LONDON’S GLOBAL UNIVERSITY
QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
WORKING GROUP ON STUDENT FEEDBACK
Report and Recommendations to Quality Management and Enhancement
Committee on Student Feedback
Executive Summary
Academic Committee resolved at its meeting of 11 May 2004, that the Quality
Management and Enhancement Committee should consider the general issue of
student feedback in relation to its deliberations on UCL’s quality management and
enhancement strategy. QMEC, at its 1 June 2004 meeting resolved to set up a
working group to undertake a review of UCL’s current policy and practice in relation
to the collection and use of student feedback and to report back in the summer term
2005.
WGSF met on four occasions to review UCL policy and practice on student feedback.
In the event its work took longer than anticipated and its report to QMEC was
delayed for submission to the Committee’s October 2005 meeting.
This report:
-
includes further background on the establishment of WGSF [paragraphs 1-4]
-
outlines the various issues discussed by WGSF and consideration of the
evidence submitted to assist its deliberations [paragraphs 5-58] including:
- Student Evaluation Questionnaires [paragraphs 13-22]
- Student Representation on committees [paragraphs 23-39]
- Student Feedback on UCL Support Services [paragraphs 40-44]
- The proposed UCL-wide end of programme SEQ [paragraphs 45-50]
-
includes 13 recommendations for the formal approval of, or further
consideration by QMEC – as well as other relevant committees within UCL
[paragraph 59]
Key to abbreviations:
AC
CHERI
DAPS/IA
Academic Committee
Centre for Higher Education Research and Information
Degree Awarding Powers/Institutional Audit
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
DSSCC
DTC
FTC
HEFCE
HEI
IQR
JSSC
LTSN
NSS
QAA
QMEC
QSRG
RECC
SEQ
WGSF
Departmental Staff Student Consultative Committee
Departmental Teaching Committee
Faculty Teaching Committee
Higher Education Funding Council for England
Higher Education Institution
Internal Quality Review
Joint Staff Student Committee
Learning and Teaching Support Network
National Student Survey
Quality Assurance Agency
Quality Management and Enhancement Committee
Quality Strategy Review Group
Recommendation
Student Evaluation Questionnaire
Working Group on Student Feedback
Background
1
At its meeting on 11 May 2004, Academic Committee resolved that the
Quality Management and Enhancement Committee should consider the
general issue of student feedback in relation to its deliberations on UCL’s
quality management and enhancement strategy. The 1 June 2004 meeting of
QMEC resolved to set up a working group to undertake a review of UCL’s
current policy and practice in relation to the collection and use of student
feedback.
2
The terms of reference of the Working Group on Student Feedback were:

to review UCL’s current policies and procedures relating to obtaining
feedback from, and giving feedback to, students.

to consider, as part of its review:
(a) policy statements made by UCL on the issue of student feedback (e.g.
in the Academic Manual);
(b) the effectiveness of existing student feedback mechanisms within
UCL, at institutional-, faculty- and department- level;
(c) the decisions taken by AC in June 2002 in relation to the introduction
of a UCL-wide end-of-programme Student Evaluation Questionnaire;
(d) the guidance set out in the CHERI/LTSN report 'Collecting and Using
Student Feedback: A Guide to Good Practice' (March 2004).
The membership of WGSF was:
Dr Tom Gretton [Chair - Meeting 1]
Professor Chris Carey [Chair - Meetings 2-4]
Dr Anita Berlin
Mr Jason Clarke
Mr Marco Federighi [Meetings 2-4]
Dr Jonathan Iliffe [Meeting 1]
Mr Peter McLennan
Dr Hilary Richards
Ms Visahli Thakrar [UCL Union Medical Sites Officer, Meeting 1]
Mr Luke Yahanpath [UCL Union Medical Sites Officer, Meeting 2-4]
Ms Mary-Beth Young [UCL Union Education and Welfare Officer 2-4]
Mr Rob Traynor, Quality Assurance Officer, Academic Services [Secretary]
2
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
It was intended that WGSF would draw the various threads together regarding
national and internal developments in order to inform UCL’s approach to the
issue of student feedback as part of its quality management and
enhancement strategy.
3
It was noted that for the purposes of WGSF’s review, “feedback” refers to the
gathering of student views on their experience at UCL and the reporting back
to them on actions taken in response to matters raised by various student
feedback mechanisms (such as student evaluation questionnaires and
student representation on committees). Student feedback in this context
does not refer to formative assessment of student work or of performance.
4
It was noted that many of the matters considered by WGSF have been
considered by a number of UCL committees over a number of years in the
context of a changing national higher education landscape in relation to
quality management and enhancement. For example, the (former) Academic
Advisory Sub-Committee’s Working Party on Student Questionnaires had
recommended to AC in 2000 suggestions for good practice in SEQs,
including common questions to be included and the nature of feedback to
students of the results. In 2002 Academic Committee conducted a survey of
faculty practice for SEQs and AC approved in principle that a UCL-wide end
of programme questionnaire be established.
Introduction
5
WGSF met on four occasions, once in April and three times in September
2005. In order to facilitate its discussions, it considered three main areas of
student feedback:



6
Student Evaluation Questionnaires (at meeting 1 and 2);
Student Representation on Committees at department-, faculty- and
institutional level - e.g. Departmental Staff Student Consultative
Committees, Departmental Teaching Committees, Faculty Teaching
Committees and institutional level committees (at meeting 3);
Student Feedback on Support Services - e.g. IT, Library services etc. (at
meeting 4).
In order to inform its discussion, WGSF considered a range of evidence
including:







key good practice and policy statements on student feedback procedures
in the Academic Manual;
a survey of faculty practice in regard to SEQs;
a survey of student feedback arrangements in UCL Central Support
Services;
UCL Union submission to the Quality Assurance Agency’s Institutional
Audit and Degree Awarding Powers visit;
UCL Union (draft) Handbook for Student Representatives;
Royal Free and University College Medical School electronic SEQ and
related background documents; and
UCL Registry information on Student Feedback.
3
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
7
At its first meeting in September, WGSF noted that the context to its review of
student feedback had changed following discussions within UCL of the
Provost’s White Paper (2004) one year on. The Vice-Provost (Academic and
International) had commissioned a review of UCL’s quality management and
enhancement structures and processes, which would be undertaken by
QMEC’s Quality Strategy Review Group. It was intended that the QSRG
would receive reports from a number of existing reviews of different aspects
of UCL’s quality management and enhancement processes, with the intention
to improve their efficiency, effectiveness and fitness for purpose. It was
intended therefore that as well submitting its report to QMEC, the WGSF
report would also be considered by the QSRG to assist in this review.
CHERI/LTSN Report
8
In its terms of reference, WGSF had been asked to consider the
CHERI/LTSN report 'Collecting and Using Student Feedback: A Guide to
Good Practice' (March 2004) 1 in its deliberations.
9
WGSF noted that the guidelines raised a number of issues to be considered
when looking at student feedback mechanisms including:








the purposes of student feedback;
the level at which it should be gathered;
timing issues;
standardisation of feedback across higher education institutions, faculties
and departments;
types of feedback mechanisms;
the use of questionnaires;
publication of results and dissemination to students and
suggestions for good practice on student feedback.
10
WGSF also noted that the guidelines encouraged HEIs to consider carefully
how the audience for student feedback was identified and who would
consider its results. It observed that this could be course or programme
tutors, departmental, faculty and institution level committees, external scrutiny
from reviews and professional accreditations and ultimately the students
themselves, in terms of dissemination of the results of the feedback to them.
11
The guidelines were well constructed and gave valuable information on the
types of feedback mechanisms. The report advises that HEIs consider the
feedback mechanisms holistically and in combination, and not to simply rely
on one method such as SEQs. There was also a section on standardisation
and centralisation of feedback within HEIs, which helped to inform WGSF in
its deliberations on the variation of student feedback practice at UCL. The
guidelines also stressed that it was extremely important for HEIs to close the
“feedback loop” and ensure that students were given information on their
feedback. This was vital in ensuring that students knew that their views were
valued and (where appropriate), were acted upon. The knowledge that they
were taken seriously would encourage students to provide more feedback in
future and participate in representative processes.
1
The guidelines can be found at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2003/rd08_03/
4
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
12
The guidelines concluded by suggesting that HEIs review their policies and
practices in regard to student feedback and consider “whether purposes are
clear and continue to be appropriate, whether they are being achieved and
whether they might be achieved more effectively and efficiently”. WGSF
found the CHERI/LTSN report helpful in providing a framework for its
discussions and kept them in mind during its deliberations.
Student Evaluation Questionnaires
Use of Student Evaluation Questionnaires within UCL
13
UCL’s existing guidelines on the use of SEQs can be found in the Academic
Manual as Document H22, Student Questionnaires - this is at Annex 1. This
document is designated as “good practice” which means that departments are
not required to fulfil the suggestions, although it is highly recommended that
they do so. It was observed that despite this, the actual wording of the
document implies that its content constitute UCL policy and that this could
give rise to ambiguity as to what UCL’s policy really is and possibly cause
confusion within departments. The document advises that SEQs should be
distributed annually, with separate questionnaires for each course unit as well
as for the end of programme. SEQs should address the teaching on courses
and not the syllabus and guidance is offered on the range of questions that
SEQs should ask students. It also recommends that reports should be
produced summarising the quantitative data received as well as student
commentary and that this should be considered by the DTC and/or the
DSSCC (with the final analysis to be forwarded and kept by the Faculty
Office).
14
WGSF conducted a brief follow-up survey to the current use of SEQs within
faculties, updating the survey results of 2002 which had helped to inform AC’s
decision to introduce a UCL-wide end of programme SEQ. The results are
presented as a table at Annex 2. There was wide variation in how SEQs
were conducted within UCL with most departments using paper based
surveys, although some had moved to electronic systems. There appeared to
be inconsistencies within UCL in the provision of feedback from the SEQs to
students. It was not clear to WGSF that feedback to students on the results
of SEQs was routinely provided around UCL, with summaries of responses
given to DTCs or DSSCCs. There also appeared to be wide variation in the
monitoring of the results, with this carried out by FTCs, DTCs and
programmer tutors depending on the faculty.
Use of Electronic Student Evaluation Questionnaires within UCL
15
2
WGSF received a great deal of information and a demonstration of the Royal
Free and University College Medical School’s electronic SEQ system. This
had been introduced in 2004 following frustrations with the previous paper
based exercise that required a great deal of administrative resources and
staff time to operate (using Optical Marker Readers). The on-line system,
“Opinio”, conducted both end of course and end of programme surveys, with
the latter well received by students achieving a 63% response rate in its first
year of operation. The Medical School gave an approximate costing of the
system and calculated that it had cost £5,000 to set-up (including purchasing
The document is also be at:
http://www.intranet.ucl.ac.uk/staffandstudent/reference/acman/PartH/H2.htm
5
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
of the necessary soft-ware and hard-ware, licensing from “Opinio” and
technical support time) and less than £1,000 per year to operate. WGSF
believes that should this system be extended UCL-wide that the start-up costs
would not be likely to exceed more than £30,000, with a likely operating cost
of £6,000.
16
It was noted that there were a number of advantages to the new system
including:





the freeing up of administrative resources and staff time (after initial
investment in setting up the system) – it was cost effective to install and
operate;
the flexibility of the system in terms of timing and frequency of sampling:
 core SEQ templates could be adapted to suit the requirements of
individual courses;
 data could be analysed quickly and efficiently and presented in a
variety of ways;
 it was possible to set up a series of reminder notices to automatically
prompt students to complete the SEQ;
the process of distributing results to course organisers was more efficient;
the Medical School is subject to professional accreditation and was able
to more easily produce valuable data from the on-line SEQs in order to
meet the requirements of external bodies;
the process for monitoring the results was much less involved than the
paper system meaning that results from data was released more quickly –
the nature of some Medical School courses meant that it was possible to
enact changes in response to the results within the same academic year.
More information on the Medical School’s on-line SEQ system, including a
document outlining its principles and procedures, can be found at Annex 3.
17
The positive experience of the Medical School’s conversion to the electronic
SEQ was, however, tempered by views WGSF heard from other departments.
It was reported that the response rate to the Department of Geomatic
Engineering’s SEQ had gone down by 50% since it had been run on-line.
WGSF noted that the departments of Computer Science and Statistical
Science identified this as an area of concern in their recent Internal Quality
Reviews, specifically a reduced response rate and quality in the information
they received following transfer to an electronic SEQ system. Members of the
departments met with WGSF to discuss their experience and concerns in
more detail and indicated that whilst electronic SEQs were more efficient (i.e.
they were easier to resource and operate) they were not necessarily more
effective (i.e. the response rate was considerably lower). The Department of
Computer Science also reported that it had found other sources of student
feedback more useful in gauging student opinion, such as its DSSCC, the
tutorial system and informal meetings held between tutors and student
representatives.
18
It became evident to WGSF that there appeared to be clear cultural and
organisational differences between disciplines and departments which might
affect the success of using electronic SEQs. WGSF observed that the
Medical School students were not based in individual departments so did not
have a single physical “home” and did not have personal tutors; they take
various courses throughout their programmes in different departments and
6
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
medical institutes. As a result there was not the same identification with an
individual department that other UCL students enjoyed and less avenues for
feedback through such sources as personal tutors. Students were used to
communicating with the Medical School through e-mail and the team
observed that this might make the use of on-line SEQs more acceptable to
them than in other departments. WGSF observed that other departments
regarded feedback from SEQs as of less significance and heard concerns
with the administrative workload and resources that would be required to
implement an electronic system.
Ownership of the feedback given to Student Evaluation Questionnaires
19
The issue of ownership of the feedback given to SEQs was also considered
by WGSF. It had not been clear in the discussion who owned this feedback,
the department involved or the student and this raised questions of access to
the data and whether individuals outside UCL could request the data under
the Freedom of Information Act. The UCL Freedom of Information and Data
Protection Officer informed WGSF that individuals could request information
and data from the SEQs in terms of the questions asked and percentages of
the students’ responses. However, departments (or UCL) would not have to
release individual student responses or identify students. In practice, this
would mean that the summaries of the surveys (as discussed below in
paragraph 20) would suffice in order to satisfy freedom of information
requirements. WGSF was also informed how departments would need to
deal with circumstances in which student anonymity in responding to SEQ
could be broken - e.g. in cases of malicious or libellous responses or where
the seriousness of the matters raised meant that urgent action and
identification of the student was required (it was also noted that UCL has a
duty to protect staff from malicious comments). WGSF was informed that
SEQs would require a statement making it clear to students that malicious
comments were not acceptable and that departments reserved the right to
take appropriate action and contact students in circumstances where they
were made. The statement would also need to clarify that departments
reserved the right to contact students in circumstances where their comments
indicated the need for urgent action to address raised problems. The
statement would need to be either at the top of the form in printed SEQs or as
a flagged message for electronic surveys – it would need to be clearly visible
to the students and the first item the student read before completing the SEQ.
20
The CHERI/LTSN’s guidelines emphasized that it was vital that the results of
SEQs were fed back to students in order to “close the loop” in student
feedback and to ensure that students knew that their voice was listened to
and their opinions valued. It was important to consider how students are
encouraged to complete SEQs and how the process is explained to them. If
students did not believe that staff took SEQs seriously, they would be less
likely to complete the surveys, leading to a possible further reduction in staff
commitment to the SEQs, thus creating a downward spiral with ever
decreasing returns. Students might develop apathy and antipathy towards
future surveys if they perceived that their concerns had not been taken
seriously or saw no action arising from their responses. It was clear that
completing SEQs (particularly end of programme surveys) was often an
altruistic act which the respondees would not benefit from, but nonetheless
their feedback could still be conveyed to their student successors, showing
that the Department did value and act on the feedback. WGSF considered
that the mechanisms to enable students to receive feedback should include
7
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
publishing summaries of the data on departmental web-sites and/or to
DSSCCs.
21
WGSF recommends that UCL should re-affirm its commitment to course and
programme SEQs and amend Document H2 on Student Questionnaires in
the Academic Manual to make explicit that they are formal UCL policy and to
provide minimum standards to ensure clarity on student and staff
expectations. Should this recommendation be accepted, WGSF officers will
draft an amended document to replace the existing document in the
Academic Manual.

WGSF recommends that UCL should re-affirm its commitment to
course and programme SEQs and set out as a matter of policy a
minimum threshold on what would be expected of departments in
terms of SEQs, to include:


22
mechanisms in place to ensure students receive feedback from
SEQs, including analysis of the data and summary of comments;
an opportunity for collective comment by students (possibly
through DSSCCs) on data from SEQ responses and where
relevant, to receive the reaction of course tutors (Recc 1).
Though it would not be appropriate to impose on-line SEQs as standard
policy, WGSF felt that departments should be encouraged to adopt this
method and considered that for those departments which chose to do so,
support, guidance and resources should be made available to move to the
on-line SEQ systems. WGSF considered that it would be advantageous if the
same software was supported through-out UCL, both in terms of efficiency
and economy and for the production of consistent and comparable student
feedback data - it might eventually be possible to produce data for the whole
university. The likely costing of the Medical School’s system, “Opinio”, is
referred to in paragraph 15 above and their experience is that it is a cost
effective system with significant savings in staff time also. WGSF was
informed that the Medical School was willing to provide demonstrations of the
system to faculties and departments.

