Section 40: Student engagement in curriculum and pedagogic design
The following samples are extracted from completed validation documentation reflecting the level
of student engagement in curriculum development.
While at first sight, there appear to be widely differing levels and types of engagement across
subject areas, discussions with subject teams indicate that in many cases considerably more
consultation with the students has occurred than is reported.
Full details of student engagement will be sought in all future validation documentation.
Chemistry
The department has a staff – student committee and this has been used as a conduit for discussions
relating to the development of these programmes. In addition, detailed information has been made
available to the entire student population in chemistry and this has resulted in considerable verbal
and written feedback. Examples of developments suggested by students was retaining the workshop
sessions to support level 4 and 5 students and making sure the lab provision did not decrease.
Consultations will continue as the programmes develop in the future using the normal feedback
mechanisms (staff-student committee, module evaluation questionnaires and student
representation on the department’s learning and teaching committee).
Computer Science
A standing panel of student representatives from each year exists to provide input into curriculum
development. Members of this panel were fully involved in the development of this portfolio
through a range of consultation meetings at each stage of programme development. The design of
the programmes was also informed by the views of the wider student body through input from Staff
Student Committee, our annual module review process and student feedback.
Management
We have informally discussed the programme with current staff, students and graduates; however
due to the timing of this paperwork being submitted (during the NSS), we deliberately did not want
to over-load the students with questionnaires, therefore have not formally coveted their written
opinions. We will be conducting a formalised survey of both students and corporate partners before
the validation panel and will present the data then.
We have been in contact with the Centre for Professional Success within HUBS with regards to both
the placement element and employability aspirations for the programme.
HUBS is about the undertake market research with prospective employers about the C2106+
portfolio, and the MBus will be included in this exercise – preliminary findings may be available in
time for the panel. We have however canvassed views of several local organisations, and the
response to the MBus concept has been positive.
Music
1
Students have been involved and will continue to be involved in the process of curriculum and
pedagogic design through the Music Student-Staff Committee (SSC) as well as open student fora
organised by the Music Subject Leader. Students have been given regular updates on the
development process (via eBridge and email), opportunities to discuss module and programme
drafts as well as encouraged to contribute ideas and provide feedback in the SSC and open fora.
Psychology
The student voice has been articulated in the design of the new curriculum as a result of a student
forum where student representatives from all years were invited to comment on the proposed new
programme. Feedback on the proposed changes was overwhelmingly positive. They felt that the
themed approach makes the programmes more cohesive, offers clear progression of ideas and
material from level 4 to level 5, and that the subjects that are combined within the themes go well
together. They felt that the proposed extension of the personal supervisory system to cover
fortnightly tutorials throughout the certificate and diploma stages should improve students’ feeling
of belonging to the department. The students recognized that there will be a small increase in
assessment load at certificate and diploma stages under the new programme structure but this was
not seen to be a problem as long as the submission deadlines are staggered, rather than all falling on
the same day. An increase in the number of practical reports on the research skills and data analysis
modules was seen as a positive, providing students with more opportunities to improve their report
writing skills prior to the final year project. The students also considered other changes to these
modules (more lectures, smaller workshop groups, practical preparation in personal tutor groups,
personal supervisors marking reports over the two years) as great improvements. More generally,
the increase in assessment, and introduction of formative assessment across modules was
welcomed as an opportunity to improve feedback.
The students also have the opportunity to articulate their perception and experience of the degree
programmes in several other modes. The staff student committee allows students the opportunity
to provide feedback in the programmes’ content and delivery as a whole in addition to problems
with the delivery of individual modules. This enables academic staff to address those issues and
work with students to ensure that the issues are resolved. At the end of each module students are
asked to complete a module evaluation providing feedback about the quality and appropriateness of
teaching materials, assessments and quality of delivery. This process is a valuable tool in driving
change in the future delivery of a module as module managers reflect on the feedback from the
previous cohort of students and make suggested adjustments for the next academic year. The
National Student Survey is another source of information that provides feedback about the student
experience on the programmes. As a department we discuss any issues raised in the NSS and decide
on a strategy to resolve these for the coming year. The annual departmental programme review also
looks through content, delivery, progression and achievement and considers changes that need to
be made for future years.
Politics
A process of engagement with the student body on programmes of study for which the School of
Politics, Philosophy and International Studies (PPIS) has lead responsibility has begun, initially
through the School Staff Student Committees but followed by a continuing series of open fora and
student focus groups. All PPIS students were invited to the first of these focus group meetings which
was held on Wednesday 18 March for the purpose of presenting our proposals to students and
seeking their feedback and were supplemented by workshops in the weeks beginning April 20 and
27. The student attendees at these meetings were not those who typically put themselves forward
2
as Staff/Student representatives or society organisers, but the feedback received from them and
from our Staff/Student Committee student representatives has been overwhelmingly positive so far.
This first open forum was followed up by a number of staff- and student-representative-led student
focus groups on programme and module content and planning, feedback and assessment, and postgraduation support and employability, again for the purpose of feeding back into our on-going
curriculum review and which will re-convene and then continue on a regular basis from the start of
the coming academic term. It is intended that these meetings will happen once per semester so that
continuing curriculum review and development can incorporate student views and feedback.
