The University of Edinburgh
College of Humanities and Social Science
Undergraduate Learning & Teaching Committee
9 October 2014
Paper 14/15 1G
Enhancing Student Support (ESS)
Student Support Implementation Group (SSIG)
Meeting on Thursday 10 July 2014
in the Torridon Room, Charles Stewart House
Notes
Present:
Professor Ian Pirie (Convenor), Assistant Principal Learning and Development
Mr Brian Connolly, Project Manager (ESS), Academic Services
Professor Allan Cumming, Dean of Students, CMVM
Mr Gavin Douglas, University Deputy Secretary, Student Experience
Ms Shelagh Green, Director, Careers Service, SASG
Dr Paul Jackson, Senior Tutor, CSE
Ms Nichola Kett, Head of Enhancement Team, Academic Services
Ms Sarah McAllister, Communication Lead (ESS), Student Support Team, CSE
Dr Geoff Pearson, Senior Tutor, CMVM
Mr Dash Sekhar, EUSA Vice-President (Academic Affairs)
Mr Tom Ward, Head of Academic Services
Apologies:
Dr Arianna Andreangeli, Senior Tutor, CHSS
Ms Debra Black, Student Support Team, CMVM
Dr Adam Bunni, Academic Advice Co-ordinator, EUSA
Ms Lorraine Edgar, Student Support Team, CHSS
Dr Tina Harrison, Assistant Principal Academic Standards & Quality Assurance
Professor Peter Higgins, Dean of Students, CHSS
Dr Fanney Kristmundsdottir, Student Support Team, CMVM
Mr Simon Marsden, Director, Applications Division, Information Services
Ms Lindsey Miller, HR representative
Professor Alan Murray, Dean of Students, CSE
Mr Barry Neilson, Director, Student Admissions & Curricula Systems
Dr Sue Rigby, Vice Principal Learning and Teaching
Dr Jon Turner, Director, Institute for Academic Development
1.
Notes of the last meeting
The notes were approved.
2.
Matters arising not elsewhere on the agenda
There were no matter arising.
Key items for discussion:
3.
Evaluation and Monitoring – Staff Survey
SSIG received and noted a report on the key findings of the Personal Tutor (PT) system Staff
Survey. The findings had previously been presented to the joint meeting of the Senior Tutor
1
Network and Student Support Team Network held on 16 June 2014. It was noted that
findings were broadly in line with the evaluation of the PT system for undergraduate (UG)
students conducted earlier in the session. The following key points were noted:

Smaller tutee groups are preferable - whilst 78% of staff who are the personal tutor for
fewer than 10 students think that this is the optimum size for a tutee group, just 6.3% of staff
who are the personal tutor for 51 or more students are satisfied with the size of their current
tutee group.

High use of, and confidence when using, IT tools - of the 89.9% of staff who do not
use EEMeC or EEVeC, 70% use the Personal Tutor IT Tools. Of this sample,
88.7% of whom are confident in doing so (25% Very confident, 63.7% Somewhat
confident). Of the 93.8% of respondents who gave an opinion on the topic, 80.2% of
are satisfied with training provisions available for the Personal Tutor IT Tools.

Nearly 9 out of 10 tutors have fewer than 3 meetings with each student per
semester - 87.6% of respondents have either 1 or 2 meetings with each of their tutees
in a semester (46.9% said 1, 40.8% said 2).

Tutors want long term contact with their tutees, but are split on whether mandatory
actions are desirable - the idea of students staying with the same personal tutor
throughout their University career was received positively, with 91.1% of tutors saying that
this would be helpful. Staff were less enthusiastic about ideas that imposed mandatory
requirements on both tutor and tutee, with ideas such as a compulsory mid-semester one
meeting for first year students and tutors being provided with a structured template on how
the meetings should run being met with sub <50% levels of perceived helpfulness (49.5%
and 48.6% respectively).
Members noted that students had expressed a desire (during the UG student
evaluation) for more scheduled meetings in order to build a relationship with their tutor.

