UCLU HER Student Submission 2016

Student Submission to the QAA Higher Education Review 2016

Student Submission to the Higher Education

Review 2016

Introduction

The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Higher Education Review comes at a vital time for

University College London (UCL). A new five-year education strategy has just been

developed, and a number of new initiatives affecting students’ educational experiences are

in the early stages of implementation. The opportunity to produce a Student Submission

during this period of transition is therefore very welcome. I would like to thank UCL for the

funding provided to ensure a high quality Student Submission was delivered.

As an organisation, we value the strong working relationship we maintain with the

University. Students have been heavily involved in the development of various projects

over the past few years, and it is important that UCL and UCLU preserve this partnership

approach to the development of a quality student education. This partnership must be

mirrored throughout the University, with staff at all levels engaging with students, enabling

them to develop, and recognising students as partners in learning.

I believe the following report is reflective of the views of the members we represent. We

have been open and engaging throughout the drafting of this document to ensure it

accurately captures what it is like to be a student at UCL.

On behalf of the student body at UCL I would like to express our gratitude to the QAA for

the opportunity to ensure students’ views are represented in the review process through

this submission. I hope this document gives insight into the student experience at UCL and

can act as a source of useful information to inform the Higher Education Review.

Wahida Samie

Education & Campaigns Officer


Review 2016

Methodology & Authorship

0.1 This submission has been written in line with guidance provided by the QAA for

Lead Student Representatives. It draws on existing data and documents produced

by UCL and UCLU. Data sources include institutional surveys, research reports,

committee minutes, policy papers, strategy documents, websites and campaign

evaluations. Unfortunately, we were unable to access data capturing students’

experiences of study abroad programmes and placements due to delays in

obtaining relevant data. We were also unable to capture views of students on

collaborative provision programmes due to a lack of data, but UCLU is committed to

expanding our work in this area into the future.

0.2 This submission was authored by the UCLU Education & Campaigns Officer

supported by the Representation & Campaigns Coordinator (Insight). Progress on

the Student Submission was regularly monitored by the UCLU Higher Education

Review Planning Group, consisting of UCLU staff and student representatives.

Faculty Student Academic Representatives (StARs) contributed to the direction of

the Student Submission through a facilitated workshop. Students were able to

submit comments and suggestions for the submission via the UCLU website.

0.3 The Student Submission and the University’s Self-Evaluation Document have been

shared across both organisations. Some reference is made to the Self-Evaluation

Document in this submission however both documents remain independently

produced.

0.4 The final draft of the Student Submission was approved through a democratic vote

by UCLU Council, the body with responsibility for representing the voice of student

members, on 9 February 2016.


Review 2016

UCLU

0.5 UCLU is the representative body for students at UCL and represents more than

35,000 students. UCLU is a democratic organisation run by elected student

representatives who are directly accountable to students. Our vision is to open up

opportunities for students during their time at UCL and enable them to make a fuller

contribution in their future lives. Our mission is to be the voice for all our members;

provide services, support and advice; and facilitate opportunities for students to

share common interests. The UCLU Representation & Campaigns Department,

working with the Education & Campaigns Officer and Postgraduate Students’

Officer, aims to inform and engage members of UCLU with the range of

opportunities to be involved in representing the student voice and campaigning to

make a difference for the wider student body.

0.6 UCLU plays an integral part in student life and we work closely with UCL on our

shared endeavour for an inspirational student experience. We value working in

partnership with UCL as we believe that students are key partners in their

education; this partnership should be a mature relationship where all partners work

together. Partners may at times be in conflict with differing views but will work

constructively to ensure a mutual position is reached.

0.7 UCLU believes that partnership is something more than the sum of its parts. A

university community with a strong culture of partnership promotes a sense of

belonging and connectedness within and across all members of the community,

which is underpinned by mutual respect, support and understanding, co-operation

and collegiality.


Review 2016

Progress since the Last Review

0.8 UCL established a Post Institutional Audit Steering Group (PIASG) and subsequent

action plan to ensure the timely implementation of the recommendations of the 2009

Institutional Audit. UCLU welcomed the inclusion of a student representative on the

PIASG, as well as the inclusion of recommendations from the Student Written

Submission in the subsequent action plan. While significant developments were made

in certain areas, many of which are referenced in the Self-Evaluation Document, some

areas of concern still exist. The table below outlines key recommendations from the

Institutional Audit and Student Written Submission, and a brief narrative on the

progress so far. A number of issues raised in the last Student Written Submission still

persist today. It is important to note that the PIASG was stood down in 2012 and so we

cannot say that the implementation of these recommendations remained a consistent

priority over the past number of years. The narrative provided surrounding the current

situation is intentionally brief, as most of these issues are discussed later in the Student

Submission.

Institutional Audit (2009) Current Situation (2016)

IA: UCL should maintain its

momentum towards achieving

institutional coherence on

regulatory and academic

processes identified by its own

committees.

UCL has taken positive steps towards achieving

institutional coherence on regulatory and academic

processes. Significant structural changes, including the

merger with the Institute of Education, have made

implementation of this recommendation more

challenging. While the standards set out in the UCL

Academic Manual are intended to be universally

applied, the volume of derogations is worrying.

IA: Where an institutional

position has been reached on

the harmonisation and

simplification of regulatory and

academic processes, UCL

should seek to achieve full and

timely departmental

engagement and alignment.

Following on from the issues outlined above, full and

timely departmental engagement and alignment has not

yet been achieved. This is evident in the varying

experiences and satisfaction levels of students across

the University. The struggle to implement alignment on a

practical level is discussed throughout the Student

Submission


Review 2016

Student Written Submission (2009)

Current Situation (2016)

SWS: UCL should provide

better and more focused

information for International

and Part-Time students.

UCLU is involved heavily in the International Student

Orientation Programme (ISOP). The information provided

to international and part-time students is of an acceptable

standard, however further provisions for international

students could be introduced. This is discussed later in

the Student Submission. Whilst not outlined as a key

issue in the current Student Submission, the University

should take care to provide comprehensive and focused

information to part-time students, particularly considering

the large number of part-time students studying at the

new UCL Institute of Education.

SWS: UCL should give serious

consideration to the issue of

feedback on academic

assessment as this is one of

the key areas of student

concern cross-institution.

This relates to the IA recommendations outlined above.

Whilst policies and processes have been established,

NSS scores still indicate variability in satisfaction levels

across the institution with regard to assessment and

feedback. Satisfaction with assessment and feedback at

UCL is also well below the sector average. This is

examined in more detail in Chapter Three.

SWS: UCL should consider the

inconsistencies that exist

between faculties which

has[sic] led to radically

conflicting student

experiences.

Variability in NSS scores across the institution indicates

that this is still an issue at UCL. Whilst it is monitored at

an overall level by Academic Committee, it is likely that

this issue would be improved as a by-product of reducing

the aforementioned derogations and securing

departmental alignment with procedures. The recent

merger with the Institute of Education may pose

additional challenges in this area.

SWS: UCL should ensure it

better informs students of

actions taken in response to

student feedback.

Steps were taken to improve guidance and briefings for

all SSCC, DTC and FTC secretaries regarding the

reporting of results of matters arising from previous

meetings and more accurate minute-taking. However

action taken in response to student feedback on surveys

and other consultative decisions are rarely

communicated. The recent appointment of a Head of

Student Engagement will hopefully allow for further

development in this area. This is discussed further in

Chapter One.


Review 2016

Student Written Submission (2009)

Current Situation (2016)

SWS: UCL should consider the

role of students within the

institution and the restrictions

it places on students as core

members of the institution

(limited access to space,

limited representation on

committees, and limited

contact time with staff).

The StARs scheme is subject to ongoing collaborative

monitoring and review with UCL and UCLU.

Recommendations from various reviews have been

implemented and improvements to the scheme (such as

the introduction of Faculty StARs) have been approved.

However, the UCL IA action plan did not refer to

representation at University level. Student representation

and the UCL/UCLU relationship are discussed in Chapter

One.

■good progress ■some progress ■ little progress


Review 2016

Chapter One: Student Engagement

Relevant quality code chapters: B5, B8, B1, C, B11, B4

Representative Structures

1.1 The provisions for student representation on Academic Committees are outlined in

the Academic Manual1. Provisions include student representation at departmental

and faculty level committees, as well as representation on UCL academic standing

and sub-committees. UCL recognises UCLU as the representative body for all UCL

students.

1.2 At University level, student representatives sit on the vast majority of UCL’s formal

standing committees including UCL Council, Academic Committee, Education

Committee, and various sub-committees and working groups. UCLU staff members

provide inductions and ongoing support for student members of standing

committees. These inductions explain the committee format and purpose, while

regular briefings provide information and clarification on upcoming agenda items.

Overall student representatives feel their views are acknowledged, listened to and

often acted upon at institutional level. UCLU sabbatical officers also have meetings

with the Provost twice per term, where institutional issues and priorities are

discussed.

1.3 The Student Academic Representatives (StARs) scheme is the primary student

engagement initiative at departmental and faculty level. StARs2 are elected by

students to represent students’ views to UCL. The StARs scheme is run by UCLU in

partnership with UCL. StARs sit on various committees at programme, faculty and

University level, at which they act as the voice of students and ensure that UCL

takes into account the needs of students in its decision making processes. They

achieve this through liaising with UCLU and UCL staff to resolve student issues.

There are currently over 1000 departmental StARs, and approximately 25 Faculty

StARs. The primary means by which staff engage with StARs is through Staff-

Student Consultative Committees (SSCCs), which are required to meet at least

twice each academic year. SSCC meetings provide StARs with the opportunity to

1 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c6/student-representation/department-faculty

2 https://uclu.org/representation/education/student-academic-representatives-stars#starsdefinition

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c6/student-representation/department-faculty

https://uclu.org/representation/education/student-academic-representatives-stars#starsdefinition


Review 2016

feedback to administrative and academic staff regarding issues that have impacted

on programmes and modules. UCLU maintains a database of issue trends at SSCC

meetings by conducting analysis on the minutes of each meeting.

1.4 Some StARs are also members of Departmental Teaching Committees (DTCs),

where modifications to programmes, modules, teaching and assessment are

considered and monitored. Faculty StARs are members of Faculty Teaching

Committees (FTCs) and other faculty level committees.