WGSF recommends that that departments should be encouraged to
explore the potential benefits to their department of the online SEQs
currently used by the Medical School or within WebCT; once precise
costings for this have been sought from IS, possibilities for pilots may then
be identified. (Recc 2).
Student Representation on UCL Committees
Current UCL practice on student representation
23
3
UCL’s current documents on student representation on UCL committees can
be found in the Academic Manual as Document H3 and H4 3 and are at
Annex 1. The document H3 provides guidelines on the operation of DSSCCs
and is designated as UCL policy.
The document H4 on Student
The documents are also at:
http://www.intranet.ucl.ac.uk/staffandstudent/reference/acman/PartH/H3.htm
http://www.intranet.ucl.ac.uk/staffandstudent/reference/acman/PartH/H4.htm
8
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
Representation on UCL Standing Committees and Sub-Committees is issued
as information and lists the various UCL committees on which there is student
representation, it is not intended to offer guidance. WGSF also considered
the Academic Manual policy documents on DTCs (D6) and FTCs (D7) in its
deliberations and the documents are also included in Annex 14.
24
The survey of faculty practice in regard to SEQs at Annex 2 also requested
information on student representation and WGSF considered this evidence in
its deliberations.
25
Early on its deliberations, WGSF had considered the issue of how students
might be encouraged to volunteer as representatives to committees. It was
suggested that service on committees and other student representative
activities could be formally recognised by UCL and be allowed to contribute
as academic credits towards the students’ degrees. WGSF considered that as
attractive as this was in principle, there were practical obstacles that would
make it very difficult to introduce (for example, it would inevitably conflict with
academic considerations in some programmes and departments). WGSF
concluded that UCL should concentrate on tightening its existing mechanisms
for student representation instead.
Student Representation on Departmental Committees
26
The information received from faculties in the faculty survey at Annex 2
indicated that there was general uncertainty as to whether DTCs had student
representatives (as required by UCL policy) with less than half of the faculties
able to confirm this. WGSF noted that it might not be the case that DTCs in
general do not have student representatives, but rather that faculties are not
monitoring that they do when considering the DTC minutes. Although other
quality assurance mechanisms such as IQR routinely checked whether DTCs
had student representatives, WGSF considered that it would also be of
benefit for FTCs to check this as part of their routine monitoring of DTC
minutes. Consideration should be given to making this more explicit in the
Academic Manual policy document, D7 Faculty Teaching Committees.

27
4
WGSF recommends that Faculty Teaching Committees, should as
part of their role in monitoring Departmental Teaching Committee
minutes and procedures, check that the DTCs have student
representations, as required by UCL policy; and that this is made
clear in the policy statement in the Academic Manual (Recc 3).
It was noted that some departments experienced problems recruiting postgraduate student representatives to committees. This was a problem in
particular for Masters’ students and a number of possible reasons were
suggested: the short duration and intensity of their programmes; that many
students are part-time and may also be working and that they see no direct
benefit from the role of student representative. Masters’ students were
unlikely to personally see any changes resulting from their involvement as this
would probably not be implemented until the next academic year and they
might also not be aware of changes brought about by their predecessors.
They might perceive the role of student representative overall as an altruistic
The documents are also at:
http://www.intranet.ucl.ac.uk/staffandstudent/reference/acman/PartD/D6.html
http://www.intranet.ucl.ac.uk/staffandstudent/reference/acman/PartD/D7.html
9
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
act. Although post-graduate committees were a remedy for this in some
departments, this was not universally so and WGSF acknowledged that this
was a particular problem for smaller departments. The Graduate School was
asked for its views on these matters and it noted similar problems with
involving masters’ students as student representatives. It suggested that it
had possible mechanisms for interaction with departmental graduate tutors
and would be happy to provide guidance if requested to do so.
Student Representation on Faculty Committees
28
WGSF noted that many faculties reported difficulties in recruiting student
representatives for the FTCs and that only one was able to confirm that it had
such a member. It is UCL policy that FTCs have at least one undergraduate
and one postgraduate student representative. However, three faculties
indicated that they had tried to recruit student representatives to their FTCs
without success. WGSF advises that consideration is given to the suggestion
that the Faculty Student Representatives to UCL Union could also be
designated as members of their FTC, ensuring that there was at least one
student representative on the committee.

WGSF recommends that consideration be given to inviting UCL
Union Faculty Student Representatives to membership of the
appropriate Faculty Teaching Committee (Recc 4).
Student Representation
Committees
on
Departmental
Staff
Student
Consultative
29
The key requirements of the Academic Manual UCL policy document on
DSSCC (H3 at Annex 1) are that each academic department must have a
DSSCC (with the exception of the Faculty of Clinical Science – where
students move frequently from individual departments according to their
programme) which meets at least twice a year. The document stipulates
requirements for the terms of reference, constitution and membership and
how minutes are to be recorded. There is an expectation that the minutes
should be displayed within departments and that a copy should be forwarded
to the Dean of Students as Chair of the Joint Staff Student Consultative
Committee.
The policy also applies to inter-departmental degree
programmes and, where appropriate, to faculties.
30
WGSF noted that the UCL Union submission to the QAA DAPS/IA visit (at
Annex 4) had raised a number of points in the operation of DSSCCs and
reporting lines to other committees. UCL Union was not convinced that UCL
had a coherent and transparent policy on DSSCCs, and raised the following
points:




a greater need for clarity on departmental responsibilities in relation to
DSSCCs;
a greater need for clarity on the feedback process and UCL Union
responsibilities;
whether there was a need for a clear line of reporting from DSSCCs to
UCL Union, through the Joint Staff Student Committee;
whether feedback from courses was always available through DSSCCs.
10
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
31
UCL Union also raised a number of problems with the operation of DSSCCs,
including a wide variation in the standard and quality of minutes. Many
agendas and minutes were not produced in good time to enable members to
digest them, action points did not always appear to be acted on or reported
back to subsequent meetings and UCL Union did not routinely receive a copy
of the DSSCC minutes for its own monitoring purposes. WGSF observed that
the Academic Manual DSSCC policy statement (at Annex 1) did not stipulate
which members of the committee, staff or student, should take the minutes
during the meetings. UCL Union was not content with students taking the
secretarial role in DSSCCs, as it considered that this made it difficult for those
students to fully contribute and participate in the meetings.
WGSF
recommends that the UCL policy statement should be revised to clearly
define the responsibilities of staff and student members of DSSCCs. It should
also outline the level of administrative support provided by departments.
Should this recommendation be accepted by QMEC, WGSF officers will draft
an amended document to replace the existing document in the Academic
Manual.