Special efforts will continue to be made to encourage the attendance and participation of students
who do not normally take part in Staff Student Committees or other representative bodies. These
on-going curriculum development fora will be complemented by an online forum where students on
particular programmes will be invited to comment on and contribute to the planning and re-design
process for those specific programmes of study (or the programmes most closely related to them).
Although invitation to all of the envisaged meetings and workshops will remain open to all students
on PPIS-led programmes, minimal representation will be formalised at the beginning of the coming
academic session in order to ensure that each programme of study, insofar as is possible, is
represented. Nominees for student representatives, one per level of study as required, will be
invited from those who participate in these focus groups and open fora.
SHES
Across all programmes within the SHES portfolio, representatives from both undergraduate and
postgraduate populations were invited to attend a number of scheduled curriculum meetings.
Specific programme approaches were presented with engagement/feedback from the student
representatives actively encouraged. As well as face to face feedback, student representatives were
asked to gather any additional comments from the wider student population with some feedback
obtained via email.
Student engagement will continue to be actively encouraged at both module and programme stages
through existing departmental feedback processes where all comments and academic staff
responses (mid and end of module evaluations) will be made available via an online repository. The
departmental staff/student committee also meet regularly throughout the academic year and acts
as another forum for student feedback/comment.
GEES
GEES has an active Staff-Student Committee which has discussed Curriculum Review on a number of
occasions, and which will continue to be consulted on programme changes as they are introduced.
A formal consultation event involving current GEES students and staff emphasised a number of
issues which have been taken into account in programme design. These include:
 The importance of hand-on experience and fieldwork. Students saw the value of ‘exotic’
field courses but also valued the opportunity for local fieldwork.
 The importance of choice and flexibility
 Modules involving experience of real world working environments were popular, as were
modules which brought students into contact with staff research interests and projects.
3

The need for formal teaching (on methods and concepts) to be built into Dissertation
modules at Honours stage.
Youth Work and Community Development



Student engagement in relation to the development of the programme has involved the
creation of a Student Focus Group.
Discussions at Staff student committee meetings have influenced the design of the
programme e.g. feedback on assessment, expectations regarding student conduct and the
learning environment.
General module feedback and student one to one meetings
MA Slavery
The programme team consulted students on the former MA Slavery Studies about course design and
content using questionnaires and feedback. Small working groups made up of staff from the Global
Slavery Index, some of whom had completed the MA Slavery Studies, were engaged in the
conceptual framework. We intend to involve students in a pilot prior to the launch of the full
programme to gain feedback, allocating adequate time to make necessary
amendments/adjustments. This will primarily be to monitor students as they work through a new
online environment that guides them through the module. Students participating in the pilot will not
complete the module nor will they be required to complete the assessments. It will be most relevant
to gain feedback on the design and flow of the formative feedback and structure of engagement.
Students will not gain credit for participating however they may be offered an appropriate token of
appreciation.
Once the programme begins, we will explore how to involve student representatives in this
programme in ways best suited to online provision. The design of the new MA Slavery and Liberation
will include opportunities for students to provide feedback on the delivery, forms of engagement
and content directly in the online environment.
MA History
Current level 7 students were consulted on the proposed programme during 2015 and advice was
also sought from prospective applicants about the programme structure. However, student
involvement in the design of teaching and learning is built into the T1 period-based modules and the
T2 broad-based modules, and in both cases students participate in shaping the content of the
modules from year to year. Students will continue to offer feedback on the programme and its
assessment through the History Staff–Student Committee.
MA English
The SSC was consulted on changes to the programme. Third-year students were consulted and were
favourable to changes. They were enthusiastic about being able to ‘mix and match’ between creative
writing and literary modules.
BSc (Hons) Community Nursing in the Home (District Nursing)
Students have been part of our Programme Management Advisory Group and have been part of
curriculum development through this process. Note has been taken of student evaluations of past
and current programme content and this feedback has been influential in informing decisions to
4
retain key aspects of the current programme with only minor amendments, and make significant
changes to the practice portfolio where appropriate; examples include the retention of four of the
current core modules and the general format of the Practice Portfolio Documentation.
Student’s will continue to part of the curriculum design through attendance at Programme
management and Advisory Group meeting and through module and programme evaluations.
BA Hons Early Childhood Studies
Students are active participants in their own learning. Together with their rights, an anti-bias
approach, considers education as a site for democracy, sustainability and social justice, which
underpins and permeates the programme.
Student contributions have been collated from feedback on existing module evaluations, Staff
Student Committees, NSS feedback and focus group meetings to consider student satisfaction with
current provision and curricula design. In addition, students have been invited through these
feedback forums to consider ways in which the programme can be enhanced, developed or adapted
to ensure curriculum content is both appropriate and accessible. Feedback in relation to assessment
strategy has been collated and shared among the programme team during modular design and
mapping.
Design of the route to Early Years Teacher Status has been in consultation with local stakeholders,
typically owners and managers of settings delivering education and care for children aged from birth
to five years since the beginning of the academic year 2015/16, for example, mentor training and
interviewing. On a broader level, engagement with other providers of EYITT, usually at NCTL national
meetings and through networking has informed both curriculum and pedagogic design.
Student engagement, as for other ITT teacher training programmes, is sought through module
review both in terms of formal procedures at the end of each semester but also at mid-module point,
informally. All students will be expected to participate in an Exit Questionnaire based on their
university-based training and other questionnaires following each school or setting placement.
Analysis of such tools will inform programme review.
5