1.5 Training and induction of StARs and Faculty StARs is provided by UCLU. UCLU

also offers ongoing support and training throughout the year, for example through

the delivery of advanced skills training sessions, and briefings on topics that may be

7 UCLU

sabbatical

officers

~40

Faculty

StARs

~1000

StARs

Cross-UCL

decision-making

bodies

~37,000

Students

Faculty decision-

making bodies

Departmental

decision-making

bodies


Review 2016

of benefit to StARs in their roles. UCLU also uses Moodle to support the StARs

scheme by providing resources to StARs, allowing for StARs to engage in discussion

forums, and delivering online training. Induction training focuses on supporting StARs to

consider how they will approach the key elements of their role; gathering feedback from

peers, prioritising issues for discussion, ensuring effective contributions to meetings,

working with staff to ensure students’ issues are resolved, and feeding back to peers

throughout. We also work to support a culture of student engagement by emphasising

their role as a year-round representative, not merely a member of an SSCC. SSCCs at

UCL typically meet only twice a year, but we encourage StARs to be proactive, and to

seek out staff to work with on issues as they arise. We see a highly-functioning system of

student representation, and a well-trained cohort of student representatives, as critical to

ensuring effective student engagement.

1.6 In the 2011-12 academic year we introduced an advanced training programme focused

on building skills and ensuring effective engagement. This training has covered many

skills including assertiveness, negotiation skills, public speaking, and running a

campaign. This training is designed, promoted and delivered by UCLU staff.

“I really enjoyed the advanced StAR training sessions. I feel that the sessions make you not only perform better at this role but help in everyday situations as well” – StARs Advanced Training Participant

1.7 UCL and UCLU have a joint StARs Steering Group which oversees the coordination

and development of the StARs scheme and monitors progress against the StARs

Development Plan 2013-20163. The Steering Group also reports annually4 to the

UCL Student Experience Committee (StEC) and UCL Education Committee.

Summaries of matters arising from department SSCC meetings as well as SEQ

summaries are also reported to both StEC and Education Committee. The creation

of StEC is a welcome development, aimed at ensuring that non-academic student

issues are dealt with appropriately.

1.8 To facilitate greater engagement from staff, UCLU produces a StARs Guide for Staff

annually. This guide details the role of a StAR within the context of individual

3 https://uclu.org/sites/uclu.org/files/u169292/documents/stars_development_plan_2013-2016_october_2013.pdf

4 http://uclu.org/representation/education/student-academic-representatives-stars#StARs%20Annual%20Report

http://uclu.org/representation/education/student-academic-representatives-stars#StARs%20Annual%20Report


Review 2016

departments and faculties, and provides a list of useful resources and contacts. The

guide is vital in ensuring UCL staff members understand how the StARs scheme

operates, and what is required of them to assist in the delivery of the scheme5. A

survey issued to staff across UCL departments in 2015 showed that the vast

majority of respondents who had read the StARs Guide for Staff found it useful.

1.9 The positive experiences of sabbatical officers with institutional engagement is not

necessarily mirrored at departmental and faculty level. The 2015 StARs survey

showed that 76.7% of respondents felt their SSCC operated effectively, with only

63.9% of respondents agreeing that had a say in how their department was run.

Analysis of StARs’ reflective statements show that issues persist from year to year,

and at times it seems as though little action is taken to resolve these issues. While

many departments engage with the StARs scheme effectively, many do not comply

with the systems in place to both appoint StARs and ensure StARs are in place for a

particular programme.

“The department could be more effective in trying to implement our suggestions instead of throwing bureaucracy at us during the SSCC. They are good at easy-to-implement ideas but looking at minutes from previous years, the big issues are remaining as they are year after year.” – Respondent, StARs 2015 Survey

1.10 StARs gain recognition for their work by receiving a certificate at their annual

awards ceremony6. Although most StARs have their efforts accredited on their

Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR)7, we believe students studying

medicine and postgraduate taught students should also be permitted to engage with

the HEAR scheme.

5 http://uclu.org/stars/staff

6 https://uclu.org/system/files/attachments/stars_certificate_guidance_note_201516.pdf

7 http://uclu.org/higher-education-achievement-report

https://uclu.org/system/files/attachments/stars_certificate_guidance_note_201516.pdf

http://uclu.org/higher-education-achievement-report


Review 2016

Feedback & Other Methods of Student Engagement

1.11 We recognise that UCL departments use Student Evaluation Questionnaires (SEQs)

and that the results of these questionnaires feed into the programme review

process. Some of these results or summaries of these results are shared at DTC or

FTC meetings. UCL offer guidance to staff on creating SEQs and provide an SEQ

suggested template8 as well as a bank of SEQ questions. Departments and

programmes decide on questions used in the evaluation process. This makes it

difficult to directly compare satisfaction with other programmes and modules in a

department, or across the University more widely. A move towards a centralised,

online SEQ system has been discussed and we believe this would be of great

benefit. There is little evidence suggesting SEQs are discussed in a

meaningful manner at SSCC meetings.

1.12 Students can also feedback through the National Student Survey (NSS) and

Student Barometer annually. The consideration of results from both of these

feedback mechanisms is a requirement as part of the Internal Quality Review (IQR)

and Annual Student Experience Review (ASER) process. In addition, postgraduate

research students have the opportunity to feedback through the Postgraduate

Research Experience Survey (PRES), with faculties required to identify three key

areas for improvement based on the results. Relevant professional services

including UCL Library Services and UCL Information Services Division (ISD) will

also be required to report on intended actions based on these results. UCL will also

participate in the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) for the first time

this year.

1.13 UCL also cites other methods of student engagement in the SED including online

discussion forums through Moodle, student consultation events and focus groups.

However, student participation in these initiatives is often low. Promotion of these

initiatives is often restricted to the ‘MyUCL’ newsletter and the UCL website. UCLU

also promotes these activities amongst StARs. Exploring new avenues to engage

students in their educational experience is to be welcomed, and we believe UCL

should make a more concerted effort when promoting these alternative forms of

8 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c6/annexes

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c6/annexes


Review 2016

student engagement. A more strategic and wide reaching approach to promotion

would result in higher levels of engagement.

1.14 UCL recognises the Personal Tutoring system as a method of student engagement

in the SED. There are significant issues with this system, and these issues are

addressed in Chapter Two. However, it is our view that a well-functioning personal

tutoring system is vital in supporting students, but does not constitute student

engagement as defined by the QAA.

1.15 Additionally, Professional Services (e.g. Library Services, Student Psychological

Services, ISD) engage with students on an ad-hoc basis to gain feedback and work

collaboratively on various projects.

1.16 UCLU holds an annual Education Conference, which provides a space for shared

dialogue between students and staff to collaboratively examine and explore the

future of education at UCL. The 2016 Education Conference will be themed around

student involvement in the implementation of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-21.

To date, engagement from UCL in the Education Conference has been positive, with

UCL staff facilitating workshops and contributing to deliberations at the conference

each year.

Student Engagement in Programme Design, Development & Approval

1.17 The process for approving programmes has recently changed at UCL. The

Programme and Module Approval Steering Group (PMASG) has been replaced with

a series of smaller Programme and Module Approval Panels (PMAPs). We welcome

the inclusion of a student member on each of these panels. UCLU works in

partnership with UCL Academic Services to recruit a pool of students for these

panels and provide induction, training and support. While the pool of staff meet

together annually to discuss the operations of PMAPs, we believe the pool of

students should also be part of this process. The Programme Institution

Questionnaire (PIQ) requests the core information needed for programme approval,

including ‘market research’. It would be useful to gain greater clarity on how market

research is conducted in this context. It is our belief that market research should

refer mainly to gathering and valuing the opinions of current students, prospective

students and alumni as part of this process.


Review 2016

Student Engagement in Programme Monitoring & Review

1.18 As stated earlier, the consideration of NSS and Student Barometer results are now a

requirement as part of the Annual Student Experience Review (ASER) process and

these results have always been part of the dataset given to Internal Quality Review

(IQR) teams. Each IQR team includes a Student Reviewer, and students within a

department are interviewed as part of the review process. UCLU work closely with

UCL Academic Services to ensure Student Reviewers are well-supported

throughout the IQR process. In the past three years we have strengthened and

deepened this partnership, and taken an increasingly co-ordinated approach to

ensuring Student Reviewers can contribute confidently and effectively.

1.19 Student Reviewers attend a briefing run by UCL Academic Services, which is the

same as that attended by new Staff Reviewers. UCLU also provides additional

training to ensure context and clarity on the purpose of the review. Student

Reviewers receive HEAR accreditation as recognition for their contribution, subject

to criteria based on their participation. We are also planning on ensuring that

summary outcomes are made available to StARs in the reviewed department, to

make sure they are aware the review has taken place, and are able to feed-in to

planning how to take forward recommendations made by the IQR.

Recent Developments in Student Engagement

1.20 The UCL ChangeMakers initiative is another element of Student Engagement at

UCL. It supports students and staff working in partnership on educational

enhancement projects9. The initiative facilitates student-initiated projects, supports

the role of UCL ChangeMakers Scholars to work with departments on improving

assessment and feedback practices, and offers grants to staff to work with students

on a project to develop their teaching. UCLU has been involved in the development

of the UCL ChangeMakers Projects and the initiative is welcomed as an additional

strand of student engagement. It is important, however, that initiatives like UCL

ChangeMakers do not duplicate existing engagement mechanisms. It is equally

important that UCL takes a coordinated approach with UCLU in this area. We have

particular reservations about the Scholars element of the UCL ChangeMakers

9 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/changemakers

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/changemakers


Review 2016

initiative, as this may compromise the functioning of the well-established

StARs scheme. The role defined for UCL ChangeMakers scholars is best played by

student representatives at departmental level. The Scholars initiative was initially

developed without consulting UCLU, and a greater partnership approach in this

instance would have proved beneficial. However, we look forward to continuing our

work with UCL in supporting ongoing complementary student engagement

initiatives.

1.21 UCLU welcomed the establishment of the UCL Student Experience Forum in

2013/14, providing an opportunity for elected student representatives, senior UCL

officers and directors of key Professional Services to meet and take a strategic

approach to monitoring and improving the student experience. However, with no

status under the UCL formal standing committee structure, there were concerns

about the effectiveness of this forum in having the capacity to implement decisions

to improve the student experience. The revised remit and creation of a senior

committee in the form of the UCL Student Experience Committee (StEC), dealing

with non-academic aspects of the student experience was therefore a welcome

development.

1.22 The new appointments of UCL staff with a student engagement remit are also a

welcome development. Specifically, the recent recruitment of the Head of Student

Engagement and the Student Experience Data Manager is positive. These roles are

intended to work extensively on the NSS, Student Barometer, and PTES, with the

PRES administered by the UCL Doctoral School. We hope that these new roles will

facilitate a more coordinated approach to student engagement initiatives into the

future and will work in partnership with UCLU.