WGSF recommends that the departmental responsibilities of the
operation of Departmental Staff Student Consultative Committees
should be revised to include:





minuting of DSSCC meetings by a member of non-academic
support staff in the department to ensure that they operate to a
consistent level and standard;
ensure that examples of good practice in minutes and agendas
are made available to DSSCCs;
ensure that DSSCC agendas include a standing item “matters
arising from the minutes”, to ensure that feedback on action
points raised at previous meetings is reported;
ensure that DSSCC minutes are placed on departmental websites;
ensure that DSSCC minutes are produced and circulated within
two weeks (paragraph 31). (Recc 5).
The Role of the Joint Staff Student Committee
32
WGSF considered the role of JSSC in relation to DSSCCs and noted a
number of points. The terms of reference stipulated that the Dean of
Students receive DSSCC minutes from the departments. The Dean receives
DSSCC minutes and notes any generic matters which might be of interest
UCL–wide (such as student views on learning resources, teaching
accommodation or feedback from departments). The matters noted are
included in the JSSC annual report and discussed in its meetings, before
submission to AC. All the DSSCC minutes are kept on file by the JSSC
secretary. The Dean might write to the relevant departments or UCL services
to follow-up generic issues raised by the DSSCCs. JSSC’s main role was to
ensure that the DSSCC meetings take place; it was not the role of JSSC to
police the DSSCCs or to consider internal departmental matters. WGSF
considered that it might be of benefit if JSSC considered extending its
monitoring of DSSCC minutes to include, as a standing item on its agendas, a
list of the minutes received and noting major matters that had arisen in them.

WGSF recommends that the Joint Staff Student Committee be
invited to consider ways to extend the monitoring of DSSCC minutes
11
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
and include, as a standing item on its agenda, a list of the DSSCC
minutes received - both as a cumulative total and noting major
matters that had arisen. (Recc 6)
33
It was noted that the UCL Union had stated in its submission to the Quality
Assurance Agency’s Degree Awarding Powers/Institutional Audit visit that
they did not receive copies of the DSSCC minutes. At the time that this
document was being prepared it was not the practice that DSSCC minutes
would also be sent to UCL Union in addition to the Dean of Students.
However, WGSF was informed that this position would change in 2005-06
and that departments had also been requested to forward copies of the
minutes to UCL Union from the 2005-06 academic year. WGSF viewed this
as a valuable complement to the existing and proposed roles of JSSC in
relation to DSSCC minutes.
34
It was noted that UCL Union represents and nominates students for the JSSC
whereas it has no role in the appointment of students to DSSCCs. WGSF
discussed whether it would be desirable for there to be more symmetry
between student representatives for the two. It was noted that in addition to
the two ex officio UCL Union members of the JSSC (who were sabbatical
officers) there were seven additional student representatives nominated by
UCL Union. WGSF considered that it might be possible for UCL Union to
ensure during the nomination process that these students were also
representatives to their DSSCCs. This would ensure that there was a student
representative link between the JSSC and the DSSCCs. WGSF suggests
that this might be a matter which the JSSC give further consideration to in its
future deliberations.

WGSF recommends that the Joint Staff Student Committee be
invited to consider aligning its student membership more closely
with Departmental Staff Student Consultative Committee
membership (Recc 7).
Advice and Briefing for Student Representatives
35
Consideration was given to the provision of briefing or training for student
representatives in order for students to contribute more confidently and
effectively to committees. It was noted that UCL Union provided a training
sessions for all student representatives which is given at the first UCLU
Council. UCL Union was currently in the process of producing a handbook to
provide guidance for new student representatives. A draft version was
submitted to WGSF, which found the information contained impressive and
useful. The UCL Union handbook contains advice on UCL committee
structures, the role of the student representative and guidance on meeting
conventions, language used in minutes and agendas and on planning and
negotiation. A copy of the document is at Annex 4.
36
UCL Union representatives to WGSF also raised the issue of identification of
DSSCC representatives. It was noted that the normal procedure was for the
departments to inform UCL Union of student representative names once they
were elected to the DSSCC, however, UCL Union did not always receive this
information. WGSF recommends that UCL Union supply all departments with
copies of its handbooks to ensure that all new student representatives to
departmental committees are in receipt of the document and to act as a
12
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
trigger for the department to inform UCL Union of the names of the student
representatives.

37
WGSF was informed that Academic Services provided briefing sessions for
the new UCL Union sabbatical officers who serve on AC and the Council and
the group heard they considered this to be very useful. WGSF also noted that
the new student handbook offered guidance to students elected to DSSCCs.
WGSF did not feel that the introduction of more formal training for student
representatives serving on departmental committees would work, as any
sense of compulsion might discourage student volunteers. However, an
extension of the briefing session to the student representatives might be more
acceptable and considered less of a burden – the group felt that labelling
such session as “briefings” as opposed to “training” might also make them
more attractive to students. WGSF also heard that new student members of
UCL standing committees often found first meetings a daunting prospect,
having to cope with unfamiliar proceedings and formalities. Frequently, the
academic staff on such committees have been members for some time, so
they know other members and are familiar with the work of the committee. It
was suggested that committee chairs and/or secretaries contact the student
representatives before the first meeting in order to brief them on the
committees’ works and proceedings. This would ensure that the student
representatives are familiar with at least some members of the committee
before attending their first meeting.

38
WGSF recommends that UCL Union supply departments with copies
of its handbooks for distribution to the new student representatives
to departmental committees – once the handbooks are
disseminated, departments should identify the new student
representatives to UCL Union (Recc 8).
WGSF recommends that committee chairs and/or secretaries should
meet the student representatives in advance of the first committee
meeting, in order to brief them on the committees’ works and
proceedings and to put the students at ease and introduce them to
key committee members (Recc 9).
A suggestion was raised during WGSF’s deliberations that it would be helpful
if a section was created on the UCL web-site to draw together sources of
advice and information on student representation. The web-site would have a
dual role of not only providing interested students with information on, for
example how to out forward their views or contact a student representative,
but also provide encouragement for students to volunteer as representatives
and emphasize the importance of providing feedback.

