STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION
Presented by Warwick Students’ Union
December 2012
As part of the QAA Institutional Review 2012/13
of the University of Warwick
1
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Student Representative Body................................................................................ 3
How effectively has the institution addressed the recommendations of its last audit? ..................... 4
How effectively the institution sets and maintains the threshold standards of its academic
awards?................................................................................................................................................... 5
How effectively does the institution manage the quality of students’ learning opportunities? ....... 9
How effectively the institution manages the quality of the public information that it provides,
including for student and applicants? ................................................................................................. 19
How effective are the institution’s plans to enhance the quality of students’ learning
opportunities? ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Thematic Element ................................................................................................................................ 23
Student Involvement in Quality Assurance and Enhancement ......................................................... 23
2
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 officers 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.1 Our representation structures include 15 part-time officers including four
undergraduate, three postgraduate and joint medical faculty representatives.2
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.3 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 (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.4 It
is through membership of these committees and working relationships with senior academics
and administrators such as the Pro-Vice-Chancellors 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 input from other sabbatical officers with relevance to particular
portfolios. The submission has been brought together, primarily focusing on rigorous quantitative
data, such as the NSS, PTES, PRES, etc.. It also contains sources from qualitative evidence and
research from the academic representative structure, as well as reports that have been
developed by Students’ Union officers.
The document was passed at a Student Council meeting on the 12th November 2012, following a
series of consultations and forum discussions.5
1
http://www.warwicksu.com/yourunion/
http://www.warwicksu.com/democracy/officers/
3
http://www.warwicksu.com/education/
4
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/atoz/
5
013 - Minutes Student Council 12 November 2012
2
3
The document was shared with the University at the end of October 2012, at the same time as
the Students’ Union received a draft of the University’s Self-Evaluation Document.
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 (BUGS) 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.6
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
2012.7 The reform produced a notable student dissent, represented by the ‘Save Seymour’
Campaign8; 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 2010.9 From March 2011 the Senior Tutor, Mr 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
considered the results of this survey in 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.10
6
001 - Undergraduate Joint and Cross-Departmental Courses A Good Practice Guide
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/atoz/senate/minutes/
8
http://www.warwicksu.com/education/saveseymour/
9
002 - Minutes of the meeting of the Steering Committee held on 20 September 2010, 811/09-10
10
003 - Minutes of the meeting of the Academic Quality and Standards Committee held on Wednesday 7
December 2011, 34/11-12
7
4
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 2012 AQSC
and the Senate Steering Committee agreed the recommendations put forward by the working
group.11
Minimum requirements for personal tutoring are established and available on the Senior Tutor’s
website.12
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 of 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 an Undergraduate Faculty Representative.13
External Examiners’ reports for postgraduate courses are considered by the Board of Graduate
Studies (BGS) on which the Education Officer sat up to and including 2011/12, and on which the
Postgraduate Sabbatical Officer sits 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.14
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.
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.
11
004 - Minutes of the meeting of the Academic Quality and Standards Committee held on Thursday 17 May
2012, 92/11-12
12
005 - Minimum Requirements Webpage
13
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/atoz/bugs/
14
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/atoz/bgs/
5
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 Student 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.15
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, with some
departments exhibiting dynamism and ambition in finding innovative solutions. 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.16
Overall Feedback & Assessment Satisfaction
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)
15
16
006 – NSS Data 2012
Ibid.
6
I have received detailed comments on my work
International Business – 45%
Biological Sciences – 30%
Psychology – 36%
Law (European) – 42%
Economics– 52%
Management – 47%
The Student Experience Report, prepared for Senate in February 2011, reported that:17
“(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,18 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
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.19 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
17
007 - Student Experience Report
008 - Copy of Survey - Student Experience Survey 2010-11
19
http://www.warwicksu.com/education/feedback/
18
7
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” Final year undergraduate History student.
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 2012.20 The
Students’ Union particularly welcomes the approval of the regulations introduced by to
ensure the 4-week turnaround policy for assessment. The President and the Education Officer sit
on the ESS Project Group and the Education Officer sits on the ESS Operational Group. The
impact of the new strategy is currently being measured; however it is reassuring for the University
to be visibly tackling the issue.
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.21 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 can be less sure that this is
the case with similar cases arising from certain postgraduate taught courses with highly
international cohorts, according to data from the Students’ Union Advice Centre.
Although there are a number of strategies to tackle plagiarism at Warwick, a particular issue has
arisen which 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 master’s 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.
