a major communications initiative to clearly exhibit the expected learning standards at Warwick. The final agreement was received well, with the Students’ Union receiving sizeable student support for the ambitious targets it included, specifically on feedback.

The collection and significance of large national data sets, such as the results of the National Students’ Survey are managed and administered by working groups at an institutional level; progress on uptake of surveys is often communicated down to a departmental level. The data itself is shared between the University and Students’ Union and is a key focus of the academic representative training schedule.

Recently, the results of the National Students’ Survey, in particular, will be a key indicator in academic resourcing, with departments being benchmarked and set targets against the data. The institution aims to reach an overall satisfaction level of 92% in 2012-13, and feedback which has been noted as a strategic issue, will be a major focus of the new targets scheme.

The recent launch of the Key Information Sets (KIS) has produced little noticeable feedback from the student body. This will probably be due to the infancy of the project; however it is likely that prospective student will begin to engage with the information in the long term.

Section 6: How effective are the institution’s plans to enhance the quality of students’ learning opportunities. The Students’ Union is heavily involved in the quality enhancement processes of the University. These processes take place through the formal academic committee structure, through departmental based SSLCs, and through reviews such as the recent University-wide Institutional Teaching and Learning Review (ITLR). The ITLR is a useful example of strategies at Warwick of enhancement and will provide the core focus of this section, as a result of the breadth and intensity of the ITLR.

19

The recent Institutional Teaching and Learning Review occupied much of the 2011-12 academic year, culminating in the three day departmental review in mid-November 2011 and the Faculty Engagements in mid-March. The Reviews took much planning and preparation which we were involved in through the Education Officer’s place on the Steering Group for the ITLR.

The ITLR was a unique and new form of internal review, in which all academic departments were reviewed over a one, two or three day period by a panel of external reviewers, depending on the length of time since the last departmental review. The panels were made up of a Chair from another Faculty, an academic from another department within the same Faculty, an academic from the same discipline but from another UK University, and a student reviewer.

The ITLR was communicated through the University website and at a departmental level. The reports of the review are accessible to interested parties and were shared with the Education Officer, however the level of interest and access of the findings aren’t measured by the Students’ Union.

Having a student reviewer on each panel enabled the reviews to better seek the student perspective. Furthermore the Students’ Union was given the opportunity to help select and train the Student Reviewers which was valuable both to the ITLR and learning enhancement.

After the outcome of the department reviews were published in January and February 2012, the Steering Group planned the Faculty Engagements. The Faculty Engagements sought to discuss strategic teaching and learning issues that had been highlighted at the departmental stage at a faculty-wide level over a one day period. One Postgraduate student and one Undergraduate student were invited to be part of this.

Recommendations made at the departmental and faculty stages were referred either to the department or the relevant University Committee or administrative department responsible. These recommendations were discussed and actioned throughout the academic committee structure.

The Institutional Teaching and Learning Review was clearly a valuable process in terms of enhancement because it sought to highlight the key issues at Departmental and Faculty review levels and then sought responses from those responsible for dealing with those issues. The Students’ Union was grateful that student reviewers were allowed to take part and that the Union had a role in planning and supporting the ITLR.

Part of the Departmental Reviews involved the panels meeting with groups of students from the department under review. The problem with this part of the process was that departments were allowed to select the students themselves. This led to a perception amongst some student reviewers that departments were choosing the very high achieving students whose experiences were perhaps not representative of the majority of students studying in the department.

20

This issue was indicative of a more general problem with the Review and the Enhancement process at Warwick; the autonomy and power of the academic departments and how this is at times used to thwart central efforts to enhance quality. There are some attempts to balance this independence as noted in the recent Enhancing Student Satisfaction Action Plan.

The Student’s Union thought that in some review reports the department had effectively created a narrative about their teaching and learning provision that wasn’t in tune with student feedback from the NSS and other sources. This reduces the institutions ability to identify areas for enhancement and therefore limits change as a result of strategies such as the ITLR. Furthermore, in some cases the departmental responses to the recommendations put forward by the departmental reports where rejected without justifiable reasons (particularly in the Arts Faculty).