WGSF recommends that a student representation section be added
to the UCL web-site to:


bring together information from different sources such as
departments, faculties, UCL Union - with appropriate links to
other useful sites and information;
provide advice on how students can find their representatives,
raise issues and on how the system works;
13
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005

39
encourage students to volunteer as representatives and highlight
the benefits of doing so, both altruistically and for personal
development (Recc 10).
It was noted that the CHERI/LTSN guidelines emphasised the importance
that the results of feedback are made available to students and that this also
applied to student representation on committees. The UCL Union submission
document for the QAA DAPS/IA visit highlighted that this did not always
happen with some departmental committees not routinely providing feedback
to the students. It was important that students had access to this information
in order to engage with the process. WGSF did not wish to be overly
prescriptive in regard to the methods by which departmental minutes should
be made available to students and noted that this could be by e-mail;
departmental web-sites; student notice-boards; student representatives or by
a combination of the above. However, it was vitally important that feedback
was given back to students. It was suggested that departments consider
making more use of IT technology to disseminate minutes and other forms of
feedback.
Student Feedback on UCL Central Support Services
Current practice in UCL Central Support Services
40
AC, in addition to its survey of faculty provision on student feedback in 2002,
had also received information from UCL central support services. This
included Library Services who reported on how results from its Library survey
were considered by the Library Committee and faculty and departmental
library committees. Information Systems had also informed AC of its
provision including a regular computing survey which focussed mainly on
students’ computer skills. WGSF conducted a brief follow-up survey into
student representation provision in UCL support services seeking information
on the mechanism used to gather student feedback and how results were
considered and then fed back to the students. The UCL services contacted
were Library Services, Residential Services, Education and Information
Support Division and UCL Careers Service. This information is presented at
Annex 5. In addition UCL Registry provided a written submission on the
practice of its various sections and this is at Annex 6.
41
As with the practice found within faculties, WGSF observed a wide variation in
how the services received feedback from the students. The mechanisms for
collecting the feedback included questionnaires, student fora and comment
boxes often provided electronically on the Services’ web-sites. However,
there was a general lack of information on response rates and it was not clear
if many of the support services routinely fed back the information gathered
from students to DSSCCs, student representatives or through UCL
committees.
42
UCL Registry’s statement on its provision for student feedback (at Annex 6)
indicated that it was not always appropriate in some services to provide
feedback to students, e.g. it would be difficult to feed back the results of the
Registry’s survey of student opinion of the graduation ceremonies to those
students, as they had since left UCL. There were different purposes for
collecting feedback, which could be to inform future planning or provide a
snapshot of a particular group of students’ views on a specific service.
However, WGSF suggests that if providing feedback to students is not the
14
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
usual practice overall, it might make attempts by UCL support services to
elicit feedback more difficult, as students not informed of the results or
outcomes of surveys might be more reluctant to contribute in future.
43
WGSF considered that student feedback was dependent to an extent on how
support services operated and the mechanisms used to gather it. It found
that Library Services appeared to operate effective mechanisms in both
gathering student feedback and in reporting the results and outcomes back to
students and noted that this may be due to its closer links with departments
through its network of departmental library representatives. However, it was
not clear to WGSF where some other issues, such as student feedback on
overall financial matters, were discussed. Although there were UCL Union
representatives on the Fees Committee and the Student Awards and
Hardship Funds Committee, WGSF noted that the student representative to
the Finance Committee had observer status only.
It was also noted that
Registry no longer dealt directly with students in regard to matters concerning
fees or loans, and that any feedback received from students might need to be
forwarded to the Finance Division.
44
WGSF was not aware of any mechanisms by which UCL gained an
institutional overview on student opinion of its support services. Although the
operation of many of these services was overseen by a UCL committee
and/or the heads of many of these divisions/services report to the ViceProvost (Administration), it was not clear if such a mechanism existed for an
overall view. WGSF had no view as to the precise mechanisms for gaining
this overview, whether it is through the UCL standing committee structure, the
line management chain or by other means. WGSF felt that it was important
that some thought was given within UCL as to how an overview of the student
opinion on support services could be provided and advised that this matter be
brought to the attention of the Vice-Provost (Academic and International),
given the importance of student support services to the UCL “student
experience” and the delivery of some of UCL’s key institutional strategies
(e.g. International Strategy, Learning and teaching Strategy).

WGSF recommends that QMEC raise with the Vice-Provost
(Academic and International) the issue of possible mechanisms for
gaining an institutional overview of student feedback on UCL’s
various central support and welfare services (Recc 11).
The proposed UCL-wide end of programme questionnaire and the implications
of the National Student Survey
45
In 2002, AC deferred its decision to develop a UCL-wide end of programme
SEQ pending the outcome of HEFCE’s pilot projects for the National Student
Survey and for the CHERI/LTSN report on suggested guidelines for student
feedback. AC also noted the advice from Universities UK that HEIs should
not commit resources to the development of such systems until the position of
the proposed NSS was clearer.
46
WGSF considered that AC’s decision to postpone development of a UCLwide end of programme questionnaire had been wise, and considered
whether the introduction of the NSS obviated the need for UCL to introduce
its own exit questionnaire. It was suggested that should UCL proceed with its
own UCL-wide SEQ, there would inevitably be some repetition of the
questions the NSS asked and replication of some of the information gathered.
15
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
Anecdotal evidence had suggested that there were some doubts as to the
validity of the NSS amongst many HEIs, with some considering that it its
questions were too broad to deliver genuinely useful information for
prospective students and HEIs. WGSF also noted that some high profile
HEIs had not participated in the NSS and were conducting their own end of
programme SEQs instead.
47
The CHERI/LTSN guidelines on student feedback strongly suggested that
SEQs should not be used in isolation and urged that they should only be used
in conjunction with other forms of feedback, including student representation
mechanisms. WGSF noted that this appeared to contradict much of the
rationale behind the NSS, (as outlined in HEFCE’s consultation documents in
introducing the survey), which placed strong emphasis on the use of SEQs as
the main means of receiving student feedback.
48
UCL also had reservations about the NSS, in particular in regard to data
protection issues of the student data submitted and HEFCE had provided
assurances on this before UCL participated in the survey. The student
representatives stated that a UCL-wide SEQ run alongside the NSS might
result in a lower response rate to both surveys, as they felt that final year
students would be unwilling to answer similar questionnaires twice. Despite
this, WGSF considered that as long as the NSS existed, that it would not be
sensible to introduce a UCL-wide SEQ. It was also noted that QMEC had
resolved to seek ways to improve the UCL response rate to the NSS and that
UCL officers would be addressing this matter in the first term of the 2005-06
session.
49
WGSF also heard other views, in particular from the representatives from the
departments of Computer Science and Statistical Science. They expressed
the view that poor responses to electronic course and programme SEQs
might make departments reluctant to expand much energy on a compulsory
UCL–wide SEQ, particularly in the context of increasing demands on
departmental staff and resources.
50
In the light of these views WGSF advises that the moratorium on the
introduction of a UCL–wide SEQ should continue. Instead, WGSF advises
that UCL adopt a twin-track strategy of carefully monitoring the progress of
the NSS whilst encouraging departments to move to electronic SEQ systems,
based on a common system such as that in operation in the Medical School.
This would help to lay the groundwork for a UCL-wide SEQ should
circumstances change and its development become more desirable.