1.23 The recently developed UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 outlines a clear

objective “to create cultures of student engagement and leadership.” The draft

document contains many positive strategic statements committing to more

comprehensive investment in feedback surveys, staff-student partnerships working

to tackle problems, and creating a platform for mutual learning. We welcome the

commitment to directly involve students in the creation and shaping of policy and

practice at all levels and the description of UCL as a community of scholars. The


Review 2016

UCLU response to the UCL Education Strategy10 sets out a belief that “students are

partners, and that this should permeate every aspect of policy communication and

the priorities set out in this strategy.” UCL recognises UCLU as the representative

body for all students, and we welcome the inclusion of specific commitments to

developing a joint understanding with UCLU on creating a culture of engagement.

This commitment is now outlined in more explicit terms, following our response to

the UCL Education Strategy11.

Recommended Improvements to UCL’s Approach to Student Engagement

1.24 While UCLU enjoys representation on many of UCL’s formal standing committees, a

lack of representation with respect to estates and the usage of space is a concern.

The allocation, maintenance, availability and usage of space have been consistently

highlighted as an issue for many students. It is important that students are engaged

in frequent and meaningful conversations in relation to estates and the use of space

and engagement on this matter should not be through surveys alone. Issues

regarding space will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Four. Students do not

have representation on the University’s Estates Management Committee (EMC).

The EMC deals with issues relating to the principles for the allocation and use of

space and ongoing review of the UCL Estates Strategy. The lack of student

membership is in contrast to a number of other Russell Group institutions whose

EMC or equivalent include student membership. In the context of the space issues

outlined later in this document, and the large scale capital projects currently ongoing

at UCL, student membership on EMC is vital to ensure the student voice is

considered in the agreement of future proposals and strategies. Of greater concern

is the lack of student representation on the Learning Spaces Project Board. This

Project Board considers activities including academic timetabling, room bookings

and the quality and quantity of teaching and learning spaces. It is vital that the

student voice is heard in relation to estates issues.

10

http://uclu.org/sites/uclu.org/files/u72247/documents/uclu_response_to_the_ucl_education_strategy_2016-

21_response_phase_2_2.pdf 11

http://uclu.org/sites/uclu.org/files/u72247/documents/uclu_response_to_the_ucl_education_strategy_2016-

21_response_phase_2_2.pdf

http://uclu.org/sites/uclu.org/files/u72247/documents/uclu_response_to_the_ucl_education_strategy_2016-21_response_phase_2_2.pdf





Review 2016

Recommendation 1: UCL should enhance student engagement with estates issues

in the context of limited space and ongoing capital projects by including student

representation on the Learning Spaces Project Board and the Estates Management

Committee.

1.25 With the wealth of recent developments to enhance student engagement, we

believe that UCL should continue to develop a strong partnership with UCLU to

replicate the successful collaboration evident with the StARs scheme. Engaging

students as partners is mentioned as an objective in UCL’s twenty year strategy,

UCL203412, stating that UCL should “ensure that our students, at every level (UG,

PGT and PGR), feel that they are a key and integral part of our University

community, and that their opinions and suggestions are valued and acted upon, as

full partners in the future of UCL.” In this regard, the best way to ensure effective

student engagement is for UCL and UCLU to develop initiatives in partnership for

student representation and engagement. The UCLU response to the UCL Education

Strategy sets out a number of “ambitious goals for developing a partnership

approach and more effective student engagement.” Our proposed goals are:

Developing a joint UCL/UCLU Student Partnership Strategy, describing the

different ways in which we will support students to individually and collectively

engage with their education

Developing a high-level, cohesive, joint approach to the planning,

implementation, oversight, and integration of student engagement initiatives,

including StARs, ChangeMakers, and other forms of student engagement.

Ensuring decision-making is timed and structured in a way that is accessible to,

and instils confidence in students

Developing clear and enhanced policy on student representation

Continuing our joint work to deepen student involvement in quality assurance

and enhancement

12

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-2034/principal-themes/academic-leadership/objectives

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-2034/principal-themes/academic-leadership/objectives


Review 2016

Recommendation 2: UCL should adopt the goals set out in the UCLU response to

the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 and subsequently work in partnership with

UCLU to ensure students are engaged as partners in the assurance and

enhancement of their educational experience.

1.26 While the aforementioned mechanisms show that UCL takes steps to engage all

students in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience, there

are issues with communication when student feedback has been acted upon.

Faculty StARs at a Higher Education Review workshop expressed concern that

communication in this regard was not clear or effective in informing the wider

student body of improvements made. While StARs can and often do communicate

changes as a result of issues raised at SSCC meetings, the responsibility of

ensuring students are aware of changes should be shared between the University

and student representatives. This viewpoint is supported by results highlighted in

the PRES13. Just 57% of respondents agreed that the institution values and

responds to feedback from research degree students, while in one faculty, only 46%

of students agreed with this statement. These figures are well below the sector

average of 62%. Equally, in the 2015 Student Barometer summer wave, only 68% of

students agreed that “student feedback on my course is taken seriously and acted

upon.” We appreciate that UCL has recognised this as an issue in the Self-

Evaluation Document, and look forward to positive developments in this area14.

Recommendation 3: UCL should take necessary steps to implement a coordinated

and wide-reaching communications strategy that informs students when changes

have been made as a result of student feedback.

13

http://www.grad.ucl.ac.uk/survey/ 14

UCL SED – student engagement section

http://www.grad.ucl.ac.uk/survey/


Review 2016

Student Engagement Summary

1.27 While formal mechanisms are in place to support aspects of student engagement,

and deliberate steps have been taken to foster greater engagement in relation to

quality assurance, the recommendations outlined above are vital in establishing a

real sense of partnership for the enhancement of the student educational

experience. We recognise that UCL have taken steps in the right direction in recent

years with the establishment of a number of initiatives and the appointment of staff

members to create a greater partnership culture. However, as many of these

initiatives are new or in the early stages, we do not yet know how effective they will

be.

1.28 UCLU and UCL together should harness a culture of student engagement that

focuses on recognising students as partners in their learning. Mechanisms such as

surveys and responses to feedback will only go some way to creating this culture. It

is vital that UCL commits to working collaboratively with UCLU and students

on both new and ongoing student engagement initiatives. This starts with

recognising the importance of the student voice in relation to estates and learning

spaces, improving methods of communicating changes in response to feedback,

and establishing a shared understanding of student partnership at UCL.


Review 2016

Chapter Two: Learning & Teaching

Relevant quality code chapter: B3, C, B11, B4

UCL’s Strategic Approach to Learning & Teaching

2.1 UCL has two high-level documents detailing their strategic approach to education,

with specific references to ambitions for teaching and learning. UCL2034 is a new

twenty year strategy for UCL with a principal theme of being “A global leader in the

integration of research and education, underpinning an inspirational student

experience15.” In this regard, UCL aims to “create a learning culture and curriculum

structures that develop and foster independent thinking that is radical and disruptive.”

2.2 In the shorter term, the UCL Education Strategy 2016-21 outlines plans to implement

initiatives that support UCL’s commitment to research-based education16. The strategy

names the embedding of the Connected Curriculum across the University as a key

objective. The Connected Curriculum is an initiative with a focus of giving every student

the opportunity to participate in research throughout their programme of study. More

widely, the Connected Curriculum exemplifies a joined up approach to the delivery of

education at UCL, promoting connection with the UCL community, the workplace, other

subject areas and the outside world. UCLU continues to actively shape the Connected

Curriculum initiative with UCL and we are supportive of UCL’s commitment to the

initiative in the new UCL Education Strategy.

2.3 Objective five of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 outlines UCL’s commitment to

reviewing and revitalising the approach to postgraduate taught education, an objective

that is again welcomed by students. We believe it would be beneficial to work closely

with UCLU in the early stages of implementation with this objective; assisting in the

identification of issues raised by postgraduate taught students.

2.4 Objectives six and seven of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 deal with resourcing

issues related to space and digital infrastructure. The overarching commitment to

improve the quantity and quality of space provision is certainly positive. Issues regarding

space provision and related recommendations are outlined later in this section. The

15

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-2034/principal-themes/integrating-research-education/objectives 16

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/2016-21

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-2034/principal-themes/integrating-research-education/objectives



Review 2016

UCLU response to the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 welcomed the digital

infrastructure objective as “ambitious and specific.”

2.5 UCL Arena demonstrates UCL’s commitment to the enhancement of teaching practice

for lecturers, teaching fellows and postgraduate students who teach (PGTAs)17. UCL

Arena is described as “a meeting place where colleagues can share approaches to

teaching and learning.” UCL Arena is accredited by the Higher Education Academy, and

engages with the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF). It is encouraging to

see a programme dedicated to the enhancement of provision in this area, and we hope

the University works to secure greater staff uptake with UCL Arena into the future.

Teaching Provision at UCL

2.6 Scores from the 2015 NSS, whilst slightly below the sector average, indicate that the

vast majority of students (86%) are satisfied with the teaching on their programme of

study. Figure 2 below outlines the percentage of students agreeing with the outlined

statements relating to “The teaching on my course.”

Figure 2: NSS 2015 - student satisfaction with "The Teaching on my Course"

17

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/arena

87

80

86 89

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Staff are good atexplaining things

Staff have made thesubject interesting

Staff are enthusiasticabout what they are

teaching

The course isintellectuallystimulating

Satisfaction with Teaching

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/arena


Review 2016

2015 Student Barometer summer wave results are also positive and consistent with this

figure, with 84.2% of respondents indicating that they were satisfied with their learning

experience.

“Generally, the teaching has been of a really high standard, with approachable and well informed staff.” – Student Comment, NSS 2015

2.7 While the results remain positive on the whole, it is disappointing that the rate of

satisfaction with teaching and learning in the NSS has remained relatively stagnant over

the past six years. The Institutional Teaching and Learning Strategy 2010–2015

committed to establishing “excellence in teaching and learning,” with specific

commitments to introduce measures to revise support for teaching and learning and roll

out an online teaching and learning portal. While initiatives such as UCL Arena were

designed for this purpose, it is disappointing to see that efforts to enhance students’

learning experience have not been reflected in NSS results. UCL was once ahead of

the sector average in this area, however a slight drop in satisfaction scores at the

University, coupled with increasing satisfaction elsewhere in the sector has

meant that UCL is now lagging behind. In addition, Student Barometer results for

learning satisfaction (while still high at 82%) have declined steadily since 2008. We

recognise the commitments outlined in the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 and

hope they are implemented effectively so UCL can become a sector leader in this area

once more.

2.8 While the institutional outlook is positive, closer examination of satisfaction in individual

faculties shows that there is significant variability between scores. Figure 3 below depicts

the satisfaction scores by faculty.