A key issue that demonstrates this was Contact Hours. The evidence that this is a key issue for students is stark. The 2011 Student Experience Report made it clear that many students want increased contact hours, especially with the higher fee environment: “Students from all Faculties expected increases in the amount of contact time in their academic experience. Arts students clearly stated a desire for additional contact hours, but those from the Social Sciences and especially the Sciences were concerned as well with the quality of the contact time, with a strong emphasis on the introduction of one to few teaching sessions.” P3

This was backed up at the 2012 Education Convention, a gathering of SSLC reps from across the institution that took place in January. From the Summary Report: “Contact Hours: This issue was raised more frequently than anything else. ‘Contact hours’ in this sense were defined as lectures and seminars. Undergraduate students with 6-8 contact hours per week expressed the view that they would like more, and that such a level would be less acceptable in the post-2012 higher-fee environment. It was suggested that such levels did not allow students enough time to explore the subject material with their tutors.”

Using the NSS Open comments we can identify that the issue is most acute in departments with a low amount of scheduled teaching hours. Departments with comments on low contact hours included:

Comparative American Studies English History of Art History Institute of Education Politics Psychology

The issue of contact hours was raised in the Departmental reports for: Classics, English, History of art, Psychology, Politics, Philosophy, and the Institute of Education.

21

However, particularly in the Arts Faculty, some of the departmental responses did not address the issues raised in a constructive manner. For instance, the Review of the English department stated said: “The Review Group was of the opinion that core contact hours that would be eligible for inclusion in the key information set would be at the low end for the discipline. It was recommended that the Department give further consideration to the many additional opportunities that were available to students to engage with the Department, with a view to determining whether these could be formalised into eligible contact hours. It was further recommended that the Department consider the need to establish some basic rules about contact hours per module.” p. 10.

The Department Responded: “Given the array of different teaching techniques that the Department delivers – and that form an integral part of its dynamic and creative teaching provision – we are loath to impose a one-size-fits-all model to our modules. For example, those modules that centre on active, participatory workshops (e.g. on drama and creative writing modules) benefit from having longer sessions – of up to three hours in some cases – that would not suit other, more ‘traditional’, seminar-based modules, where an intensive seminar of one and a half hours for which students may have prepared a formal presentation in advance better suits the delivery of the topic in hand. In our current practice, all modules have between one-and-a-half to three-and-a-half contact hours per week.”

At the Faculty Engagement stage, the issue of Contact Hours was discussed in the Social Sciences and Arts sessions. These sections although not representative of the whole department were not criticised or rebuked at the discussion sessions:

Social Science: “It was acknowledge that there was disparity of understanding as to what activities constituted ‘contact hours’, both among departments in the Faculty and between staff and students. In light of this, the potential to develop a ‘minimum expectations’ statement for the Faculty was considered, as a means to provide clarity to students and manage expectations”.

Arts: “It was noted that the question of contact hours had been raised in a number of departmental review reports, and colleagues were aware that it was becoming an increasingly political issue in light of the new tuition fee arrangements.” Regarding the SU position on 12 hours: “It was strongly felt that this should be resisted. For many departments, increase teaching contact would result in more frequent, but larger classes which would be detrimental to the learning experience. Concerns were also realised that increased teaching time would impinge on the time available for reading set texts. Which would be particularly problematic for student on programmes with heavy independent reading loads. Participants agreed that the definition of ‘contact’ should be expanded to include all aspects of study, including self-directed work, one-to-one meetings and study trips, and that student (and prospective students) expectations should be managed to clarify this.”

22

The response of the Arts Faculty indicates a misunderstanding of the issue and an unwillingness to tackle student concerns. This, as with other issues, stems from the autonomy that departments have to resist teaching and learning enhancements initiated at the centre. Through Academic Quality and Standards Committee and Teaching Quality guidance about good-practice is often issued, but without a firm mechanism to enforce good-practice.

This pattern is repeated with other key issues such as Feedback and Personal Tutoring, where it has been difficult to ensure centrally initiated guidance is enforced.

There is certainly an ethos of enhancement at Warwick, as demonstrated by the high levels of engagement at all levels of student representation, this is recognised and appreciated by the student body. The engagement at academic committee level, SSLCs and institutional reviews clearly demonstrates enhancement strategies are institution wide, and therefore encompass a broad spread of the student population. The underlying concern is that the positive intentions of the institution towards enhancement strategies are often significantly undermined by the departmental independence, in which conservatism within departments reduces the impact of institutional change.

