LONDON’S GLOBAL UNIVERSITY
RESPONSE by UCL to: QAA CONSULTATION CL01/08 - QAA APPROACHES TO STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT
We welcome the opportunity to make a response to the above consultation which re-iterates our
original response to the UUK consultation of November 2007 regarding student members of
institutional audit teams. We have completed the online feedback form as a Word Document as
below.
1 Which of the following best describes you?
School student
Parent of a student or potential student
Advice or guidance worker
Employed at a university or college
Student
Student representative
Employed at higher education sector representative body or a professional, statutory and regulatory
body
Other, please specify:
HEI
2 To what extent do you support each of the four aims proposed in the student
engagement strategy?
Fully
Work, with others, to provide clearer information on
quality and standards available to students
Build partnerships to improve student engagement in
quality assurance and enhancement
Work with institutions to develop the role of students in
institutional quality management
Support greater involvement of students in QAA quality
assurance and enhancement processes
1
Partially
Not at all
3
Is this the right approach for QAA?
(i)
All the principles are entirely appropriate. As UCL has made clear, we actively encourage
student participation in all areas of quality management and enhancement, both academic
and non-academic; we have been proactive in seeking new ways of engaging students in
planning and process. We see still further scope for involving UCL students in the process
of guaranteeing the quality of experience in the HEI they have chosen.
(ii)
However, if student involvement means student membership of QAA institutional Audit
panels, the result is likely to deliver only token student involvement, distort the process and
divert resource and attention away from more productive means of involvement; it is
unlikely to contribute to the laudable aims above.
(iii)
We perceive enormous difficulties in recruitment, and particularly in the recruitment of
actual students who can genuinely reflect the student perspective. We see the potential for
a serious negative impact on study for any students who are drawn into the process at this
level; student engagement should not come at the cost of student education. We see
potential distortion in the operation of the audit process. And we see the potential for a
significant increase in cost with no visible proportionate benefit.
4
How can QAA support student representatives and higher education institutions to
improve student engagement in quality assurance and enhancement?
(i)
By continuing to support and encourage the student involvement in the audit process within
their own institution, by providing accurate, timely and balanced advice on the written
statement.
(ii)
By continuing to meet students as part of the audit visit, and engaging seriously with their
comments.
(iii)
By paying attention to the ways in which HEIs engage their students in their QME
processes in arriving at confidence judgements.
(iv)
By continuing to publish the audit reports so that current and future students along with
other stakeholders have the information needed to share the QAA confidence judgements.
5
What information do students need about quality and standards? And what should
QAA provide?
(i)
Current students need:


(ii)
Potential students need:

(iii)
Accurate, honest, up to date and lucid information from their institutions (at all levels) to
inspire confidence and allow them to make judgements;
The opportunity to test and improve the quality of information and to use the
information to allow them to play their part in enhancing the quality of provision;
Accurate, honest, up to date and lucid information from HEIs to allow them to choose
with confidence their place of study.
QAA has a major role to play in this area by:

Ensuring that quality of information to students has a key role in its confidence
judgements;
2


Informing students of the role they can play in the audit process within their own
institution;
Ensuring that any supplementary information placed in the public domain for student
use is fit for purpose and genuinely enhances the student experience without imposing
unrealistic burdens on institutions.
6
Any other comments?
(i)
We do not oppose change and have actively supported QAA in its move toward the current
methodology for evaluating institutional performance in QME. It is however important that
any changes to procedures are based on clear strategic thinking, are genuinely conducive
to the declared aims, are based on an informed risk assessment, are efficient and
proportionate in cost (in cash, time, effort), are fit for purpose and do not distract from core
activities.
3