Review 2016

Figure 3: NSS 2015 - Student Satisfaction with "Teaching on My Course" by faculty

2.9 In fact, deeper analysis of scores in this area shows that variability in satisfaction with

teaching exists within faculties themselves, at a departmental level. For example in the

Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, 88% of respondents in the School of

Architecture were satisfied with teaching on their course, compared to just 66% of

students in the School of Planning. In this regard, we believe UCL should work to ensure

that teaching practice remains of a consistently high standard across the board by

achieving cross faculty and departmental participation in enhancement initiatives.

Recommendation 4: UCL should take steps to secure cross-University participation and

alignment with teaching enhancement initiatives like UCL Arena.

2.10 Analysis of issues raised at SSCC meetings has consistently identified teaching as the

most frequently raised item. In 2014/15 teaching issues were raised 575 times at SSCC

meetings, representing 38% of all issues raised. This reflects an appetite for students to

engage with staff and work collaboratively on teaching and learning issues. Each

teaching issue identified is then sub-categorised based on the nature of the issue raised.

The sub-categories are teaching rooms, module content, teaching delivery (including

resources), teaching standards, learning resources, class/seminar sizes, and

assessment issues. 219 of the teaching issues raised related to teaching delivery

91 91 90 88 82

87 88 79

89

71 82

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Faculty Satisfaction with Teaching


Review 2016

(including resources), while just 18 related to teaching standards. These figures have

remained relatively consistent in recent years. While the low number of issues relating to

teaching standards is positive; the high proportion of teaching delivery issues may be

slightly more concerning.

2.11 UCL Arena aims to provide support opportunities for postgraduate students who teach.

PRES results indicate a need for greater development in this area. Only 54% of

respondents felt they were given appropriate support and guidance for their teaching,

while just 48% received formal training for their teaching. This is below the sector

average figures for both areas which stand at 57%. The proportion of postgraduate

research students who had taught or demonstrated during their research degree

programme was 45%, five percentage points lower than the sector average.

2.12 UCLU facilitates the recognition and reward of staff who engage in quality teaching

practices, and staff who provide essential support to teaching activities. This

recognition takes the form of the Student Choice Teaching Awards18 (SCTAs). The

SCTAs have been entirely developed by students; they developed the criteria,

created the name and make up the entirety of the judging panel. SCTA categories

include outstanding teaching, outstanding support for teaching, outstanding

personal support and outstanding researcher development. Approximately twelve

staff members are recognised for their commitment annually. Staff engaged in

quality teaching practices are also recognised through the Provost’s Teaching

Awards, organised by UCL

2.13 Procedures exist to identify poor teaching through the student complaints procedure19.

Students are encouraged in the first instance to contact student representatives or

module coordinators before exploring more formal complaint procedures.

2.14 We welcome the commitment outlined in the enablers section of the UCL Education

Strategy 2016-2021 to establish parity of esteem between teaching and research

relating to reward and promotion criteria. We believe this is vital in ensuring quality

teaching is recognised and appreciated.

18

http://uclu.org/representation/education/student-choice-teaching-awards 19

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c1/complaints/Student_Complaints_Procedure.pdf

http://uclu.org/representation/education/student-choice-teaching-awards

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c1/complaints/Student_Complaints_Procedure.pdf


Review 2016

Learning Resources – Library

2.15 NSS results indicate that overall students are satisfied with the provision of learning

resources at UCL. The satisfaction score of 84% is only slightly below the sector

average of 86%, however again UCL should remain vigilant as the satisfaction score in

2010 was 1% higher than the sector average. In particular, students are satisfied with

library facilities, with 88% of respondents agreeing that “the library resources and

services are good enough for my needs.”

2.16 While the NSS results show a positive undergraduate student experience with library

resources, this may not be the case universally. The most recent LibQual survey

administered by UCL Library Services in 2013 showing that postgraduate students were

more dissatisfied with the library than undergraduate students. The greatest concern of

postgraduate students was regarding space for individual study, while all students

expressed discontent with noise around the library sites. This therefore made a case for

more quiet study rooms, more group study spaces or more social spaces to ensure

noise is contained elsewhere. Positively, the 2015 PRES showed that 88% of

postgraduate research respondents felt there was adequate provision of library facilities

(including physical and online resources). In addition, issues relating to libraries were

raised just three times in SSCC meetings in the 2014/15 academic year. UCL Library

Services provide a range of opportunities for students to deliver feedback, and the low

rate of issues at SSCC meetings may be reflective of this. Overall it seems students are

satisfied with the provision of library services at UCL, however we would encourage the

University to protect study spaces and prevent noise as student numbers continue to

increase.

“The main library is a brilliant place to work although in the last year it has felt a lot busier than it used to” – Student Comment, NSS 2015

2.17 This year, UCLU proposed that the Main Library, the Science Library and the Cruciform

Hub open on a 24/7 basis in the run up to exams and during the exam revision period.

This proposal was subsequently approved and adopted with the support of UCL Library

Services. This is a key example of the University taking action in response to student

feedback from the NSS and discussions with UCLU sabbatical officers, and


Review 2016

disseminating this information effectively. This practice should be replicated in other

areas, as recommended before.

2.18 The UCL library services strategy places the user experience at the centre of its work20.

It outlines an action to draw up a student services charter for UCL Library Services,

improve staff training, and work in partnership with students and other users. This is a

comprehensive strategy and we look forward to seeing this plan implemented over the

coming years. In addition, UCL Library Services have been proactive in working

alongside students and UCLU to develop and shape learning spaces. UCL Library

Services have delivered sessions on learning spaces at the UCLU Education

Conference for the past two years, demonstrating their commitment to establishing an

open dialogue between staff and students. Replication of this level of commitment

towards student engagement across all University services would be welcomed.

Learning Resources – IT provision

2.19 Respondents in the 2015 NSS indicated a high level of satisfaction with IT provision, with

86% of respondents being able to access general IT resources when they needed to.

The 2015 Student Barometer summer wave results support this view, with 90% of

respondents satisfied with IT support. While useful, these questions are rather general,

and give little information regarding students’ true experiences of engaging with IT

provision at UCL. Feedback from the 2015 PRES indicated that just 74% of

postgraduate research students felt there was adequate provision of computing

resources and facilities.

2.20 UCL Information Services Division (ISD) ran a user survey powered by TechQual in

December 2015. For each service area, students were asked to identify the minimum

service level they expected, their desired service level and their perceived service level.

Students perceived service level of reliable internet and adequate Wi-Fi both fell below

their minimum expected service level. This was also the case when referring to the

availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with technology that enhances the teaching

and learning experience. Perceived standards also fell below minimum expectations in

relation to finding and using PCs on campus and finding and using printing, scanning

20

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/about/strategy

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/about/strategy


Review 2016

and copying facilities on campus. A risk analysis report submitted to StEC noted that

UCL provides fewer PCs per student than its Russell Group21 peers and is constrained

by a lack of space and funding. The eleven other areas assessed in the ISD survey,

including having websites and online services that are easy to use, having online

services that enhance the teaching and learning experience, and questions relating to

support and training, either met or exceeded the minimum expected standard.

Worryingly, no area met or exceeded respondents’ desired standard of service. We

acknowledge that ISD is now taking steps to respond to the results of this survey by

implementing improved standards of service.

2.21 Staff members were also invited to participate in the same survey, and overall their

responses painted a significantly more negative picture of IT provision at UCL. In

particular, service fell well below expected standards in relation to reliable internet,

adequate Wi-Fi, the availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with technology that

enhances the teaching and learning experience, and getting timely resolution of

technology problems. Staff responses to this particular survey raise a cause for concern.

The UCL Education Strategy 2016–2021 outlines a number of ambitious plans that will

rely heavily on increased and improved IT provision across the University. At an open

Town Hall meeting to discuss the draft Education Strategy in December 2015, staff

expressed a number of concerns regarding the ability of ISD to meet the demands likely

to be placed upon IT provision in the coming years. In one particular department, an

online supervised test for 550 students was unable to go ahead due to IT failures. It was

their belief that online testing was a positive development resulting in significantly lower

failure rates, but capacity and reliability issues make it a less viable option. With

increasing student numbers and a likely increase in the complexity of technological

requirements to support learning, it is vital that ISD receives necessary resources to

tackle these issues. At the same meeting, it was explained that of the funding available,

approximately half would be spent on fixing current basic infrastructure. We believe is

vital that UCL ensures current basic infrastructure is functioning well before embarking

upon ambitious IT projects to which poor IT provision could prove detrimental.

21

http://russellgroup.ac.uk/

http://russellgroup.ac.uk/


Review 2016

“As a tutor, we need to be able to trust and rely on the system in order to provide high quality teaching sessions within which we need to

access the Internet and know it won't crash” – Staff Respondent, ISD Survey

2015

Recommendation 5: UCL should invest in ensuring IT provision is of a desirable

service level for staff and students and ensure adequate resources are in place to

support technology-based projects outlined in the UCL Education Strategy 2016-

2021

2.22 The previous ISD Student Survey in 2013 outlined things that students most want to

change in relation to IT provision. More computers in departments, libraries and around

campus was the “thing students most want to change” followed by improving and

extending IT support, more printers, wireless printing, and improved Wi-Fi. ISD

summarised a number of actions being taken in response to student feedback from this

survey working alongside UCLU, including the introduction of a laptop loan scheme,

development of the Lecturecast22 service, and encouraging staff to use learning

technologies. We welcome the move to prepare Lecturecast as an opt-out rather than an

opt-in service. UCLU have worked collaboratively with ISD on these improvements,

however more could be done to communicate this joint effort and outcomes to staff and

students across UCL.

2.23 The 2013 ISD Student Survey was replaced by the TechQual survey issued in 2015.

While the TechQual survey is useful, particularly for benchmarking against the sector,

the ISD Student Survey provided specific feedback on UCL services including Moodle

and Lecturecast and also asked specific questions relating to learning spaces. Again in

reference to Chapter One, it is vital that the University engages with students in a way

that is both frequent and meaningful. General surveys provide useful feedback, but do

not always provide feedback that is meaningful and can subsequently be used to

implement change.

22

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/technology/lecturecast

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/technology/lecturecast


Review 2016

Learning Resources – VLE & Printed Resources

2.24 UCL makes use of Moodle to host its virtual learning environment. In the ISD Student

Survey of 2011 and the 2013 equivalent students listed Moodle as the most liked and

third most liked thing about IT provision respectively. When asked to give examples of

good practice in relation to technology use in teaching and learning, respondents in the

2013 survey listed basic Moodle use as the most effective. Student satisfaction with

Moodle was the second highest of all IT facilities in 2013 with almost 90% of

respondents satisfied with it. Overall students are satisfied with the Virtual Learning

Environment (VLE) at UCL. The University must ensure this remains the case as they

attempt to introduce more complex technology-focused teaching and learning initiatives.