Part B: The main, most effective way that students are involved in quality assurance is through the Student Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC) structure.

Each course or logical set of courses has SSLC reps who are elected to sit on the SSLC. It is common that SSLCs are split into Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses, although in many cases there are still joint SSLCs that accommodate both Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses.

An SSLC Handbook is produced jointly by the University and the Students’ Union, and is updated annually. This document contains information relevant to both students involved the system and academic staff responsible for the SSLC in their department (Academic Convenors).

Training is provided at the beginning of the year by the Students’ Union and is currently devised and delivered by the Education Officer in conjunction with the SSLC Coordinator as the staff member responsible for the system. From the 2012-13 academic year we have a Postgraduate Officer who will be the sabbatical officer responsible for delivering specific training to Postgraduate SSLC representatives to enable us to have more of a focus on their issues and make the training and support more relevant to them.

Each SSLC has a university member of staff in the relevant department allocated to it to work with the student chair and secretary to ensure the running of the

23

SSLC. They are responsible for organising the first SSLC meeting of the year, and then the rest in conjunction with the chair; arranging the election of SSLC reps and notifying the Students’ Union of the names of those elected, and also responsible for the submission of the annual report at the end of the year.

At Warwick, students from the SSLC can stand to be the chair or secretary of their SSLC at the first meeting of the year. Having students in charge of the meetings makes the system genuinely student led and it is up to the chairs to call meetings and set dates, as well as ensuring any actions from the meeting are completed.

Innovations in student involvement in quality

SSLCs are often consulted during validation and revalidation of new modules on their courses or changes to current courses. New undergraduate and postgraduate courses are validated at the Board of Undergraduate Studies and the Board of Graduate Studies respectively, and student representation comes from the Education Officer and Postgraduate Officer, along with one faculty representative on each board.

Students chair SSLC meetings for their department or course, and are trained by the Union in doing so effectively. For institutional periodic reviews, students do not submit mini SWSs but some are asked to attend on the day for a short meeting with the review panel where they are asked questions related to their course and the quality of their teaching and learning. Students are selected to sit on the panel as a full member, and Students’ Union representatives are asked to be available to step in at short notice should there be any issues where the student cannot attend for any reason.

Student membership on committees ranges from Steering, Council and Senate right through to faculty and departmental boards. The President, Education Officer and Postgraduate Officer are invited to sit on working groups and sit on the boards at the highest level, whilst Faculty Reps are invited to faculty boards and the Institute of Advanced Teaching and Learning’s steering group. SSLC Chairs and Secretaries are often invited to sit on departmental meetings, although this practice varies between departments.

With regard to external examiners, their reports go through the Boards of Undergraduate and Graduate Studies which are attended by sabbatical officers and faculty representatives. As far as the Union is aware, there is limited contact between external examiners and students, varying across departments.

Two sabbatical officers are always invited to Mitigating Circumstances and Fitness to Practice appeals, and are there to represent the best interests of the student body. Officers are selected at random and are invited to the meetings based on availability.

Student contributions to enhancement

24

Students are asked to fill out module feedback questionnaires at the end of each module, and other surveys throughout the year including the National Student Survey, Postgraduate Taught/Research Experience Surveys, International Student Barometer, and internal surveys from the Union and the University which tend to be more focused on a certain service or topic, for example the library or feedback. Response rates vary but tend to be quite high, particularly in the NSS, the ISB and some internal surveys, however PTES/PRES doesn’t tend to attract such a high response, perhaps making these results less reliable than others.

For the first time last year, the Students’ Union held an Education Convention, where we asked students to come along to discuss their experiences, firstly in faculty groups. We then arranged for a panel of senior university staff to come along to answer questions from students, a part of the event which seemed to be appreciated by the students, and staff said afterwards that they found it interesting to be a part of. 100 students attended this event, a number which we are hoping to build on for this year as we hold three Education Conventions – one in each term. It was a good opportunity for those staff to answer questions directly from students and find out about the issues that matter to them.