20
21
009 - A Strategy for Enhancing Student Satisfaction Senate 3 October
012 - Student Advice Centre Enquiries SULG meeting April 2011
8
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,
Board of Graduate Studies and AQSC.
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 an undergraduate level.
At a faculty and central level Faculty Representatives and Sabbatical Officers 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.
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 Faculty Sub-Committees and then BUGS or BGS, with Faculty Rep
representation present, with a final report to AQSC, on which the Education Officer and
Postgraduate Officer sit.
How effectively does the institution manage the quality of students’
learning opportunities?
1) Professional standards for teaching and support of learning are supported.
9
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.22
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.23 24
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.25 26
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 PCAPP course, which includes a PGA
award. There are also faculty showcases which highlight excellence in teaching.
The opportunities for support in teaching are widespread; 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 study. 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.
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
22
006 – NSS Data 2012
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/
24
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/ldc/
25
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/ldc/funding/wate/
26
http://www.warwicksu.com/education/stars/
23
10
number of years and was reflected in the NSS open comments and the Students Experience
Report.27
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.
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
Report28
It is important to note that the University has invested recently in study space with the
Leamington Study Grid and Rootes Study Grid opening during the 2012/13 academic year.29 The
investment is a sign of the University responding to student concerns.
Access to core course texts is also a recurring issue, and is raised consistently in SSLCs. The
problem is exacerbated by the fact that module leaders don’t always submit reading lists to the
library to purchase the texts, however this varies throughout the year.
The University has been successful in developing spaces for postgraduate taught and research
students through the PG Hub and Research Exchange respectively.30 31 Both spaces have
developed extensive online support networks for postgraduate students.
One area of concern is the lack of specialised space available for distance learners who
occasionally use campus facilities and 2+2 students, who have distinct needs that are not always
covered by current study spaces. A plan to develop specialised space for the learning needs of
these learners has not been forthcoming; however the University has ensured longer opening
hours to accommodate some of these learners needs.
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, for example Engineering. Equally 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
27
007 - Student Experience Report
Ibid., p. 7
29
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/grid/leamingtongrid/
30
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/pghub/
31
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/researchexchange/
28
11
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.” 32
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.
There is some movement to extend the resources offered, such as printer credits across the
institution, however the extent of this has not been confirmed. The Students’ Union believes
resources should be available for course costs that are mandatory for studies.33
The Students’ Union Education Officer, Postgraduate 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 during the
thematic element.
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.34 35 36 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.
5) Policies and procedures used to admit students are clear, fair, explicit and
consistently applied.
Prior to 2011 the Students’ Union had 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
32
007 - Student Experience Report, p. 7
http://www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk/council/Policy/Policy/University%20and%20Education/002%20%20Hidden%20Course%20Costs.pdf
34
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/atoz/senate/
35
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/atoz/council/
36
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/atoz/scm/
33
12
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 2012-13.37 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.38
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.39
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.40 41 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.
The University’s website has information on complaints and appeals procedures.42 If a student is
faced with a termination of their registration on a course or is asked to temporarily withdraw 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 Students’ Union website that provide
details of the complaints and appeals procedures. Students can make appointments with the
Education Officer, Postgraduate Officer, Welfare Officer and/or Student Advice Centre staff to get
further advice and assistance making an appeal or complaint.
37
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/apply/admissionsstatement/
http://www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk/council/Policy/Policy/University%20and%20Education/015%20%20Freshers%20Induction.pdf
39
010 - Personal Tutoring Review 2011-12 Working Party Report
40
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/outreach/
41
http://www.warwicksu.com/inspire/
42
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/aro/academiccomplaints/
38
13
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.43 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.44 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.45 ‘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.46 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 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.47 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 during their lifetime 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.
43
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/insite/news/intnews2/new_placement_learning/
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/scs/experience/bursary/
45
018 - University of Warwick ISB Summer 2011
46
012 - Student Advice Centre Enquiries SULG meeting April 2011
47
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/tutors/disability/mental_health/
44
14
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.48 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 provided 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.49 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.50 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.51
The notable areas for concern surrounding international students as a single body are ‘financial
support’ and ‘earning money’, which received average satisfaction rates of 53% in the 2011
ISB.52 Indeed, the vast majority of the casework the Students’ Union Advice Centre receives from
international students is related to severe financial constraints.
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
48
018 - University of Warwick ISB Summer 2011
Ibid.