Tutors are confident in dealing with student issues, but are less confident when
the issues involve other members of staff - 92.2% of tutors said that they feel
confident enough to deal with a student approaching them with a personal problem.
Slightly fewer staff felt confident in dealing with a student who is clearly anxious and
distressed (84.4%), although this is still a high rating. However, only
75.3% of tutors feel confident in dealing with a student who wishes to make a
complaint about another member of staff.

Whilst staff are confident enough to run group meetings, there is confusion about
how to do so successfully - of the 93.9% who expressed an opinion, 82.2% of tutors feel
confident in their ability to facilitate a group meeting. However, the group is split on how to
best do so: 58.7% thought a meeting where all students are studying the same subject
would be the best option; whilst 33.6% believe that a meeting where all students are from
the same year is preferential; the remaining
7.7% believe that another structure altogether would be a better option.

Staff are relatively unsatisfied with student awareness of their SSTs - just
46.7% of staff are satisfied with the level of student awareness of Student Support
Team in their School.

Just 1 in 3 tutors feel that they receive sufficient recognition for their work as a
personal tutor - of the 93.9% who offered their opinion, only 35.5% of PTs expressed the
opinion that they feel they receive sufficient recognition for their work as personal tutors.
SSIG noted that the Staff Survey formed the second of three elements of the Monitoring,
Evaluation and Enhancement process for the ESS project (along with evaluations of the PT
system for UG and PGT students). All three elements will be compiled into a final Monitoring,
Evaluation and Enhancement report on completion of the ESS project (and
2
thereby the implementation phases of the PT system) and mainstreaming preparations for
the start of the 2015-16 academic session.
4.
ESS Project – Final Year Plan
SSIG received and noted a paper summarising plans for the final year of the ESS project.
The following main tasks for 2014-15 were agreed:
Monitoring and Evaluation
 PGT – Project team to conduct a student survey at the start of the second semester
to capture the opinions of a PGT cohort.
 Report – Project team to produce a final Monitoring, Evaluation and Enhancement
report compiled from all three evaluation elements (i.e. UG, PGT, and Staff).
Mainstreaming
 Change Management – SSIG to consider options for enhancing the value of the PT
system across the University (given that approx. 20-25% of students are dissatisfied
with their experience).
 Senior Tutor – SSIG to review status of role.
 Staff Networks – SSIG to consider longer term function and home.
 IT Tools – SSIG to review mainstream function (i.e. should the use of the IT Tools be
compulsory and should the IT Tools be used as a line management tool?).
 Notes – SSIG to review status (i.e. should preparation and writing-up be
compulsory?).
 Meeting Requirements – SSIG to review requirements (i.e. varied according to year
with additional scheduled meetings required in years 1 & 2 when students are most in
need?).
Training Package
 Project team to produce a package of resources establishing mainstream roles and
responsibilities, providing guidance to staff and highlighting good practice.
ESS Final Report
 Project team to produce a final reflective report making recommendations to Colleges
and Schools with regard to good practice and to the Senate Committees with
oversight responsibilities for the PT system (i.e. the Quality Assurance Committee in
relation to annual QA monitoring and the Learning and Teaching Committee with
regard to periodic strategic reflection and enhancement).
Standard agenda items:
5.
Project Deliverables
SSIG noted that a new Project Deliverables report would be produced to reflect the recent
planning discussions for the final year.
6.
Risk Register
SSIG reviewed the status of the Risk Register. It was noted that the register had been
updated to reflect the transfer of Phase 3 activities to REC. No issues were raised.
Members were invited to contact the Project Manager in regard to any other issues omitted
from the Risk Register.
Strand updates:
7.
Personal Tutor system
3
7.1
School PT Statements 2014-15
SSIG received and noted the School PT Statements for 2014-15. The Project
Manager noted that the statements were all generally in line with the template (as
approved by SSIG last year) and therefore there was no reason to review each
statement in turn. With this assurance, SSIG approved the PT statements for
publication.
8.
IT Tools
SSIG noted that there was nothing to report.
9.
Training and Resources
SSIG noted that there was nothing to report.
10.
Communications
SSIG noted that the next ESS bulletin would focus on plans for enhancements to support for
PGR students and the transfer of Phase 3 activities to REC.
Meeting details:
11.
Next Meeting
Wednesday 17 September 2014 between 2-4pm in the Cuillin Room, Charles Stewart
House.
4