that the moratorium on the introduction of a UCL–wide programme SEQ
should continue, although departments were still welcome to proceed with
individual SEQ’s, such as those already administered by the Medical
School and the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The
progress of the National Student Survey will continue to be closely
monitored, in the event that should circumstances change, the decision will
be re-visited. (Recc 12).
Other Matters raised in WGSF Discussions
51
During its deliberations concerns were raised in regard to the guidance
available to tutors on dealing with student feedback in situations where it
verged on, or became, a complaint. WGSF considered the UCL policy
16
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
documents on the duties of Faculty Tutors and Departmental Tutors
(Academic Manual Documents G7 and G85) and the student grievance
procedures at Annex 1. WGSF considered that the information and advice
offered in the documents in regard to procedure was clear, but was
concerned that staff experienced difficulties in dealing with these situations in
practice. These were often complex problems - such as the identification of
students with dyslexia and the subsequent assistance received from UCL and were often on the boundary between student feedback and complaint.
WGSF considered that there was a need to ensure that academic staff are
aware of the procedures and advice and assistance available and that this
may be a question of examining briefing for departmental and personal tutors.
WGSF agreed that it would not be appropriate to consider these matters
further, but advises that this issue be brought to the attention of the Academic
Registrar.

WGSF recommends that the Academic Registrar review the advice
provided for tutors on student complaints and grievance procedures
to determine whether change should be made to the briefing
provided for departmental and personal tutors on difficult situations
where feedback becomes a complaint (Recc 13).
52
A suggestion was raised that in order to obtain a high response rate to an end
of programme SEQ, that student e-mail accounts could be turned into alumni
accounts on graduation. The completion of the SEQ would be the trigger for
activating the alumni e-mail account, thus giving the student an incentive to
complete it. Alumni Relations and Information Systems informed WGSF that
UCL was in the process of introducing alumni e-mail accounts through its
“UCL e-mail for life” service. However, the process did not change student email accounts into alumni accounts (there were reservations of alumni using
the same e-mail service as current students – particularly in regard to
resources, the integrity of the system and the appropriateness of alumni
having the same access as students) but rather creating separate accounts.
It would thus be difficult to link such an e-mail account to the completion of an
SEQ. WGSF was also informed of concerns that such a link would present a
barrier to students signing up for the alumni accounts and reduce the take-up
rate.
53
It was noted during WGSF’s discussion on student representation that the
UCL Union sabbatical officers had very large work-loads as representatives to
UCL standing committees. The full list of UCL Union representatives on UCL
Committees is at Annex 7. It was noted that the Education and Welfare
Officer in particular was the UCL Union representative on 19 committees
including AC and the Council and that this would involve attendance of at
least 50 meetings a year. WGSF considered that whilst it was not its
business to consider how UCL Union organised its student representation
arrangements, it was pertinent to ask whether UCL Union should consider
their officers‘ workloads. WGSF considered whether, in light of the increasing
student numbers (particularly the anticipated increase in postgraduates)
whether UCL Union representative arrangements would need to be updated
to meet new demands and requirements. It was clear that UCL Union was
addressing these concerns and it had considered the issue of student
5
The documents are also available at:
http://www.intranet.ucl.ac.uk/staffandstudent/reference/acman/PartG/G7.html
http://www.intranet.ucl.ac.uk/staffandstudent/reference/acman/PartG/G8.html
17
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
representation in a written submission to WGSF at Annex 4. This also
included details of UCL Union’s plans to assist UCL in improving and
increasing its student representatives on committees in general for 2005-06,
with a particular focus on the recruitment and briefing of student course
representatives and a complimentary promotional campaign, “get involved!”
54
In several of its discussions, WGSF noted concerns that many students did
not appear to access their UCL e-mail addresses. This shut down an avenue
for communication with the students and led to a number of negative effects,
from departments receiving low response rates to SEQs to the difficulty of
recruiting student representatives for committees. Furthermore, departments
could not be certain that students had received often important information
(e.g. on coursework, examination timetables etc). WGSF was informed that
some departments, such as the Medical School, used learning contracts as a
solution to this difficulty. Students were expected to sign an agreement to
regularly access their e-mail accounts and had an expectation that this would
be the major source of communication between them and the Medical School.
WGSF suggested that if this idea was extended into UCL-wide practice, it
might drastically improve both the reception and gathering of student
feedback. The PORTICO developments, which will significantly extend the
role of on-line communication between UCL and its students, offer an ideal
cultural background for a move in this direction.