50
http://www.warwicksu.com/goglobal/
51
http://www.warwicksu.com/worldatwarwick/home/
52
018 - University of Warwick ISB Summer 2011
49
15
found their personal tutor ‘very helpful’ and 25% did not use the service at all.53 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.54
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.55 One
fifth of PGR’s expressed dissatisfaction with the encouragement they received to think about and
develop career opportunities.56
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.57 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.58 The Teaching Grid is also available for PGR
teachers.59 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.60 61
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.62
Importantly, a number of 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 postgraduate issues, academic and union related.63 There are Postgraduate
Faculty Representatives for each faculty who liaise between SSLC’s and departments and sit on
various University committees including faculty boards.64 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).65
11) The quality of learning opportunities delivered as part of collaborative
arrangements is managed effectively to enable students to achieve their awards.
53
016 - BGS 11 11-12 PTES2011 Detailed analysis
017 - BGS 06 11-12 PRES2011 Detailed Analysis
55
016 - BGS 11 11-12 PTES2011 Detailed analysis
56
017 - BGS 06 11-12 PRES2011 Detailed Analysis
57
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/pghub/
58
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/researchexchange/
59
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/teachinggrid/
60
017 - BGS 06 11-12 PRES2011 Detailed Analysis
61
016 - BGS 11 11-12 PTES2011 Detailed analysis
62
Ibid.
63
http://www.warwicksu.com/democracy/officers/postgraduate/
64
http://www.warwicksu.com/democracy/officers/universityreps/
65
http://www.warwicksu.com/ents/event/9189/
54
16
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 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.66
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.
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.67 68
After strong feedback through the Institutional Teaching and Learning Review that a Universitywide 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 (SAMS), 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 Enhancing Student Satisfaction Action Plan
2012-13.69
66
67
68
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/atoz/aqsc/cfdlsc/
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/central/issu/help/kb/internet/my_wbs/
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/pg/msc/programmes/economics/handbook0607/communicat
ion2/myeconomics/
69
009 - A Strategy for Enhancing Student Satisfaction Senate 3 October
17
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.’ 70 This is not always available and is very rarely supported by
actions from the department, and is dependent on the interest of individual academics.
13) 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 £4,500 for
this.71
A problem at postgraduate level that has affected students seeking to do placements is the
inflexible nature of Warwick Accommodation residential 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.
14) 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 Statement, which
received approval from Senate in August 2012.72 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.
70
007 - Student Experience Report, p. 7
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/studentfunding/ugfees/
72
011 - Warwick Student Community Statement
71
18
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 a settlement
on the Community Statement 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 enhancing student
satisfaction that will see educational standards integrated into academic resourcing and the
institution wide introduction of e-feedback and submission systems.73
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.74 It also maintains
a large online presence, with both an external and internal website and multiple departmental
and section areas, which are often 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; these are addressed at a departmental level.
The handbooks set out the specifications for the programme.
The development of the Warwick Student Community Statement 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
through the Enhancing Student Satisfaction Strategy.75 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.
73
009 - A Strategy for Enhancing Student Satisfaction Senate 3 October
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/communications/
75
009 - A Strategy for Enhancing Student Satisfaction Senate 3 October
74
19
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.
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.76
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 involved the
Students’ Union through the Education Officer’s place on the Steering Group.
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.
76
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/sdr/tandlreview/
20
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.
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 undermine central efforts to enhance quality. There are some attempts to balance
this independence as noted in the recent Enhancing Student Satisfaction Action Plan.77
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.
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.” 78
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.” 79
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
77
009 - A Strategy for Enhancing Student Satisfaction Senate 3 October
007 - Student Experience Report, p. 3
79
014 - Education Convention 2012 Summary Report
78
21


Politics
Psychology
The issue of contact hours was raised in the Departmental SSLC reports for: Classics, English,
History of Art, Psychology, Politics, Philosophy, and the Institute of Education.80
However, particularly in the Arts Faculty, some of the departmental responses did not address
the issues raised in a constructive manner. For instance, during the ITLR, 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. 10.81
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-anda-half to three-and-a-half contact hours per week.”82
The response suggests the department is not only ignoring the guidance of the ITLR, but also the
evidence from the student body to engage with this issue.
At the Faculty Engagement stage, the issue of Contact Hours was discussed in the Social
Sciences and Arts sessions. The following excerpts although not representative of the whole
faculty were not criticised or rebuked during the discussion sessions from which these were
taken:
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”. 83
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
80
015 - SSLC Undergraduate Report 2011
019 - ITLR 53 11-12 IR English and CLS Report 2011 Final Draft, 8.3
82
020 - TLR 54 11-12 English and CLS Institutional Review Response 2012, (xix)
83
021 - TLR 98 11-12 Soc Sci IR Faculty Engagement Report, 6.2 (e)
81
22
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-toone meetings and study trips, and that student (and prospective students) expectations should
be managed to clarify this.”84
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 or
promoted by the Students’ Union as representatives of the student body. 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 there exists the
opportunity for the positive intentions of the institution towards enhancement strategies to be
significantly undermined by departmental independence, in which conservatism within
departments reduces the impact of institutional change.