Additionally, UCLU supports a blended approach to learning that takes advantage of

advances in technology in a way that complements face-to-face teaching.

2.25 Each programme provides students with a handbook that should detail information

relating to most aspects of study including registration, teaching and learning practices,

and student support provision. For the purposes of this submission, we obtained a

number of programme handbooks to assess the information provided to students. While

many departments and programmes provide students with detailed information

regarding the aforementioned areas, this is certainly not the case universally. Some

handbooks did not provide any information relating to personal tutors, or support

services and very limited information in a variety of other areas. UCL has recognised in

the Self-Evaluation Document that the “processes for updating information and ensuring

that it is current and correct need further development.” This is a matter of real

importance in ensuring every student is given sufficient information regarding their

studies.

Recommendation 6: UCL should provide guidance regarding the minimum level of

information required in programme handbooks and work to achieve departmental

alignment with this guidance.


Review 2016

Learning Resources – Space & Facilities

2.26 UCL’s location in Central London poses inevitable space issues. A summary of the 2013

LibQual survey administered by UCL Library Services indicated that “the space provided

by UCL Library Services is not currently close to meeting the desired levels of service for

undergraduate students.” As mentioned earlier, respondents in the survey declared a

preference for more quiet study rooms, more group study spaces or more social spaces

in order to keep noise away from other students seeking a quiet place to study. The

same survey received a lot of free text responses stating that library spaces were too

cramped.

2.27 A risk analysis report on learning spaces, physical library and online library submitted to

StEC in 2015 raised concerns regarding a lack of space. Increasing student numbers

were identified in the report as the biggest single issue affecting learning space and

library satisfaction scores. It was also stated that the Library spaces are unable to

accommodate all students who wish to use them. According to the report, new estates

developments can only begin to catch up with demand and this risk continues. This also

affects access to core textbooks and materials.

2.28 Satisfaction with learning spaces stood at just 76% of respondents in the 2015 Student

Barometer summer wave. In addition, just 72% of postgraduate research respondents to

the 2015 PRES agreed that they have a suitable working space. This echoes complaints

received by UCLU throughout the year about unsuitable and sometimes unsafe working

spaces for postgraduate research students. The UCLU Postgraduate Students’ Officer

indicated, through interview for the Student Submission, that she had received a number

of complaints about work spaces being too small and not fit for purpose.

2.29 In the recent past, a number of space-related policies have been debated and adopted

by UCLU Council23. In particular, students have voted to seek more study space in UCL

during the weekends, and improved examination venues. Facility related issues made

up approximately 7% of all issues raised at SSCC meetings in 2014/15.

23

http://uclu.org/policy


Review 2016

2.30 A policy recently adopted by UCLU Council relating to examinations noted that “the UCL

estate is too small and poorly managed and utilised, particularly in the context of

expanding student numbers” and calling for “wholesale change in the way examination

timetables are produced.” The UCLU Education and Campaigns Officer is part of an

Exams Working Group exploring these issues, and this policy remains a priority over the

coming year.

2.31 We welcome UCL’s commitment to the development of new study spaces as part of the

UCL Estates Masterplan24. We believe that study spaces should be collocated with

teaching spaces and academic departments. Our view is that UCL should maintain a

strategy for cautious growth, ensuring any increase in student numbers is

accompanied by equivalent increased resource to support student learning and

takes the availability of space into account. Equally important is the necessity to

alleviate pressure on already crowded facilities on the Bloomsbury campus. With large

scale development of the UCL estate, and students clearly expressing preferences for

the way in which space should be used, it is clear that the student voice must be

represented on relevant committees. A risk analysis report on campus buildings and

teaching spaces submitted to the November 2015 meeting of StEC indicated that capital

investment in the UCL estate had not kept pace with increased student numbers growth

(over 40% since 2007). This, in addition to a lack of aligned institutional-level decision-

making had contributed to problems currently being experienced in this area. The

meeting discussed unsustainable increases in student numbers further, stating that the

issue appeared to be behind many of the problems brought up in various student

experience risk analyses. The view expressed at this meeting is supported by UCLU;

any increase of student numbers needs to be conducted sustainably and not at the

expense of the student experience.

2.32 UCLU welcomes commitments outlined in the UCL Education Strategy with a view

towards evaluating the use of furniture in teaching rooms and significantly enhancing the

quality of UCL’s learning campus. It is vital that student views are accurately represented

throughout this process. We therefore must reiterate the importance of our previous

recommendation to enhance student engagement with estates in the context of

24

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/masterplan

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/masterplan


Review 2016

limited space and ongoing capital projects by adding a student representative to the

membership of the Learning Spaces Project Board and the Estates Management

Committee.

Supporting Student Learning

2.33 The University supports students to achieve learning outcomes by investing in resources

to support staff in improving teaching quality, including the UCL Arena programme, UCL

ChangeMakers and the Connected Curriculum. The Centre for Advancing Learning and

Teaching (CALT) facilitates each of these initiatives. In relation to teaching and learning,

projects have included academic skills mentoring in the Institute of Education, and PhD

writing retreats in the departments of Anthropology and English.

2.34 2015 NSS scores relating to the specifics of academic support were quite low with only

71% of students satisfied they had received sufficient advice and support with their

studies, and the same proportion satisfied that good advice was available when they

needed to make study choices.

2.35 The personal tutoring system at UCL aims to provide every student with a member of

academic staff to act as a point of contact throughout their studies. This personal tutor

should take an interest in the student, offer guidance on overall academic progress as

well as personal and professional development. They are also often referred to as the

first point of contact for students when they wish to discuss any welfare related issues.

UCLU fully supports the spirit of personal tutoring and believes it could be of great

benefit to students. However, there is a large degree of inconsistency in the

implementation of the personal tutoring system across UCL. In the 2015 Student

Barometer summer wave, approximately 73% of free text responses relating to

personal tutors were negative.

“Personal tutors demonstrate extreme disinterest in their students, I would be surprised if mine could name/ recognise me” – Student Comment,

2015 Student Barometer

2.36 An investigation conducted by an appointed personal tutoring working group at UCL

found that students’ experiences of personal tutoring were highly variable, both between


Review 2016

and within departments. The investigation goes on to suggest that students’ negative

experiences of tutoring seem to make them feel isolated and undervalued. This may not

only have an impact on their satisfaction with UCL, but may affect how much they are

able to achieve during their time here. The working group highlighted two important

factors that we believe are key to explaining issues with the personal tutoring system.

The first is that a common feature of negative tutoring experiences stem from a lack of

commitment of the tutor involved. Secondly, the group found that fewer than four in ten

departments provide any form of training or developmental support to personal tutors.

The report also declared that the uptake of resources to support student learning through

the personal tutoring system is quite limited. UCL has provided a handbook for personal

tutors, but the system in general is falling far short of the model scenario.

2.37 In instances where personal tutoring is effective, students find the relationship to be one

of trust, with engagement with personal tutors proving beneficial, motivational and

reassuring. We want UCL to ensure that this is the case for every student. The personal

tutoring working group proposed a number of recommendations to UCL Education

Committee aimed at improving the personal tutoring system. While these

recommendations were welcomed, the Committee resolved to replace the current

requirement for Personal Tutors to meet with students throughout the year, with a more

flexible outcome-led policy. Faculty Tutors were asked to take the idea to Faculties and

Departments for discussion and feedback to CALT, who would draw up some more

detailed proposals for consideration in March 2016. While steps to improve the system

are welcome, we approach these developments with caution. Any recommendations

must take significant steps to repair a fundamentally broken personal tutoring system.

UCL should work closely with UCLU in developing any personal tutoring system policies.

It is particularly important that a coordinated approach to the programme is taken, with

clear lines of responsibility for monitoring and overseeing personal tutoring on an

ongoing basis. We would welcome the opportunity to work with UCL on continuously

improving the personal tutoring system, to ensure that students are enabled to develop

in their field of study effectively.


Review 2016

Recommendation 7: UCL should take greater steps to improve the personal tutoring

system, for example through securing increased commitment from personal tutors,

establishing a coordinated approach to supporting personal tutoring and through

the provision of appropriate training and support.

2.38 In the Self-Evaluation Document, UCL recognises a need to establish better support

systems for staff in overseas campuses. This is a welcome statement, and an idea that

should be extended to students on oversea campuses. UCL Australia provides an

example of where a lack of support systems negatively impacted the learning

experience of students on the campus. The IQR carried out at UCL Australia in 2013

identified a number of areas where UCL Australia was not adhering to UCL policies and

procedures. This included issues with having no student representation on the DTC and

failures in the operation of the Personal Tutoring System. Although issues were formally

documented in IQR reports and formal recommendations were made, the experience of

students at UCL Australia did not improve. Issues persisted through 2014 when, in

correspondence with UCLU, students at UCL Australia expressed concern

regarding the environment in which they were undertaking their PhD programme.

Students felt their rights were not adequately provided for and resources to support

students in their studies were insufficient. Despite raising these issues through

appropriate channels, no immediate solutions were provided. A submitted grievance

ruled in favour of a student involved. UCL Australia is to wind down by 2017; however

we hope the experience of these students’ acts as a cautionary tale.

Recommendation 8: In embarking upon initiatives on overseas campuses and

establishing collaborative provision programmes, UCL should take steps to ensure

students receive the same level of support as those studying on the main UCL

campus.


Review 2016

Equality in Learning & Teaching

2.39 UCL has made a number of high level commitments aimed at taking an inclusive

approach to learning and teaching. We have worked successfully to date with UCL on

the “Liberating the Curriculum” initiative, which seeks to challenge the current euro-

centric, white-hegemonic, male-dominated curriculum. A working group has been

established to determine ways of putting black, queer, disabled and feminist

contributions on an equal footing in the curriculum.

2.40 UCL has also become one of the first universities in the UK to receive an award for

taking action to tackle racialized inequalities in the academic sphere, gaining a bronze

award in the Race Equality Charter for higher education. It is encouraging that the

success of different categories of students (e.g. international, BME) will be explicitly

monitored as part of the ASER process. We recognise and support initiatives taking

place to reduce the BME attainment gap. UCL are proactive in taking opportunities to

reaffirm this commitment in various strategic documents. We are also proud of the

ongoing work of widening participation staff at UCL. UCLU has been actively engaged in

the development of UCL’s Access Agreements and supports the objectives of UCL’s

Widening Participation Strategy.

2.41 The UCL e-learning framework provides guidance on best practice on accessibility of

learning materials. Students also receive great support through the UCL Student

Disability Service (SDS)25. UCL has acknowledged that the Bloomsbury campus is not

yet fully Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant. Last year, the UCLU Disabled

Students’ Network launched the “Try it”26 campaign aimed at educating students and

staff about various disabilities, and engaging them with tasks to experience what it is like

to navigate UCL as a disabled person. The campaign subsequently received the NUS

Campaign of the Year award.