SSLC representatives are often seen as the voice of students and play a large part in quality assurance processes. Students are trained by the Students’ Union at the beginning of the year when they are elected as reps in how the structure works, how to change things, what representation means and how to use statistics effectively. We are looking at ways to support reps throughout their year to ensure quality enhancement is effective and information is being fed up through the structure when necessary. Faculty Representatives are elected to sit on at least one meeting of each SSLC each year to ensure issues are being raised at appropriate levels and be a contact for reps if they need them.

Areas for improvement are discussed at a variety of levels, from Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC) which is a subcommittee of Senate, at Faculty board meetings and at departmental teaching and learning committees. Three Students’ Union sabbatical officers attend AQSC, the undergraduate and postgraduate faculty representatives attend the faculty board meetings and SSLC Chairs and Secretaries should be invited to departmental meetings, although this is not the case in all departments. Generally student representation works well although in some cases it can seem like more of a tick box than a genuine interest in student opinion.

Staff experience of/participation in student involvement in quality

The Students’ Union train SSLC representatives and SSLC student chairs and secretaries, and last year during the Institutional Teaching and Learning Review we offered the student reviewers a joint training session – half from the university and half from the Students’ Union. A staff member in the Students’ Union runs the training for representatives alongside the Education Officer and Postgraduate Officer. University staff are aware of the content of the training sessions and Academic Convenors in each department encourage the student

25

representatives to attend training once they have been elected (staff members who are responsible for the running of the SSLC in their department).

Beyond the structural focus of student involvement in quality enhancement, the existence of a culture of engagement is varying depending on the department, academic or sector. Groups such as the Institute of Advanced Teaching and Learning are proactive in engaging with students with quality improvements. Equally, some departments are beginning to introduce staff members with responsibility for student engagement, notably, Life Sciences and PAIS. The result is a varied culture of engagement, which is appreciated where available, but concerning where absent or limited in scope.

Most programme teams and departments give out Module Evaluation Questionnaires at the end of each module to gain the feedback of the students on them. Academic Convenors produce SSLC reports in conjunction with the chair of the SSLC on what has been discussed during the year and a summary of how the department have responded to the students’ issues. There are some departments who carry out mid-module evaluation questionnaires.

The effectiveness of student-staff liaison committees is dependent on two variables, the openness of departments to engagement and the success and support available to representatives. The engagement from departments, as aforementioned, is variable across the institution, equally, the support and training available to representatives is often limited, however the Students’ Union is investing heavily in improving training and staff support available combined with an internal review of academic representation, which is to be completed over the 2012-13 academic year. The student-staff liaison committee structure and the joint dialogue that it provides is therefore mixed in effectiveness, however often where the dialogue is supported and valued, academic representation can be highly successful in achieving quality enhancement.

The department independence does not mean that senior management on an institutional level does not value and promote the student voice. The Students’ Union appreciates the access and involvement of representation on many of the University’s senior committees and the open and frequent opportunities outside of the committee structure in order to raise and discuss student issues. This is clearly demonstrated in the recent plan of action, approved by Senate in October 2012, titled Enhancing Student Satisfaction. The actions of the University management to proactively tackle the issues raised throughout the academic representation structures and Students’ Union campaigns, in particular on feedback and assessment, was incredibly ambitious and popular with the student body, and demonstrates the value of the student voice at the top levels of management at the University of Warwick.

Closing the feedback loop

This is an area where Warwick scores fairly low on the NSS questions in the optional bank. In response to the question ‘It is clear to me how students’

26

comments on the course have been acted upon’ only 44% agreed with this statement with scores as low as 11% in some departments. 51% of students agree that their feedback is listened to and valued – as low as 23% in some departments. It may not necessarily be the case that students are not listened to and valued but feeding back to students when their comments have influenced or created a change is perhaps an ‘easy win’ for departments that would take little time and resource and may also help the reputation of SSLCs, encouraging a higher involvement in quality assurance.

Warwick’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) is being developed this year with the Moodle platform, so will provide another channel of communication between academic staff and students. The Students’ Union is involved in the e-learning subcommittee which is responsible for the oversight of the implementation of the VLE. Social Media is currently utilised effectively by both the University and the Students’ Union to communicate with students on a day to day basis, responding to questions from students and prospective students as well as communicating information.

27