The independent structure of departments at Warwick can encourage innovation and excellence
in research and teaching. This raises a difficulty for the Students’ Union in that the culture of
union representation encourages unity and centralisation, which does not always reflect the
nature of power at Warwick. It is the intention of the Students’ Union to hold an Education
Strategy Review 2012/13 to develop a representation structure that complements the
institutions arrangement.
Thematic Element - Student Involvement in Quality Assurance and
Enhancement
The main, most effective way that students are involved in quality assurance is through the
Student Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC) structure.
Each course or occasionally a set of courses have 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.
84
022 - TLR 96 11-12 Arts IR Faculty Engagement Report, 5.3 (c)
23
An SSLC Handbook is produced jointly by the University and the Students’ Union, and is updated
annually.85 This document contains information relevant to both students involved in 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 SU SSLC Coordinator as the staff
member responsible for the system. From the 2012-13 academic year the Postgraduate Officer
will be the sabbatical officer responsible for delivering specific training to Postgraduate SSLC
representatives to enable the Students’ Union to have more of a focus on their issues and
increase the relevance of the training and support offered.
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 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 are able 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 gives student leadership on areas such as chairing meetings, setting
dates for SSLC meetings and ensuring any actions from the meeting are completed.
1) Innovations in student involvement in quality
SSLCs are often consulted during approval/reapproval 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, Postgraduate Officer and the PG Faculty
Representatives on BGS, and one UG Faculty Representative on BUGS.
Students chair SSLC meetings for their department or course, and are trained by the Union in
doing so effectively. For institutional periodic reviews, students are asked to attend on the day for
a short meeting with the review panel, at which 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 a Students’ Union representatives can be asked to be available to step in at short
notice should there be any complications.
Student membership on University committees ranges from Steering, Council and Senate right
through to Faculty and Departmental Boards. The President, Education Officer and Postgraduate
Officer are often invited to sit on working groups, whilst Faculty Representatives are invited to
Faculty Boards and the Institute of Advanced Teaching and Learning’s Steering Group. SSLC
Chairs and Secretaries are often invited to 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.
85
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/sunion/sslc/handbook/
24
Two sabbatical officers are always invited to Appeals Committees 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.
2) Student contributions to enhancement
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 don’t attract a high response rate,
making these results less reliable than others.86 87
For the first time last year, the Students’ Union held an Education Convention, where students
were invited to discuss their academic experience, mainly in faculty groups. A panel event was
held on which senior university staff answered questions from students. Around 100 students
attended this event, and the Students’ Union intends to develop this to three Education
Conventions, one in each academic term. It was a good opportunity for staff to answer questions
directly from students and is part of a wider programme of support and training for academic
representatives.
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 representatives, in the representative structure, manifesto
implementation and effective management of data and statistics. 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. Further support will be offered
through the SSLC Portal on the Students’ Union website, to be launched by Christmas 2012. The
intention is to streamline and drive efficiency in the representation structure through technology
and online support.
Areas for improvement are discussed at a variety of levels, from Academic Quality and Standards
Committee which reports directly to the Senate, at Faculty board meetings and at departmental
teaching and learning committees. There is a general belief that student representation is
effective in areas in which the student voice is engaged; however this is not institution wide.
3) 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. The
Academic Representation Coordinator organises 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 often encourage the student representatives to
attend training once they have been elected.
86
87
016 - BGS 11 11-12 PTES2011 Detailed analysis
017 - BGS 06 11-12 PRES2011 Detailed Analysis
25
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 section. Groups
such as the Institute of Advanced Teaching and Learning are notably 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.
As described earlier, most programme teams and departments give out Module Evaluation
Questionnaires at the end of each module to gain student feedback. 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 has responded to student concerns.
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 departmental 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 most 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.88 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, is
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.
4) Closing the feedback loop
Warwick scores fairly low on the relevant NSS question on the feedback loop in the optional
bank. In response to the question ‘It is clear to me how students’ comments on the course have
been acted upon’ only 44% agreed with this statement with scores as low as 11% in some
departments.89 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.
88
89
009 - A Strategy for Enhancing Student Satisfaction Senate 3 October
006 – NSS Data 2012, p. 26
26
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