25

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/disability 26

http://uclu.org/tryit

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/disability

http://uclu.org/tryit


Review 2016

“Mainly so far people have just found that it’s hopelessly signposted. So, even if there is an accessible path for someone to take, they have no way of knowing and they just have to roam around.” – UCL Student, Try It

Campaign

2.42 This is a serious issue affecting the disabled students we represent, and one that should

be a priority of UCL Estates Management Committee (EMC). This once again provides

support for our stated recommendation to establish student representation on the

University’s EMC. A video was produced depicting the inaccessibility of venues around

UCL and is available to view online27.

Learning & Teaching Summary

2.43 Students are generally satisfied with the provision of teaching and learning opportunities

at UCL. However there are a number of areas that require improvement to ensure every

student is given the opportunity to develop as an independent learner and to ensure their

capacity to think in different ways is enhanced.

2.44 While teaching enhancement activities like UCL Arena are to be welcomed, it is

important to ensure that they are implemented and utilised across the University. High

uptake in certain disciplines and low uptake in others could, for example, lead to

drastically different standards of teaching for two students taking different modules but

on the same programme of study.

2.45 Whilst generally satisfied with the library, students have not been as forthcoming with

praise for IT provision at UCL. With large scale IT upgrades necessary to ensure the

implementation of the UCL Education Strategy, this is an area that must be monitored

closely. A reliable and capable IT system is vital for the independent learner of today.

2.46 Pressure on space and facilities in the face of changing student demands, as well as

failures to secure a DDA compliant campus once again reiterate our call for

representation on key relevant estates committees.

27

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8RiAEdWF4c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8RiAEdWF4c


Review 2016

2.47 The personal tutoring system at UCL is in desperate need of improvement, and a wider

strategic approach to student support would be welcomed. It is of particular importance

to ensure students on other campuses are not disadvantaged in any way, and are

provided with the same level of support as all other students. We look forward to

engaging with UCL on improving students’ experience of learning and teaching at the

University.


Review 2016

Chapter Three: Assessment & Feedback

Relevant quality code chapters: B4, B6, B7, B9, B11

Student Satisfaction with Assessment & Feedback

3.1 NSS scores for student satisfaction on assessment and feedback have been

consistently low over the past six years. Satisfaction has remained at approximately

61%, while average satisfaction in the sector has increased every year. Figure 1 below

shows the trajectory of assessment and feedback satisfaction scores in the NSS for both

the sector and UCL since 2010.

Figure 4: NSS 2015 student satisfaction with assessment and feedback

3.2 When analysed at faculty level, the outlook remains poor with satisfaction in the Faculty

of Engineering as low as 51%. Again looking deeper, we see that satisfaction at

departmental level falls to a low of 31%.

3.3 There are five questions in the NSS that relate directly to assessment and feedback.

74% of students indicated satisfaction that assessment arrangements and marking had

been fair, raising the average to the 61% figure mentioned above. Lower percentages of

students were satisfied with the promptness of feedback on their work, that they had

received detailed comments on their work, and that the feedback on their work helped

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

% s

atis

fie

d

Year

Sector

UCL


Review 2016

them to clarify things they didn’t understand. 63% of students agreed that the criteria

used in marking had been made clear in advance. Figure 2 below charts the satisfaction

rate for each question.

Figure 5: Student satisfaction with assessment and feedback

3.4 These poor satisfaction scores were again evident in research carried out by UCLU in

2011. 44% of 1800 respondents in that survey were not aware of what feedback they

could expect on their work. This research took the form of a six question survey relating

to the feedback service standards approved by the UCL Academic Committee in 201028.

A report summarising this research and recommendations was submitted to UCL

Education Committee in July 2011. At this meeting it was agreed that the Committee

would oversee and monitor the implementation of the recommendations made by

UCLU29. However, it is unclear if monitoring took place and whether or not

implementation of these recommendations has been achieved.

3.5 The 2015 Student Barometer summer wave results paint a slightly less negative picture

with assessment, performance feedback and marking criteria having satisfaction levels

28

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/feedback 29

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/governance-and-committees/committees/ec/minutes/1011/edcom_110706.pdf

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Asessment and Feedback

Fair assessment arrangements andmarking

Marking criteria made clear inadvance

Prompt feedback on work

Feedback helped clarify things Ididn't understand

Received detailed comments on mywork

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/feedback


Review 2016

of 79%, 68% and 66% respectively. PRES results indicate that 74% of postgraduate

research respondents agreed that the final assessment procedures for their degree were

clear to them; however this figure was at a low of 66% in one faculty.

3.6 Trends analysis of issues raised at SSCC meetings consistently identify assessment and

feedback issues as one of the most frequently raised items. Assessment issues and

concerns regarding the promptness and thoroughness of feedback together accounted

for approximately 15% of all issues raised by StARs in 2014/15.

3.7 It is clear, given the results outlined above from various sources, that fundamental

assessment and feedback issues need to be addressed.

Assessment & Feedback: The Current Situation

3.8 Assessment regulations are outlined in the UCL Academic Manual30. It is important that

assessment practices are fair across the University, and we recognise that individual

departments may need to employ different assessment practices given the nature of the

discipline. Derogations are therefore outlined as part of assessment regulations in the

UCL Academic Manual. However, the sheer volume of derogations in this area is cause

for concern. Nine of eleven faculties have approved derogations or variations from the

main UCL assessment regulations. Some encompass individual programmes of study,

while other derogations apply to the department or faculty as a whole. Although NSS

results do not provide us with the level of detail necessary to understand precise reasons

for student dissatisfaction, we are concerned about the large number of derogations

outlined in the UCL Academic Manual.

3.9 We feel that UCL places too much emphasis on the three-hour unseen end of year

exam. There is a lack of diversity in assessment methods employed in many

departments. UCL has a number of guiding principles for assessment at the University31.

These principles refer to ensuring assessment is proportionate, encourages student

understanding of the assessment process, and consider diversity of the student

population. There is a lack of reference to the need for diversity in assessment methods.

30

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/c4-intro 31

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/assessment_guiding_principles

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/c4-intro

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/assessment_guiding_principles


Review 2016

3.10 The external examining system at UCL provides monitoring for the quality of assessment

processes. This year, for the first time, external examiner reports have been made

available to students online via Portico. Reports were previously available upon request.

However at this stage, few students are aware of the external examining system and the

availability of external examiner reports. UCLU has disseminated this information

through StARs but there has been little engagement so far. UCLU endeavours to make

students aware of this new development and would appreciate help from UCL in raising

awareness, especially through departmental websites, handbooks and SSCC meetings.

3.11 Following discussions with UCLU, UCL implemented Service Standards for the

Provision of Feedback to Students on Assessed Work in 2010. Under these standards,

students should expect feedback to be provided within four weeks of the submission

deadline. While these Service Standards are helpful, NSS scores regarding promptness

of feedback seem to indicate that they are not being met.

“Personally I believe that the feedback times are getting better but still aren't great. It seems unfair that we as students are given deadlines to complete work and lose marks if we miss them whilst if

lecturers miss deadlines they seem to be penalised less.” – Student

Comment, 2014 Student Barometer autumn wave

3.12 The Service Standards, as outlined, provide little direction regarding the components of

quality feedback. A number of resources32 are available to assessors to use in providing

feedback, including a feedback proforma33, and details of the NUS Assessment and

Feedback Benchmarking Tool34. UCL Arena provides useful resources to assist in

delivering quality feedback, including workshops exhibiting best practice in the area35.

Staff members at these workshops have raised concerns over their ability to deliver

detailed feedback when assessing a large volume of students. Best practice in this area

is normally exhibited by assessors with a relatively low number of students. However

there is no requirement for assessors to make use of these resources, and no

32

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/case-studies/assessment-feedback 33

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/Using_Proformas_for_Feedback_Quick_Guide.pdf 34

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/NUS-assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool.pdf 35

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/case-studies/assessment-feedback


https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/Using_Proformas_for_Feedback_Quick_Guide.pdf

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/NUS-assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool.pdf



Review 2016

regulations to ensure feedback provided is detailed or allows students to clarify things

they didn’t understand. We do, nevertheless, welcome the themes of the 2015/16 ASER

and the recognition of NSS scores as “the primary area of concern requiring concerted

action by the university.” The 2015/16 ASER requested explicit confirmation of clear

assessment and marking criteria for programmes and modules, as well as requiring

departments to have effective mechanisms in place to ensure assessment feedback

service standards are met. In addition, each department was required to benchmark

their practice against the NUS Assessment and Feedback Benchmarking Tool36 as part

of the ASER ‘development and enhancement plan’. Departments falling below a certain

NSS score were subjected to the ASER Intensive Engagement Process, where key

senior management staff met with the Head of Department to review the ASER plan and

set priorities for action.

3.13 Processes around the provision of feedback are inconsistent. There are, however,

pockets of good practice in relation to feedback at UCL. For example, some modules in

the UCL Institute of Education implement a peer review of feedback programme. Under

this programme, a staff reviewer is provided with guidance to complete a feedback

review form which identifies types of effective feedback, and what to look for in the

assessor’s comments.37 The reviewer then provides written observations of the

assessor’s feedback. This is a method also currently being explored by the UCL

Department of Geography. Unfortunately this again highlights an issue with the loose

nature of guidance and regulations surrounding quality feedback at UCL, and adherence

to any such regulations. The University needs to encourage good feedback practices

across the University as a whole. The previous section showed clearly that student

satisfaction around the quality of feedback provided is low.

Recommendation 9: UCL, in partnership with UCLU, should take major steps to

improve assessment and feedback processes at the University, using NSS

satisfaction scores as a measure of success.

36

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/NUS-assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool.pdf 37

https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/mod/hsuforum/discuss.php?d=16081

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/NUS-assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool.pdf

https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/mod/hsuforum/discuss.php?d=16081


Review 2016

Demonstrating Good Academic Practice in Assessment

3.14 There is little evidence to suggest that all students are provided with sufficient

information to demonstrate good academic practice. The main focus of the work of

CALT is on providing resources for staff to improve assessment and feedback practices.

Although information regarding assessment can be found in most departmental

handbooks, students are rarely given guidelines or examples of how to demonstrate

good academic practice in an assessment setting.

3.15 The UCL Transition Programme goes some way towards addressing these issues. By

providing first year students with a later-year student from within the same department,

the Transition Programme aims to assist students during their first few weeks at UCL38.

Part of this programme focuses on academic issues and topics relevant to the discipline.