WGSF recommends that UCL explore the introduction of UCL-wide
learning contracts which require students to regularly use their UCL
e-mail accounts - in order to improve feedback to and from the
students (Recc 14).
WGSF’s Conclusions
55
Following its discussions and consideration of the available evidence and
after taking into account the suggested guidance offered by the CHERI/LTSN
report, WGSF concluded that UCL should articulate general principles in
order to inform its policies on student feedback. Firstly, a holistic approach to
student feedback should be adopted using a range of mechanisms in order to
gather student views and to report back to them as appropriate. Secondly,
UCL policy statements should contain clear minimum expectations in terms of
what is expected of faculties, departments and individual staff and students
and also clarity on what the students can expect. Thirdly, the feedback
mechanisms must be fit for purpose. Fourth, that feedback to students must
be timely.
56
Throughout the course of its deliberations, WGSF noted a wide variation in
the uses of student feedback within UCL; this was perhaps unsurprising
considering the diversity of provision offered. From the wide range of the
evidence received, WGSF was in no doubt that there were many excellent
examples of student feedback practices in UCL, many of an innovative
nature.
57
WGSF’s full recommendations can be found at paragraph 59 below. It does
not wish to be overly prescriptive nor place additional burdens on
departments and faculties. However, WGSF did find a wide variation in the
effectiveness of the feedback mechanisms, in particular in the workings of
SEQs and departmental committees (such as DSSCCs). It believes that the
setting of core requirements or expectations is appropriate to ensure that
18
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
there are minimum standards in relation to student feedback practice across
UCL and that this provision is efficient and effective.
58
WGSF thanked all the departments, faculties, and support services for
providing information, data and views. It also expressed thanks to UCL Union
and its two representatives for providing a clear and constructive student view
on feedback.
This assisted WGSF to inform the group’s deliberations
enormously and gave a useful overview of current student feedback provision
across UCL.
Recommendations
59
WGSF recommends that QMEC considers the following statements with a
view to updating UCL policy and where appropriate, to amend or add to the
statements in the Academic Manual:
1. UCL should re-affirm its commitment to course and programme SEQs and
set out as a matter of policy a minimum threshold on what would be
expected of departments in terms of SEQs, to include:


mechanisms in place to ensure students receive feedback from SEQs,
including analysis of the data and summary of comments;
an opportunity for collective comment by students (possibly through
DSSCCs) on data from SEQ responses and where relevant, to receive
the reaction of course tutors (paragraph 21).
2. that departments should be encouraged to explore the potential benefits
to their department of the online SEQs currently used by the Medical
School or within WebCT; once precise costings for this have been sought
from IS, possibilities for pilots may then be identified. (paragraph 22);
3. Faculty Teaching Committees, should as part of their role in monitoring
Departmental Teaching Committee minutes and procedures, check that
the DTCs have student representatives, as required by UCL policy; and
that this made clear in the policy statement in the Academic Manual
(paragraph 26);
4. that consideration should be given to inviting UCL Union Faculty Student
Representatives to membership of the appropriate Faculty Teaching
Committee (paragraph 28);
5. that the departmental responsibilities of the operation of Departmental
Staff Student Consultative Committees should be revised to include:




minuting of DSSCC meetings by a member of non-academic support
staff in the department to ensure that they operate to a consistent
level and standard;
ensure that examples of good practice in minutes and agendas are
made available to DSSCCs;
ensure that DSSCC agendas include a standing item “matters arising
from the minutes”, to ensure that feedback on action points raised at
previous meetings is reported;
ensure that DSSCC minutes are placed on departmental web-sites;
19
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005

ensure that DSSCC minutes are produced and circulated within two
weeks (paragraph 31).
6. that the Joint Staff Student Committee be invited to consider ways to
extend the monitoring of DSSCC minutes and include, as a standing item
on its agenda, a list of the DSSCC minutes received - both as a
cumulative total and noting major matters that had arisen (paragraph 32);
7. that the Joint Staff Student Committee be invited to consider aligning its
student membership more closely with Departmental Staff Student
Consultative Committee membership (paragraph 34);
8. that UCL Union supply departments with copies of its handbooks for
distribution to the new student representatives to departmental
committees – once the handbooks are disseminated, departments should
identify the new student representatives to UCL Union (paragraph 36);
9. that committee chairs and/or secretaries should meet the student
representatives in advance of the first committee meeting, in order to brief
them on the committees’ works and proceedings and to put the students
at ease and introduce them to key committee members (paragraph 37);
10. that a student representation section be added to the UCL web-site to:



bring together information from different sources such as departments,
faculties, UCL Union - with appropriate links to other useful sites and
information;
provide advice on how students can find their representatives, raise
issues and on how the system works;
encourage students to volunteer as representatives and highlight the
benefits of doing so, both altruistically and for personal development
(paragraph 38);
11. that QMEC raise with the Vice-Provost (Academic and International) the
issue of possible mechanisms for gaining an institutional overview of
student feedback on UCL’s various central support and welfare services
(paragraph 44);
12. that the moratorium on the introduction of a UCL–wide programme SEQ
should continue, although departments were still welcome to proceed with
individual SEQ’s, such as those already administered by the Medical
School and the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The
progress of the National Student Survey will continue to be closely
monitored, in the event that should circumstances change, the decision
will be re-visited. (paragraph 50).
Recommendations on other issues considered by WGSF
13. that the Academic Registrar review the advice provided for tutors on
student complaints and grievance procedures to determine whether
change should be made to the briefing provided for departmental and
personal tutors on difficult situations where feedback becomes a
complaint (paragraph 51);
20
Working Group on Student Feedback Report to QMEC 10 October 2005
14. that UCL explore the introduction of UCL-wide learning contracts with a
requirement that students use their UCL e-mail accounts - in order to
improve feedback to and from the students (paragraph 54).
Evidence submitted/Appendices
60
The following evidence was submitted to WGSF:







Annex 1 – UCL policy and good practice statements from the Academic
Manual and other sources:
- H2 Student Questionnaires
- H3 DSSCCs
- H4 Student Representation on UCL Standing Committees and subcommittees
- D6 Departmental Teaching Committees
- D7 Faculty Teaching Committees
- G7 Duties of Faculty Tutors
- G8 Duties of Departmental Tutors
- Student Grievance procedures
Annex 2 - Table showing the use of SEQs in Faculties
Annex 3 – Royal Free and University College Medical School
- Generic End of Programme SEQ
- Example of Course Questionnaire and report
- Principles and procedures document and SEQ management chart
Annex 4 - UCL Union Documents
- Handbook for Student Representatives
- Submission to the QAA/IA visit
- Written submission for WGSF
Annex 5 - Table showing the use of student feedback in UCL Support
Services
Annex 6 – UCL Registry Document on Student Feedback
Annex 7 - UCL Union Representatives on UCL Standing Committees
Rob Traynor
Academic Services
October 2005
Revised November 2005
Final revision December 2005
21