The Transition Programme website also provides some information on developing study

skills necessary to learn independently including time management, structuring essays,

reading and research39. These resources, while useful, are difficult for students to

access, hosted on a subpage of the Transition Programme webpages.

3.16 UCL offers students access to a skills4studycampus.com online resource. Similarly, this

resource provides students with information relating to time management, reading and

note-taking and critical thinking skills40. However uptake of the resource is very low, and

again difficult to access through a subpage of the CALT webpages.

3.17 The CALT webpages seems to focus almost entirely on the advancement of teaching

practices with staff, and very few resources are available to students. For example,

many of the guides produced by CALT are aimed at a staff audience, who are expected

to pass this information on to students41. While it is both useful and necessary to equip

relevant staff with this information, similar resources aimed at students in an accessible

format would prove beneficial.

3.18 In general, the onus is placed on individual faculties and departments to provide vital

resources and workshops to support students in demonstrating good academic practice.

38

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition 39

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition/study-skills-resources 40

http://www.skills4studycampus.com/StudentHome.aspx 41

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/Helping_Students_Understand_Assessment_Quick_Guide.pdf

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition/study-skills-resources

http://www.skills4studycampus.com/StudentHome.aspx

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/Helping_Students_Understand_Assessment_Quick_Guide.pdf


Review 2016

Some faculties provide study skills guides to assist students in demonstrating good

academic practice42, but this is not the case universally. Individual faculties and

departments also offer workshops to assist in demonstrating good academic practice but

the frequency of these workshops is hugely variable. For example, the UCL School of

European Languages, Culture & Society (SELCS) run numerous “Writing Lab”

workshops throughout the year43 and the UCL Institute of Education hosts an academic

writing centre44. However, when searching websites of some other departments, we

could not identify anything of a similar nature.

3.19 The lack of a coherent approach to supporting students in developing necessary

academic skills, and demonstrating these skills through assessment, is a cause for great

concern. Students are clearly in need of greater academic skills support, and this will be

discussed further in Chapter Four.

Recommendation 10: UCL should offer greater support to students to help

demonstrate good academic practice in assessment. This support should include

easily accessible resources, and a consistent level of staff support through

workshops.

Reasonable Adjustments/Extenuating Circumstances & Academic Appeals

3.20 The process for submitting academic appeals is clearly outlined in the UCL Academic

Manual. Students can receive advice and representation through the UCLU Rights &

Advice Centre. Data from the UCLU Rights & Advice Centre indicates that the proportion

of students visiting the service seeking support with an academic appeal is rather low

with just 104 academic cases out of 2,491 cases overall in 2014/15. We hope this

indicates that students are informed of the processes involved in academic appeals, and

understand the information provided.

3.21 The University takes steps to ensure no student is at a disadvantage when undergoing

assessment at the University. Support for students with disabilities or a long-term

42

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/current-students/undergraduate/undergraduate-documents/ug-study-skills.pdf 43

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/selcs-writing-lab/workshops 44

https://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/147.html

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/current-students/undergraduate/undergraduate-documents/ug-study-skills.pdf

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/selcs-writing-lab/workshops

https://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/147.html


Review 2016

condition is provided by UCL Student Disability Services (SDS)45. The University

provisions for extenuating circumstances provide short-term solutions for students

experiencing sudden, unexpected difficulties. These provisions are outlined in the UCL

Academic Manual46. Last year, there were issues regarding the interpretation of new

extenuating circumstances regulations and some confusion about the treatment of

reasonable adjustments in terms of declared disabilities. However, this is now being

reviewed after one year of operation and UCLU is part of this review.

Summary - Addressing Assessment & Feedback Issues at UCL

3.22 Objective three of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-202147 is “to address and resolve

the persistent challenges of assessment and feedback.” We therefore recognise that this

is an issue UCL is now taking seriously and this will be of real importance to students.

This chapter has so far analysed various issues with consistency across departments as

possible causes for low student satisfaction. However, satisfaction scores for

assessment and feedback are low for the University as a whole, and we can only

theorise regarding the causes for these low scores. We therefore understand that UCL

has a large body of work ahead to properly analyse and understand the core issues

resulting in poor satisfaction with assessment and feedback. In the meantime, our

response to the UCL Education Strategy highlighted a number of areas for improvement

including ensuring a wider range of assessment practices, reducing overall assessment

load, and anonymous marking. We welcome the commitment in the UCL Education

Strategy to implement “the recommendations of a root-and-branch review of assessment

at UCL.” This review, will hopefully address longstanding issues with students’

experience of assessment, their knowledge of demonstrating good academic practice,

and develop processes for the greater use of electronic assessment. The Strategy

hopes to have solved these persistent issues by 2021. However, we welcome short term

measures to address issues in the meantime; for example ensuring assessment criteria

are clearly communicated to students, and available well in advance of assessment

dates and concentrated efforts as part of the ASER process.

45

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/disability 46

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/sum 47


https://www.ucl.ac.uk/disability

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/sum


Review 2016

3.23 The UCL Education Strategy also outlines a commitment to “new forms of assessment.”

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, we would also welcome diversification in

assessment practices in addition to the reduction of overall assessment workload. The

Strategy also outlines the introduction of a Programme Leader, with ultimate

responsibility for reviewing and rationalising assessment across different modules.

Again, this is a welcome aim. It is difficult to comment on the effectiveness of these plans

at this early stage. While we welcome the decision to highlight assessment and

feedback as an area in need of great improvement, we hope UCL listens closely to

student opinion throughout the reform process. There are fundamental issues to be

addressed, and we look forward to working with UCL to identify and rectify these

persistent problems. This will ensure that processes for assessment are valid, reliable

and allow every student to demonstrate the extent to which they have achieved intended

learning outcomes through the demonstration of good academic practice.


Review 2016

Chapter Four: Student Development and Achievement

Relevant quality code chapters: B4, B11

Personal & Professional Potential – Student-Led Activity

4.1 UCLU provides a wide range of opportunities for students to develop their personal and

professional potential. In particular, we offer a wide range of opportunities for students to

develop leadership and employability skills. We support thousands of students who are

involved in student-led activities and take up leadership positions across our student

societies, sports teams, volunteering opportunities and representative roles. These

students take on significant responsibilities and develop transferable skills, through

formalised training and development sessions. UCLU also provide hundreds of paid

employment opportunities for UCL students across our services in many different roles,

which gives students direct experience of employment.

Professional Potential – Employability & Careers

4.2 The UCL Careers Service outlines resources for students seeking employment during

their time at University and beyond. UCL Careers also offers applications advice to

students, which support students with applications for a specific job or internship. One-

to-one appointments specifically for PhD students are also offered48. UCL Advances is

UCL’s centre for entrepreneurship and business interaction and provides students in

information, resources and support to start or grow their own business49.

4.3 Careers support at departmental level is offered by Careers Consultants who can deliver

careers talks, employer-led events and one-to-one appointments during term time50.

However, the system for delivering this localised support is not consistent. The nature

and frequency of sessions and workshops delivered varies between departments.

Meetings with Careers Consultants can be booked online for students in certain

departments, but this is not the case universally. Students in departments where online

booking is not available are asked to “speak to a member of staff in your department to

find out if/when these are planned.” This lack of consistency is worrying and may place

48

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/specialistsupport/researchers 49

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/advances 50

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/aboutus/team/consultants

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/specialistsupport/researchers

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/advances

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/aboutus/team/consultants


Review 2016

students who are unable to easily access departmental careers advice at a

disadvantage to their peers.

4.4 UCLU and UCL Careers Service run a Skills4Work programme51 in partnership, which

includes a series of employer led workshops, panel discussions and one-to-one

coaching sessions that help students understand what recruiters are looking for and how

to develop and promote their skills more effectively.

4.5 Student satisfaction with the UCL Careers Service stood at approximately 83% in the

2015 Student Barometer summer wave. While not a particularly low figure, the service

had the lowest satisfaction score of all Russell Group institutions and also performed

poorly compared to scores in the rest of the UK and internationally.

4.6 PRES results show that just 32% of respondents agreed that they had received advice

on their career options, while 71% had developed contacts or professional networks

during their time at UCL. While seemingly low, both figures are broadly in line with the

sector average. Still, this does highlight the potential to improve the provision of careers

advice and support for postgraduate research students.

Staff Supporting Development

4.7 Personal Tutors are identified as the key staff member with a role in supporting personal

and professional development in all years of study. The fundamental issues with the

execution of the personal tutoring system to date have been explored in detail in Chapter

Two, and we have made a recommendation in relation to this. With specific reference to

professional development, the UCL Careers Service provide a Personal Tutor Support

Pack52 to “inform students how to support students with career related issues.” In reality,

this pack simply outlines the services provided by UCL careers and provides a list of

“generic careers resources.” This exemplifies the lack of a comprehensive and

coordinated approach to the training, induction and ongoing support of personal tutors.

The postgraduate taught ASER iteration emphasised PGT employability and we look

forward to analysing the outcomes of this focus.

51

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/events/skills4work 52

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/staff/studentsupport/personaltutorpack/personaltutorpack2015


Review 2016

4.8 UCL clearly has aspirations about what a personal tutoring system should deliver in this

area, but as stated earlier, the delivery of the programme is both inadequate and

inconsistent across the University. This results in a lack of provision of personal and

professional development support for undergraduate and postgraduate taught students.

4.9 Postgraduate research students are expected to engage with their supervisors to receive

guidance on personal and professional development. The use of the Research Student

Log53 is now mandatory for postgraduate research students. The log is used to record

details relating to a student’s graduate degree programme including supervisory

meetings and activities relating to the development of academic, personal and

professional skills. Research students and their supervisors are expected to meet at

regular intervals to discuss any ongoing training or development needs. Students are

also encouraged to participate in courses offered through UCL’s Doctoral Skills

Development Programme. However, participation and good use of the research student

log is dependent on good engagement from both the student and their supervisor(s).

Evidence suggests that the stated processes for postgraduate research student

development are not being followed. PRES results indicate that just 70% of students

agreed their supervisor helped them to identify their training and development needs as

a researcher. This was below the sector average of 74%. Worryingly, just 47% of

postgraduate research students had received training to develop their transferable skills

(compared to a sector average of 50%) and only 33% had agreed a personal training or

development plan, well below the sector average of 45%. We are therefore not confident

that robust processes are in place to ensure postgraduate research students are

receiving support to achieve their personal and professional potential. The way in which

skills training is provided to postgraduate research students has recently changed.

General skills training is now delivered centrally, while more specific training is delivered

on a departmental/faculty basis. At this stage it is too early to assess the relative merits

and demerits of this approach.

53

https://researchlog.grad.ucl.ac.uk/

https://researchlog.grad.ucl.ac.uk/


Review 2016

Recommendation 11: UCL should implement a more robust system of monitoring

personal and professional development for postgraduate research students.

Student Satisfaction with Personal Development

4.10 NSS 2015 results show that 79% of respondents are satisfied with their personal

development experience at UCL. This is below the sector average of 83%. Again the

sector has experienced an upward trend in this area, while UCL’s satisfaction scores

have remained relatively stagnant. This is illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6: NSS Student Satisfaction with Personal Development

4.11 Again in this area, there is a large degree of variability in personal development

satisfaction across faculties reaching a high of 92% in the Faculty of Medical Sciences

and a low of 75% in the Faculty of Mathematical & Physical Sciences. Variability also

exists between departments in the same faculty. In the Faculty of Social & Historical

Sciences for example, 86% of students in the History of Art department were satisfied

with personal development provision, compared to just 54% of students in the

Geography department.

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

UCL

SECTOR


Review 2016

4.12 75% of students agreed that their programme had helped them to present

themselves with confidence, 81% that their communication skills had improved and

80% agreed that they felt confident in tackling unfamiliar problems as a result of

their programme.

Personal & Professional Development Resources

4.13 UCL’s personal and professional development (PPD) webpages list a number of

resources that are aimed at helping students improve their skills and assist with

PPD planning54. The outline of these webpages and the information provided on the

homepage is particularly unclear. A headline explains that the resources listed will

support personal and professional development, however no further narrative is

offered. A follow-on link to PPD development guidance webpages is equally

confusing55.

4.14 A UCL Personal & Professional Development System, accessed through the

student information system Portico, allows a student to “plan and record [their]

development in a systematic way56.” The system itself is difficult to use, and is

accompanied by an extensive set of technical instructions. Uptake of the system is

low amongst students.

4.15 A PPD framework is also provided57 offering web-based resources for four areas of

self-development: academic, self-management, communicating, and working with

others. The vast majority of these resources are hosted on third-party sites and the

information provided is not specific to UCL students.

4.16 MyPortfolio58, also facilitated by an external provider, is a personal learning platform

that allows staff and students at UCL to build CVs, share blogs and network online.

Again, uptake for MyPortfolio is low amongst students.

4.17 There is no systematic, proactive approach to personal and professional

development at UCL, and this is evidenced in the online webpages and

resources provided. The provision and promotion of personal and professional

54

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources 55

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/process 56

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources/student-guide-ppd 57

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources/framework 58

https://myportfolio.ucl.ac.uk/

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/process

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources/student-guide-ppd

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources/framework

https://myportfolio.ucl.ac.uk/


Review 2016

development resources at UCL is haphazard at best. There is a reliance on

externally facilitated websites that often serve similar functions. Resources provided

through the website are not tailored to UCL students and for the most part take the

form of generalist guides. Communication regarding the purpose of personal

development planning and accessible guidance for the use of resources is also

non-existent.

Recommendation 12: UCL should take proactive steps to communicate the

importance of Personal and Professional Development to students, provide tailored,

up-to-date and accessible PPD resources and integrate PPD effectively to the

Personal Tutoring System.

Supporting Transition & Progression

4.18 The UCL Transition Programme59 supports new first-year students arriving at the

University, and helps them to settle in quickly so that they can fulfil their potential. Details

of the academic assistance provided by Transition mentors were outlined in Chapter

Three. However, Transition mentors provide wider assistance in helping students settle

in at UCL and provide guidance on broader issues such as finances and budgeting. The

Transition Programme operates well in this regard, catering for every student and

providing vital assistance to ensure students start life at UCL in the right way. The last

Transition Programme evaluation administered in 2013/14 found that 92% of almost one

thousand respondents would recommend the scheme to future first years. We hope

UCL continues this provision to aid the transition of new students into the future.

4.19 In terms of progression, we welcome the recent decision to pilot late summer resits in a

small number of faculties during the 2015/16 academic year. UCL practice of having

students wait a full year before taking resits was both unusual and detrimental to the

experience of individual students. We also welcome the aim to roll-out late summer

resits across all taught programmes in the 2016/17 academic year.

59




Review 2016

Academic Potential - Skills Development

4.20 A coherent approach to the provision of academic skills development resources is

lacking at UCL. As outlined in the previous chapter, much of the support offered to allow

students to demonstrate good academic practice is offered on a departmental basis with

varying methods and varying rates of frequency. SELCS Writing Labs, mentioned in

Chapter Two, are a key example of good practice in a particular area. However, all

students should be provided with equal levels of academic skills support. In terms of

enhancing and improving academic skills, little support is provided centrally. UCL

recently disestablished services offered by the Royal Literary Fund (RLF) Fellows60. The

RLF Fellows were professional authors, and the principal aim of their work at UCL was

to foster good writing practices across all disciplines, helping all students to write clearly

and effectively. Now many students who are not provided with similar support by their

departments are left without resources to support their academic development.

4.21 UCLU offers the Writing & Language Support Programme (WALS) for international

students studying at UCL61. The WALS programme is a strong example of how

academic-skills enhancement initiatives can be of great benefit to students. The aim of

this peer tutor scheme is to provide assistance to non-native English speakers with their

academic writing and speaking. The WALS scheme runs several activities including

lessons, workshops, bookable one-to-one sessions and “coffee and conversation”

sessions. The WALS programme has proved popular with 83% of one-to-one

appointments booked by students, weekly coffee and conversation sessions attracting

between 7-12 attendees and workshops attracting approximately 20 attendees. In a

WALS evaluation survey, 100% of respondents found the one-to-one tutorials useful,

4.22 Evidence from the WALS programme and the disestablishment of the Royal Literary

Fund Fellows strengthens the call made in recommendation ten for greater support of

academic skills development at the University. This position is supported through results

of the UCLU 2015 Language Support Survey, with respondents indicating a strong

desire for assistance in structuring essays, grammar for writing, referencing and the use

of academic language.

60

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/history/undergraduate/current-undergraduates/academic-support/royal_literary 61

http://uclu.org/wals

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/history/undergraduate/current-undergraduates/academic-support/royal_literary

http://uclu.org/wals


Review 2016

4.23 On a positive note, UCL delivers the successful Global Citizenship Programme62, a two

week programme that offers students the opportunity to put their studies in a global

context and learn new skills.

Student Development & Achievement Summary

4.24 Overall we believe that UCL needs to take a more proactive approach to student

development and achievement. The issues with the Personal Tutoring system that

in turn affect the adequate provision of academic support also extend to personal

and professional development (PPD) support. Again, we would like to see the

persistent issues with personal tutoring resolved in an effective manner. A more

active role in helping postgraduate research students to reach their personal and

professional potential would also be welcomed. A more coherent approach to the

provision of PPD information, guidance, and resources is required so that students

can understand the benefits and make use of means available to them. We

recognise the strong contribution of the UCL Transition Programme in supporting

students during their first few weeks at University, and welcome steps to support

students to progress through their studies in a fair manner. Finally, we believe UCL

should prioritise improvements in the provision of academic skills development

activities, as this is clearly an area that has been neglected to date.

62

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/global-citizenship/programme

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/global-citizenship/programme


Review 2016

Conclusion

UCL remains one of the best Universities in the world, a hub of educational and research

excellence. Unfortunately there are instances where education provision falls short of

expected standards and opportunities to enhance learning opportunities are sometimes

not taken.

We have therefore made a number of recommendations that we believe will both rectify

existing issues and improve the student experience. A summary of our recommendations

can be found at the end of this document. We believe that acting on these

recommendations will address persistent issues and enhance the educational experience

of students through student engagement, learning and teaching, assessment and

feedback, and student development and achievement.

A common theme amongst the issues raised in this submission is an inconsistency with

practices across departments and faculty, permeating every area of the student

experience. While individuality of departments is vital, UCL must ensure that every student

benefits from the same level of support as their peers throughout their academic

experience.

Student numbers at UCL have increased substantially over the past number of years, and

as stated in Chapter Four, we must ensure that any future increases are conducted

sustainably. Space and resources are currently at capacity, and an expansion of student

numbers without equivalent investment in resources will have a detrimental impact on the

student experience.

It is important to state that UCLU values its relationship with UCL, and can look back with

pride on the wide variety of collaborative projects delivered successfully over the past

number of years. We appreciate an open and constructive dialogue towards the resolution

of issues, and appreciate that many of the issues raised in this submission have been

acknowledged by UCL, as evidenced in the Self-Evaluation Document. Delivery of an

excellent educational experience for all students starts with engaging them as partners in

their own learning. We look forward to building on already strong foundations towards an

increasingly meaningful partnership and towards the delivery of a world-class academic

journey for students.


Review 2016

Summary of Recommendations

Student Engagement

1. UCL should enhance student engagement with estates issues in the context of limited

space and ongoing capital projects by including student representation on the Learning

Spaces Project Board and the Estates Management Committee.

2. UCL should adopt the goals set out in the UCLU response to the UCL Education

Strategy 2016-2021 and subsequently work in partnership with UCLU to ensure

students are engaged as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their

educational experience.

3. UCL should take necessary steps to implement a coordinated and wide-reaching

communications strategy that informs students when changes have been made as a

result of student feedback.

Learning & Teaching

4. UCL should take steps to secure cross-University participation and alignment with teaching

enhancement initiatives like UCL Arena.

5. UCL should invest in ensuring IT provision is of a desirable service level for staff and

students and ensure adequate resources are in place to support technology-based projects

outlined in the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021.

6. UCL should provide guidance regarding the minimum level of information required in

programme handbooks and work to achieve departmental alignment with this guidance.

7. UCL should take greater steps to improve the personal tutoring system, for example through

securing increased commitment from personal tutors, establishing a coordinated approach to

supporting personal tutoring and through the provision of appropriate training and support.

8. In embarking upon initiatives on overseas campuses and establishing collaborative provision

programmes, UCL should take steps to ensure students receive the same level of support as

those studying on the main UCL campus.


Review 2016

Summary of Recommendations (continued)

Assessment & Feedback

9. UCL, in partnership with UCLU, should take major steps to improve assessment and

feedback processes at the University, using NSS satisfaction scores as a measure of

success.

10. UCL should offer greater support to students to help demonstrate good academic practice in

assessment. This support should include easily accessible resources, and a consistent level

of staff support through workshops.

Student Development & Achievement

11. UCL should implement a more robust system of monitoring personal and professional

development for postgraduate research students.

12. UCL should take proactive steps to communicate the importance of Personal and

Professional Development to students, provide tailored, up-to-date and accessible PPD

resources and integrate PPD effectively to the Personal Tutoring System.

Documents

UCLU HER Student Submission 2016